Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999 Planning Commission MinutesCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, December 8, 1999 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - November 23,1999 Oral Communications Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on December 3,1999. Technical Corrections to Packet CONSENT CALENDAR 1. AZO -99 -001 (Citywide) - CITY OF SARATOGA; The Planning Commission will consider changes to the City's zoning ordinance regarding hillside fencing regulations and administrative appeals. Under consideration will be: 1) amendments to the Hillside Residential zoning district fencing regulations, and 2) amendments to the administrative appeals process. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared by the City of Saratoga and are on file in the Community Development Department. (CONTINUED TO 1/12/2000). PUBLIC HEARINGS If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. Planning Commission Agenda December 8, 1999 Page 2 2. DR -97 -061 (503 -72 -014) - LIU, 14805 Masson Court; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,461 square foot two -story residence on a vacant 2.75 acre lot. The property is within a Hillside Residential zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 11/10/1999). 3. DR -99 -049 (397 -28 -047, Lot #5) - BLACKWELL PROPERTIES, 14088 Alta Vista Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 4,067 square foot two -story residence with a 792 square foot basement. Maximum height of the residence is proposed to be 26 feet. The site .is located on a 15,200 square foot (net) vacant parcel in an R -1- 12,500 zoning district. 4. UP -99 -020 (393 -21 -006) - GTE MOBILNET, Glen Brae Avenue and Southern Pacific Railroad Tracks; Request for Use Permit approval to install six eight- foot -tall panels (with two antennas each) mounted on top of an existing 135 foot tall utility tower. An associated 220 square foot equipment structure located at the base of the tower is also proposed. The project is located in an Agricultural zoning district. DIRECTOR ITEMS COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS Written City Council minutes for regular meeting of November 17 and adjourned regular meeting of November 23,1999 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Wednesday, January 12, 2000, Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, November 23,1999 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - November 10, 1999 Oral Communications Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on November 19,1999. Technical Corrections to Packet CONSENT CALENDAR SD -95 -007.2 (503-19-048,070, & 075) - KENNEDY, Rodeo Creek Hollow /Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road; Request for a one -year extension for Phase Two (7 lots) of an approved Tentative Subdivision Map for a 12 lot subdivision located off Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Paramount Court. This is the second request for a one -year extension. Up to three one -year extensions are permitted to Tentative Subdivision Map approvals. The total site area is 9.42 acres and is located within both the R- 1- 12,500 and the R -1- 40,000 zoning districts. 2. DR -96 -023.1 & UP -96 -002.1 (517 -08 -048) - SARATOGA MOTEL, 14626 Big Basin Way; Request for one -year extensions of approved Design Review and Use Permit applications to construct two single story and two, two -story motel "cabins" at the Saratoga Motel in the upper Saratoga Village area. Up to three one -year extensions are permitted to Design Review and Use Permit approvals. The three existing cottages along St. Charles St. would be removed and the front motel abutting Big Basin Way would remain. The subject property is approximately 11,252 sq. ft. in size and is located in an R- M -3,000 zoning district. Planning Commission Agenda November 23,1999 PUBLIC HEARINGS Page 2 If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. 3. DR -99 -032 (397 -28 -047: Lot #3) - BLACKWELL PROPERTIES, 14000 Alta Vista Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 4,197 square foot two -story residence with a 687 square foot basement. Maximum height of the residence is proposed to be 26 feet. The site is located on a 23,185 (net) square foot vacant parcel within an R- 1- 12,500 zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 11/10/99 FOR A RE- VOTE AFTER MOTION FOR APPROVAL FAILED ON VOTE OF 3 -3). DIRECTOR ITEMS Review and comment on Mountain Winery DEIR COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS Written City Council minutes for adjourned regular meeting of October 26 and regular meeting of November 3,1999 Notices for regular Planning Commission meeting of December 8, 1999 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Wednesday, December 8, 1999, Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - October 27, 1999 Oral Communications Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on November 5, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet CONSENT CALENDAR 1. DR -97 -061 (503 -72 -014) - LIU, 14805 Masson Court; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,461 square foot two -story residence on a vacant 2.75 acre lot. The property is within a Hillside Residential zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 11/23/99 AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT). 2. AZO -99 -001 (Citywide) - CITY OF SARATOGA; The Planning Commission will consider changes to the City's zoning ordinance regarding hillside fencing regulations and administrative appeals. Under consideration will be: 1) amendments to the Hillside Residential zoning district fencing regulations, and 2) amendments to the administrative appeals process. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared by the City of Saratoga and are on file in the Community Development Department. (CONTINUED TO 11/23/99 AT THE RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. SD -99 -005, UP -99 -018 & DR -99 -037 (386 -53 -001 & -029) - AZULE CROSSING INC., 12312 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road; Request for Subdivision, Use Permit and Design Review approval to construct 25 new residential units of approximately 1,524 to 2,345 sq. ft. and remodel the existing commercial building located at the front of the property. The commercial building will be expanded from its current 11,931 sq. ft. to 14,233 sq. ft. The property is located in a Commercial Neighborhood zoning district. The residential component of the project would occupy 2.62 acres while the commercial component would occupy 1.28 acres. Planning Commission Agenda November 10, 1999 Page 2 An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. (CONTINUED FROM 10/27/99). 4. DR -99 -040 (397 -24 -084) — PINN BROTHERS, 18921 Hayfield Court (Lot 6); Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,063 square foot single story residence on a vacant 65,436 square foot lot. The property is located within an R -1- 20,000 zoning district. 5. DR -99 -006 (517 -19 -040) - SIADAT, 14780 Vickery Avenue; Request for Design Review approval for the demolition of the existing residence and the construction of a new 5,229 square foot, two -story residence. The driveway will be relocated so that primary access to the site will be from Montalvo Road. The site will have a net lot size of 44,480 square feet and is located within an R -1- 20,000 zoning district. 6. DR -99 -041 (503 -09 -022) - SVOBODA, 22040 Mt. Eden Road; Request for Design Review approval for the construction of a new 864 square foot horse stable. The application includes a request for an exception to allow the prefabricated structure to exceed the 12 foot height limit by one and one -half feet. The site is 5.15 acres and is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. 7. DR -99 -032 (397 -28 -047: Lot #3) - BLACKWELL PROPERTIES, 14000 Alta Vista Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 4,197 square foot two -story residence with a 687 square foot basement. Maximum height of the residence is proposed to be 26 feet. The site is located on a 23,185 (net) square foot vacant parcel within an R -1- 12,500 zoning district. 8. DR -98 -044 (503 -13 -021) - CHIU, 21777 Mt. Eden Road; Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 2,488 square foot single story residence, and construct a 7,326 square foot single story residence with a maximum height of 26 feet. The site is located on a 2.72 (net) acre parcel within a Hillside Residential zoning district. DIRECTOR ITEMS Appointment to Bicycle Advisory Committee COMMISSION ITEMS Planning Commission Agenda November 10, 1999 COMMUNICATIONS Written City Council minutes for regular meeting of October 20, 1999 Notices for regular Planning Commission meeting of November 23, 1999 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Tuesday, November 23, 1999, Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Page 2 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - October 13, 1999 Oral Communications Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 22, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet CONSENT CALENDAR 1. AZO -99 -001 (Citywide) - CITY OF SARATOGA; The Planning Commission will consider changes to the City's zoning ordinance regarding hillside fencing regulations and administrative appeals. Under consideration will be: 1) amendments to the Hillside Residential zoning district fencing regulations, and 2) amendments to the administrative appeals process. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared by the City of Saratoga and are on file in the Community Development Department. (CONTINUED TO 11/10/99 AT THE REQUEST OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION). PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. DR -99 -038 (397 -07 -013) - BEAN, 15161 Oriole Way; Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 3,420 sq. ft. single story residence and construct a new 6,139 sq. ft single story residence with a 1,412 sq. ft. basement. Maximum height of the residence is proposed to be 26 ft. The site is a 1.06 -acre parcel in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. Planning Commission Agenda October 27, 1999 Page 2 3. SUP -99 -001 & AR -99 -030 (393 -39 -011) - LUBRAN, 20199 Franklin Avenue; Request for Second Unit Use Permit approval to construct a 1,106 sq. ft. second dwelling unit with a maximum height of 15 ft. from natural grade. Also proposed is a 454 sq. ft. addition to the existing 2,646 sq. ft. main residence. The main residence will remain a single story structure with a maximum building height of 17 ft. Total floor area proposed for the site is 4,206 sq. ft. The site is located on a 16,552 (net) sq. ft. parcel in an R -1- 10,000 zoning district. 4. SD -99 -005, UP -99 -018 & DR -99 -037 (386 -53 -001 & -029) - AZULE CROSSING INC, 12312 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road; Request for Subdivision, Use Permit and Design Review approval to construct 27 new residential units of approximately 1,815 to 2,345 sq. ft. and remodel the existing commercial building located at the front of the property. The commercial building will be expanded from its current 11,931 sq. ft. to 14,233 sq. ft. The property is located in a Commercial Neighborhood zoning district. The residential component of the project would occupy 2.62 acres while the commercial component would occupy 1.28 acres. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared by the City of Saratoga and are on file in the Community Development Department. DIRECTOR ITEMS - Planning Commission holiday schedule COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS Written City Council minutes for special meeting of September 23 and regular meeting of October 6, 1999 Notices for regular Planning Commission meeting of November 10, 1999 Deer control materials provided by Commissioner Kurasch ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, November 10, 1999, Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - September 8 and 22, 1999 Oral Communications Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 8, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet CONSENT CALENDAR 1. SD -98 -009 & DR -98 -070 (397 -27 -031) - NAVICO, INC., 14230 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road; Request for Tentative Map and Design Review approval for the subdivision of a 24,391 square foot parcel into six parcels ranging in size from 2,300 to 3,370 square feet. The remaining 7,451 square feet will be common area. Six townhomes ranging in size from approximately 2,700 to 2,900 square feet will be constructed on the new lots. The site is located within an R -M -3,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED INDEFINITELY AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. A NEW HEARING DATE WILL BE ADVERTISED). PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. DR -97 -061 (503 -72 -014) - LIU, 14805 Masson Court; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,500 square foot two -story residence on a vacant 2.75 acre lot. The property is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. Planning Commission Agenda October 13, 1999 Page 2 3. UP -99 -014 (397 -10 -009) - CELLULAR ONE, Utility pole in the State -owned right -of- way at the northeast corner of Fruitvale Avenue and Highway 9; Request for Use Permit approval to install two panel antennas on an existing utility pole at a height of 30 feet. An associated equipment cabinet located at the base of the pole is part of the proposal. The right -of -way is within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project. 4. UP -99 -016 (386 -53 -019) - SPRINT, PG &E tower on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road at the Southern Pacific Railroad crossing; Request for Use Permit approval to install three antenna sectors with three antennas each, mounted on an existing PG &E tower. The proposal also includes several equipment cabinets located under the tower and enclosed by an eight -foot wood fence. The subject property is within an R- 1- 12,500 zoning district. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project. 5. UP -99 -017 (397 -13 -030, 397 -14 -022 & 397 -15 -018) - WEST VALLEY COLLEGE (METRICOM), 14000 Fruitvale Avenue; Request for Use Permit approval for the installation of 16 panel antennas on the sides of the West Valley College theater building and the placement of a 64 square foot prefabricated equipment cabinet on the ground on the north side of the building. The site is located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. All equipment will be painted to match the building. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project. DIRECTOR ITEMS - DR -99 -020 - STERLING, 18588 ALLENDALE AVENUE Request for modification of approved plans COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS Written - City Council minutes for special meetings of August 30 and September 9, 1999, adjourned regular meeting of September 7, 1999, and regular meeting of September 15, 1999 - Notices for regular Planning Commission meeting of October 27, 1999 Planning Commission Agenda October 13, 1999 Page 3 - Notice of Preparation of Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration for regular meeting of October 27,1999; CITY OF SARATOGA, Citywide - Notice of Environmental Negative Declaration for regular meetings of October 27 and November 10, 1999; AZULE CROSSING, INC., 12312 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road - Newspaper article addressing studies to examine the health effects of using cell phones - Magazine article regarding the 1996 Telecommunications Act covering siting of wireless facilities ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, October 27, 1999, Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Minutes Minutes of the Planning Commission meetings of September 8 and 22, 1999, will be considered at the meeting of October 13, 1999, due to absence of the Minutes Clerk. Oral Communications Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 17, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet CONSENT CALENDAR SD -98 -009 & DR -98 -070 (397 -27 -031) - NAVICO, INC., 14230 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road; Request for Tentative Map and Design Review approval for the subdivision of a 24,391 square foot parcel into six parcels ranging in size from 2,300 to 3,370 square feet. The remaining 7,451 square feet will be common area. Six townhomes ranging in size from approximately 2,700 to 2,900 square feet will be constructed on the new lots. The site is located within an R -M -3,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 10/13/99 AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANTS). PUBLIC HEARINGS DR -99 -034 (397 -16 -067) - ARCHDEACON, 19628 Kenosha Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to remodel and add a 1,344 square foot one -story addition to an existing 4,472 square foot single story residence. The new roof will be 22 feet, six inches high. The site is 37,069 square feet and is located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. 3. DR -99 -035 (397 -28 -053) - FORMICO /PARDEN, 20435 Walnut Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 560 square foot single story "cottage" and construct a two -story 2,597 square foot residence with a maximum height of 21 feet. A 726 square foot basement is also proposed. The parcel is 7,650 square feet and is located within an R -1- 10,000 zoning district. Planning Commission Agenda September 22, 1999 Page 2 4. UP -99 -019 (393 -01 -027) - TOGO'S RESTAURANT (ARGONAUT ASSOCIATES, LLC), 12868 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road; Request for Use Permit approval for tenant improvements to operate a sandwich shop with limited outdoor seating. The site is located between Safeway and Longs Drugs in the Argonaut Shopping Center and is within a Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. DIRECTOR ITEMS Discussion of attached City Attorney Telecommunications Memo Discussion of 7:00 p.m. meeting time COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS Written - City Council minutes for special meetings of August 13 & 26, 1999, and regular meeting of September 1, 1999 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, October 13, 1999, Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, September 8, 1999 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - August 11, 1999 Oral Communications Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 3, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet CONSENT CALENDAR 1. UP -99 -011 (397 -04 -098) - EVAN, 14594 Sobey Oaks Road; Request for Use Permit approval to construct a 650 square foot pool house in the rear yard. The existing residence with garage is 4,547 square feet. The property is 40,075 square feet and is located in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED INDEFINITELY AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. IF THE PROJECT MOVES FORWARD AS PROPOSED, A NEW HEARING DATE WILL BE ADVERTISED). PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. UP -98 -011.1 (503 -24 -009) - AMALFARD, 14445 Big Basin Way; Request for modification to an approved Use Permit to allow deli and outdoor seating in conjunction with the market use that was previously approved. The building is 2,700 square feet on a 4,375 square foot lot and is located in a CH -1 Commercial Historic zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 8/11/99). 3. DR -99 -028 (510 -01 -023) - HOWELL & McNEIL DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 15081 Pepper Lane (Parcel B); Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,242 square foot, one- story residence. The site is 22,720 square feet and is located in an R -1- 20,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 8/11/99). Planning Commission Agencia September 8, 1999 Page 2 DIRECTOR ITEMS - UP -98 -010 & V -98 -014.1 - AHMADIAN, 14031 Saratoga Avenue; Request to amend a Planning Commission condition of approval - Planning Commission recruitment - Planning Commission retreat Circulation Element update kick -off meeting COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS Written City Council Minutes for Regular Meeting of August 4 and Regular adjourned meeting of August 1.0, 1999 Correspondence from Bert Martel, dated August 13, 1999 - Notices for Regular meeting of September 22, 1999 - Notice of Preparation of Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaraton for Regular meting of September 22, 1999; NAVICO, INC., 14230 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road Notice of Environmental Negative Declaration (public hearing date to be determined); SPRINT PCS, PG &E tower on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road at the Southern Pacific Railroad crossing Notice of Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration (public hearing date to be determined); METRICOM, 14000 Fruitvale Avenue ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Wednesday, September 22, 1999, Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - July 28, 1999 Oral Communications Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on August 6, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet CONSENT CALENDAR 1. DR -99 -028 (510 -01 -023) - HOWELL & McNEIL DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 15081 Pepper Lane (Parcel B); Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,242 sq. ft., one - story residence. The site is 22,720 sq. ft. and is located in an R- 1- 20,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 9/8/99 PENDING RECEIPT OF THE ARBORIST'S REPORT). 2. UP -99 -011 (397 -04 -098) - EVAN, 14594 Sobey Oaks Road; Request for Use Permit approval to construct a 650 sq. ft. pool house in the rear yard. The existing residence with garage is 4,547 sq. ft. The property is 40,075 sq. ft. and is located in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 9/8/99 FOR SETBACK REVISIONS). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. DR -99 -029 (397 -28 -047, Lot #2) - BLACKWELL PROPERTIES, 13997 Alta Vista; Request for Design Review approval for a 4,216 sq. ft., two -story residence with a 996 sq. ft. basement. Maximum height of the residence is proposed to be 26 ft. The site is located on a 17,083 (net) sq. ft. vacant parcel in an R -1- 12,500 zoning district. 4. DR -99 -019 (397 -28 -047, Lot #1) - BLACKWELL PROPERTIES, 13995 Alta Vista; Request for Design Review approval for a 3,815 sq. ft., two -story residence with a 989 sq. ft. basement. Maximum height of the residence is proposed to be 26 ft. The site is located on a 14,394 (net) sq. ft. vacant parcel in an R -1- 12,500 zoning district. Planning Commission Agenda August 11, 1999 Page 2 5. DR -99 -026 (517 -22 -096) - WALLIN/HIRTENSTEIN, 15380 Peach Hill Road; Request for Design Review approval for a 4,907 sq. ft., two -story residence with a 664 sq. ft. basement. Maximum height of the residence is proposed to be 25 ft. The site is located on a 39,377 (net) sq. ft. vacant parcel in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. 6. DR -99 -027 (397 -04 -103) - SMALL, 14520 Chester Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,767 sq. ft., single -story residence (including a three car garage) on a vacant lot, parcel 15 of the Gypsy Hills subdivision. The property is 53,048 sq. ft. and is located in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. 7. UP -98 -011.1 (503 -24 -009) - AMALFARD, 14445 Big Basin Way; Request for modification to an approved Use Permit to allow deli and outdoor seating in conjunction with the market use that was previously approved. The market is currently operating a deli and providing outdoor seating without these provisions in their existing Use Permit. The building is 2,700 sq. ft. on a 4,375 sq. ft. lot and is located in a CH -1 commercial historic zoning district. DIRECTOR ITEMS Request for Modification of an Approved Project: DR -98 -051 - WOODS, Peach Hill Road COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS Written City Council Minutes for Regular adjourned meeting of July 13 and Regular meeting of July 21, 1999 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Wednesday, September 8, 1999, Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, July 28, 1999 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - July 14, 1999 Oral Communications Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July 23, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. UP -96 -013.1 (503 -24 -054) - SPRINT, 14429 Big Basin Way; Request for Use Permit approval to relocate a single eight foot pole with six antenna panels on the rooftop of the building to the far corners of the rooftop keeping the same height as the existing antennas. Equipment cabinets will remain in an existing garage on the first floor of the building. The parcel is 3,881 sq. ft. and is located in a Commercial Historic zoning district. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project. (CONTINUED FROM 7/14/99). 2. DR -99 -020 (397 -02 -002, Lot #1) - WESTBROOK BUILDERS, 18588 Allendale Avenue; Request for Design Review approval for a 4,499 sq. ft. single story residence with an 848 sq. ft. detached garage. Total floor area proposed is 5,347 sq. ft. Maximum height of the residence is proposed to be 20 ft., maximum height of the garage is proposed to be 15 ft. The site is located on a 43,800 (net) sq. ft. vacant parcel in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 7/14/99). 3. DR -99 -019 (397 -02 -002, Lot #2) - WESTBROOK BUILDERS, 18600 Allendale Avenue; Request for Design Review approval for a 4,812 sq. ft. two -story residence with a maximum height of 25 ft. The site is located on a 44,552 (net) sq. ft. vacant parcel in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 7/14/99). Planning Commission Agenda July 28, 1999 Page 2 4. UP -99 -002 & DR -99 -003 (517 -15 -012 & 517 -15 -013) - MONTALVO ASSOCIATES, 15400 Montalvo Road; Request for Use Permit and Design Review approval to construct ten new "Artists in Residency" cottages ranging in size from 492 sq. ft. to 957 sq. ft. and a 2,478 sq. ft. common building on the hill above parking Lot 1 at Villa Montalvo. The property is located in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. The Villa Montalvo property is over 136 acres and the proposed project area is approximately ten acres. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. 5. DR -99 -025 (397 -24 -010 & 397 -24 -073) - PINN BROTHERS, 20026 Spaich Court (Lot #3 of the Hayfield Estates subdivision); Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,909 sq. ft., one -story residence. The site is 55,834 sq. ft. and is located within an R -1- 20,000 zoning district. DIRECTOR ITEMS Appeal of Administrative Accessory Structure Approval: WRIGHT, 15142 Sobey Road COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS Written City Council Minutes for Regular Meeting of July 7, 1999 Planning Commission Notices for Regular Meeting of August 11, 1999 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Wednesday, August 11, 1999, Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, July 14, 1999 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - June 23, 1999 Oral Communications This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to address the Commission on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes. Report of Posting Agenda _ Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July 9, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet CONSENT CALENDAR L DR -99 -020 (397 -02 -002, Lot #1) - WESTBROOK BUILDERS, 18588 Allendale Avenue; Request for Design Review approval for a 4,499 sq. ft. single story residence with an 848 sq. ft. detached garage. Total floor area proposed is 5,347 sq. ft. Maximum height of the residence is proposed to be 19 ft., maximum height of the garage is proposed to be 15 ft. The site is located on a 43,801 (net) sq. ft. vacant parcel in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 7/28/99 AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT). 2. DR -99 -019 (397 -02 -002, Lot #2) - WESTBROOK BUILDERS, 18600 Allendale Avenue; Request for Design Review approval for a 4,812 sq. ft. two -story residence with a maximum height of 25 ft. The site is located on a 44,552 (net) sq. ft. vacant parcel in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 7/28/99 AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT). 3. UP -99 -008 (393 -01 -041) - JAMBA JUICE, 12868 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road; Request for Use Permit approval for a 1,228 sq. ft. juice bar with both indoor and outdoor seating in the Argonaut Shopping Center. No new construction or expansion is proposed. The property is located within a Commercial- Neighborhood zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 6/23/99 FOR A RE -VOTE AFTER MOTION FOR APPROVAL FAILED ON VOTE OF 3 -3). Planning Commission Agen(,._. July 14, 1999 PUBLIC HEARINGS Page 2 4. UP -99 -009 (517 -10 -036) - SARATOGA TENNIS CLUB, 20571 Komina Avenue; Request for Use Permit approval to permit three legal non- conforming tennis courts and increase the amount of paved surface in order to provide a larger space between the three courts. The property is approximately one acre and is located in an R -1- 10,000 residential zoning district. 5. UP -99 -013 (397 -02 -093) - MILLS, 14118 Sobey Meadows Court; Request for Use Permit approval to allow a 15 foot tall detached garage to be built within a required rear yard setback. The site is 40,206 sq. ft. and is located in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. 6. DR -99 -018 (397 -18 -048) - BRAMLETT, 14920 Farwell Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to demolish the existing residence and construct a new 5,132 square foot, single story residence. The maximum height of the residence will be 23 feet. The site is 28,229 square feet and is located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. 7. F -99 -003 (503 -30 -019) - HUANG, 13870 Pike Road; Request for Fence Exception permit to enclose more than 4,000 square feet of a parcel located within the Hillside Residential zoning district. The entire 2.96 acre property has been fenced and the applicant is seeking to legalize the zoning violation. 8. UP -99 -010 (397 -15 -018) - WEST VALLEY COLLEGE (NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS), 14000 Fruitvale Avenue; Request for Use Permit approval to install 12 panel antennas, two global positioning system antennas, and one four foot microwave dish on the roof of the Theater Arts Building at West Valley College. A 10 foot by 20 foot by 10 foot equipment shelter will be placed on the ground behind the building. The site is located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project. 9. UP -96 -013.1 (503 -24 -054) - SPRINT, 14429 Big Basin Way; Request for Use Permit approval to relocate a single eight foot pole with six antenna panels from the rooftop of the building to the right side of the building into a "chimney" enclosure extending 15 feet above the rooftop. Equipment cabinets will remain in an existing garage on the first floor of the building. The parcel is 3,881 sq. ft. and is located in a Commercial Historic zoning district. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project. DIRECTOR ITEMS DR -98 -051, UP -98 -018 & V -98 -017 (517 -23 -036 & 037) - WOODS, 15595 Peach Hill Road; Correspondence from applicant regarding correction of slope calculations for project approved by the Planning Commission on June 9,1999. Planning Commission Agenu July 14, 1999 COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS Written Page 3 City Council Minutes for Adjourned and Special Meetings of June 8, 18, 19 and 21, 1999, and Regular Meeting of June 16, 1999 - Planning Commission Notices for Regular Meeting of July 28, 1999 Communication to Planning Commission from Saratoga Woods Homeowners Association, dated June 24, 1999 Communication to Planning Commission from Laurie Girand, dated June 29, 1999 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Wednesday, July 28, 1999, Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, June 23, 1999 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - June 9, 1999 Oral Communications This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to address the Commission on any matter not on the agenda_ Speakers are limited to three minutes. Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 18, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. UP -99 -008 (393 -01 -041) - JAMBA JUICE, 12868 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road; Request for Use Permit approval for a 1,228 sq. ft. juice bar with both indoor and outdoor seating in the Argonaut Shopping Center. No new construction or expansion is proposed. The property is located within a Commercial- Neighborhood zoning district. 2. UP -99 -012 (389 -12 -019) - CARSON ESTATE COMPANY (Gene's Fine Foods), 18850 Cox Avenue; Request for Use Permit approval to add approximately 1,600 sq. ft. of retail floor area to the existing 25,847 sq. ft. market. The expansion will occupy an area previously a bakery - no changes to the building's exterior are proposed. The site is part of the Quito Shopping Center and is located within a Commercial- Neighborhood zoning district. 3. UP -99 -006 - PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS, Highway 9 & Austin Way; Request for Use Permit approval for the installation of two cellular antennas and transmitter equipment on an existing utility pole located within the Highway 9 right -of -way. The utility pole is located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. Planning Commission Agena- June 23, 1999 DIRECTOR ITEMS Page 2 V -98 -011 (503 -19 -157) - LOH, 20651 Leonard Road; Request to relocate a storage shed to meet setback and height requirements as required by the Planning Commission. Plans to correct the deck and gazebo zoning violations have also been submitted for review by the Commission. Planning Commission Retreat Date and Topics COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS Written City Council Minutes for Regular Meeting of June 2, 1999 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Wednesday, July 14, 1999, Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, June 9, 1999 - 7:15 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - May 12 and May 26, 1999 Oral Communications This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to address the Commission on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes. Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 4, 1999. Technical Corrections to .Packet CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS 1.. DR -98 -014 (503 -13 -059 & 503 -13 -122) - FOSTER, 22217 Mt. Eden Road; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,507 sq. ft., two -story residence on this 2.25 acre vacant lot. The property is located in a Hillside Residential zoning district. In September 1998 the two assessor parcels were merged and the one adjacent to Mt. Eden Road was annexed to the City of Saratoga. (CONTINUED FROM 5/26/99 FOR A RE -VOTE AFTER MOTION FOR APPROVAL FAILED ON VOTE OF 3 -3). 2. DR -98 -067 & F -98 -006 (517 -13 -012) - CAGAN, 15001 Bohlman Road; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new two -story 5,122 sq. ft. residence with a maximum height of 26 ft. on a vacant 2.4 acre (net) parcel in a Hillside Residential zoning district. A Fencing exception permit is also requested to enclose 13,000 sq. ft. The Design Review proposal was originally noticed for the April 14, 1999 Planning Commission public hearing, but was continued at the request of the applicant. (CONTINUED FROM 5/26/99). 3. DR -98 -051, UP -98 -018 & V -98 -017 (517 -23 -036 & 517 -23 -037) - WOODS, 15595 Peach Hill Road; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 6,769 sq. ft., two -story residence with a maximum building height of 26 ft. on a 4.6 acre parcel located in a Hillside Residential zoning district. Use Permit approval is also requested to allow a water tank within the rear yard setback. Variance approval is requested to allow retaining walls in excess of 5 ft. in height. Planning Commission Agent..,. June 9, 1999 DIRECTOR ITEMS Request for revision to a previously approved Site Modification application: SM -99 -001 - Jepsen, 21756 Congress Hall Lane COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS Written Page 2 City Council Minutes for Adjourned Regular Meeting of May 11 and Regular Meeting of May 19, 1999 Planning Commission Notices for Regular Meeting of June 23, 1999 Communication to Planning Commission from Saratoga citizens, dated May 21, 1999 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Wednesday, June 23, 1999, Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, May 26, 1999 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call Pledge of AlleEiance Minutes Minutes for the May 12 Regular Meeting will be submitted for approval at the June 9, 1999 Regular Meeting. Oral Communications This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to address the Commission on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes. Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 21, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet CONSENT CALENDAR 1. DR -98 -067 & .F -98 -006 (517 -13 -012) - CAGAN, 15001 Bohlman Road; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new two -story 5,122 sq. ft. residence with a maximum height of 26 ft. on a vacant 2.4 acre (net) parcel in a Hillside Residential zoning district. A fence exception is also requested to enclose 13,000 sq. ft. The Design Review proposal was originally noticed for the April 14, 1999 Planning Commission public hearing, but was continued at the request of the applicant. (CONTINUED TO 6/9/99 AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT). PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. DR -98 -034 (397 -03 -074) - GAUDREAU, 14510 Sobey Road; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 5,454 sq. ft., two -story residence with a maximum height of 26 ft. An existing 565 sq. ft. guest house is proposed to remain. Total buildings on site proposed would be 6,019 sq. ft. The parcel is 1.29 acres and is located in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 5/12/99). 3. DR -99 -007 & UP -99 -007 (397 -24 -007) - DUNCAN, 20211 La Paloma Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to allow the construction of a new 2,398 sq. ft., single -story residence and a detached garage of 482 sq. ft. Use Permit approval is requested to allow the detached garage to be located within a rear yard. (CONTINUED FROM 5/12/99). Planning Commission Agenda May 26, 1999 Page 2 4. DR -98 -014 (503 -13 -059 & 503 -13 -122) - FOSTER, 22217 Mount Eden Road; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,507 sq. ft., two -story residence on this 2.25 acre vacant lot. The property is located in a Hillside Residential zoning district. In September 1998 the two assessor parcels were merged and the one adjacent to Mount Eden Road was annexed to the City of Saratoga. 5. DR -99 -013 (366 -14 -059) - JIH, 12651 Arroyo de Arguello; Request for Design Review approval to add a 584 sq. ft. second story to an existing 3,415 sq. ft. residence. Maximum height is proposed to be 21 ft. The applicants are also proposing to add 163 sq. ft. to the existing first story. The total floor area proposed is 4,162 sq. ft. on an 18,381 sq. ft. (net) parcel located in an R -1- 1.5,000 zoning district. 6. DR -98 -049 (517 -07 -013) - NOBLES, 20801 Pamela Way; Request for Design Review approval to add a 981 sq. ft. second story to an existing 1,734 sq. ft. single story residence. Maximum height is proposed to be 21.5 ft. The applicants are also proposing to add 10 sq. ft. to the existing first floor. Total floor area proposed is 2,725 sq. ft. on a 7,600 sq. ft. parcel located in an R -1 -10 000 zoning district. DIRECTOR ITEMS Cancellation of August 25 Meeting Conflict of Interest Laws Handbook COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS Written City Council Minutes for Regular Meetings of April 27 and May 5, 1999, and Special Meeting of May 4, 1999 Planning Commission Notices for Regular Meeting of June 9, 1999 Notice of Preparation of Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration for Regular Meeting of June 23, 1999 - Letter from Irene Jacobs, Staff Liaison to the Parks and Recreation Commission ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Wednesday, June 9, 1999, Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, May 12, 1999 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - April 28, 1999 Oral Communications This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to address the Commission on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes. Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 7, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet CONSENT CALENDAR 1. DR -99 -022 (503 -09 -022) - SVOBODA, 22040 Mount Eden Road; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 1,432 sq. ft. detached "barn" with 'a maximum building height of 12 ft. The existing residence is 5,878 sq. ft. Total buildings on site proposed would be 7,310 sq. ft. The parcel is 5.02 acres and is located in a Hillside Residential district. (APPLICATION WITHDRAWN). 2. DR -98 -034 (397 -03 -074) - GAUDREAU, 14510 Sobey Road; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 5,450 sq. ft. two -story residence with a maximum height of 26 ft. An existing 565 sq. ft. guest house is proposed to remain. Total buildings on site proposed would be 6,015 sq. ft. The parcel is 1.29 acres and is located in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 5/26/99 AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. V -98 -001.1 (503 -26 -028) - BAGNAS, 14005 Wildwood Way; Request for modification to an approved Variance for side and rear setbacks. The property is 3,572 sq. ft. and is located in an R- 1- 10,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 4/28/99 FOR A RE -VOTE AFTER MOTION FOR APPROVAL FAILED ON VOTE OF 3 -3). Planning Commission Agenau May 12, 1999 Page 2 4. DR -99 -004 (503 -26 -007) - JAFARI, 20860 4th Street; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 3,177 sq. ft., two -story residence with a 1,468 sq. ft. basement. The maximum height of the residence will be 21 feet, 4 inches. (CONTINUED FROM 4/28/99 AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT). 5. F -98 -005 & V -99 -004 (503 -75 -020) - HENRY, 21801 Congress Springs Lane; Request for Fence permit approval to enclose more than 4,000 square feet of a rear yard. Variance approval is also requested to allow a 6 foot tall fence to be located within the front yard setback. The site is 3.3 acres and is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 4/28/99 IN ORDER TO BE RE- NOTICED TO INCLUDE VARIANCE REQUEST). 6. DR -99 -007, UP -99 -007 & V -99 -002 (397 -24 -007) - DUNCAN, 20211 La Paloma Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to allow the remodeling /construction of a new 2,396 sq. ft., single -story residence and a detached garage of 601 sq. ft. Use Permit approval is requested to allow the detached garage to be located within a rear yard. Variance approval is necessary to allow an exterior wall to remain only 2 feet, 6 inches from a side property line where a 6 foot side yard setback is required. (CONTINUED FROM 4/28/99 AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT). 7. SD -99 -005 (510 -01 -023) - RAMSDELL, 15081 Pepper Lane; Request for Tentative Map approval to create two lots of 36,919 sq. ft. and 25,813 sq. ft. The site is approximately 1.4 acres and is located within an R -1- 20,000 zoning district. 8. SD -98 -008 & DR -98 -052 (397 -13 -057) - NAGPAL, 19101 Via Tesoro Court; Request for Tentative Subdivision Map approval to create two parcels from one existing 2.46 acre parcel. The site is located in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. The existing residence, which is on the Heritage Resources Inventory, is proposed to remain. Applicant also requests Design Review approval for a single - family, two - story, 5,301 sq. ft. residence, with a maximum building height of 25 ft., 10 in. on the proposed 48,921 sq. ft. parcel. 9. DR -99 -009 (397 -24 -010) - PINN BROTHERS, 20040 Spaich Court (lot #5 of the Hayfield Estates subdivision); Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,670 sq. ft., two - story residence. The site is 60,157 sq. ft. and is located within an R -1- 20,000 zoning district. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS 10. AR -99 -008 (503 -31 -080) - KAABIPOUR, 13970 Albar Court; An appeal of the Community Development Director's decision to approve an administrative level design review application to add 198 sq. ft. to the first floor and 927 sq. ft. to the second floor of an existing 4,858 sq. ft., two - story residence. Planning Commission Agena- May 12, 1999 DIRECTOR ITEMS Request for modifications to a previously approved project: DR -97 -043 - Massihpour, 18590 Avon Lane - Appointment of Planning Commission Vice -Chair Page 3 Appointment of Bicycle Advisory Committee representative Consideration of minutes of May 12 and May 26 meetings at June 9, 1999 meting due to absence of Minutes Clerk COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS Written City Council Minutes for Regular Meeting of April 21, 1999 Planning Commission Notices for Regular Meeting of May 26, 1999 Letter to Planning Commission from Marjorie J. Burnett dated May 3, 1999 Staff correspondence copies to Planning Commission ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Wednesday, May 26, 1999, Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, April 28,1999 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - April 14, 1999 Oral Communications This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to address the Commission on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes. Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on April 23, 1.999. Technical Corrections to Packet CONSENT CALENDAR 1. F -98 -005 & V -99 -004 (503 -75 -020) - HENRY, 21801 Congress Springs Lane; Request for Fence Permit approval to enclose more than 4,000 square feet of a rear yard. The site is 3.3 acres and is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 5/12/99 IN ORDER TO BE RE- NOTICED TO INCLUDE VARIANCE REQUEST). PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. UP -97 -004.1 (393 -01 -024, -025, -026, -027, -028, & 393 -02 -003) - STARBUCKS, 12960 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road; Request for modification to an approved Use Permit for a 1,160 sq. ft. space by expanding the restaurant into an additional 440 sq. ft. of the existing Argonaut Shopping Center. The modification application includes a request to allow outdoor seating without additional parking spaces. The property is located within a Commercial Neighborhood zoning district. 3. UP -93 -008.1 (503 -24 -072) - BLUE ROCK SHOOT- CUTLER/WHITE, 14523 Big Basin Way; Review of a Use Permit approved on December 14, 1994 to operate a restaurant on Big Basin Way with coffee roasting below the restaurant. The Planning Commission has requested this permit be called up for their review to re- evaluate the hours of operation and coffee roasting. 4. V -98 -001.1 (503 -26 -028) - BAGNAS, 14005 Wildwood Way; Request for modification to an approved Variance for side and rear setbacks. The property is 3,572 sq. ft. and is located in an R- 1- 10,000 zoning district. Planning Commission Agena, Page 2 April 28, 1999 5. DR -99 -004 & V -99 -001 (503 -26 -007) - JAFARI, 20860 Fourth Street; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 3,177 sq. ft., two -story residence with a 1,468 sq. ft. basement. The maximum height of the residence will be 21 feet, 8 inches. Variance approval is requested to allow an 8 foot 10 inch second story side yard setback where a 10 foot setback is required. Three ordinance- protected trees are proposed to be removed: a Coast Live Oak, a Mexican Fan Palm and a Monterey Cypress. 6. DR -99 -007, UP -99 -007 & V -99 -002 (397 -24 -007) - DUNCAN, 20211 La Paloma Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to allow the remodeling /construction of a new 2,396 sq. ft., single -story residence and a detached garage of 601 sq. ft. Use Permit approval is requested to allow the detached garage to be located within a rear yard. Variance approval is necessary to allow an exterior wall to remain only two feet, six inches from a side property line where a six foot side yard setback is required. 7. UP -99 -004 & .DR -99 -023 (503 -23 -021) - SIEVERT, 20571 Brookwood Lane; Request for Use Permit approval to locate a 971 sq. ft. garage /cabana with a maximum height of 12 ft. within the rear yard setback of a 15,930 (net) sq. ft. parcel located in an R -1- 15,000 zoning district. A request for Design Review approval for the demolition of the existing 1,820 sq. ft. single -story residence and construction of a new single -story 3,157 sq. ft. residence with a maxima n building height of 18 ft. is also proposed. 8. DR -99 -002 (517 -20 -015) - KLINE, 20121 Hill Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 1,800 sq. ft. single -story residence and construct a new two -story 4,253 sq. ft. residence with a maximum height of, 24 ft. on a 22,651 sq. ft. parcel located in an R -.1- 20,000 zoning district. 9. APPEAL (503 -15 -041) - WONG, 21252 Chadwick Court; Appeal by the applicants of an administrative denial of an accessory generator structure. The site is 2.8 acres and is located in a Hillside Residential zoning district. DIRECTOR ITEMS COMMISSION ITEMS DR -97 -027.1 (397 -22 -030) - HARKEY, 20385 Park Place; Request for modification of an approved Design Review application to allow the door of the detached garage to face the alley. REVISED SIGN PROGRAM - ARGONAUT SHOPPING CENTER; Request to modify the sign criteria and colors for tenants at the remodeled Argonaut Shopping Center. - Appointment of Bicycle Advisory Committee representative. Planning Commission Agenau April 28, 1999 COMMUNICATIONS Written Minutes for City Council Meeting of April 7, 1999 Notices for Planning Commission Meeting of May 12, 1999 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Wednesday, May 12, 1999, Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Page 3 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, April 14,1999 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - March 24, 1999 Oral Communications This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to address the Commission on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes. Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on April 9, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet CONSENT CALENDAR 1. DR -98 -067 (517 -13 -012) - BYRNE, 15001 Bohlman Road; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new two -story 5,522 sq. ft. residence with a maximum height of 26 ft. on a vacant 2.4 acre (net) parcel in a Hillside Residential zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 5/26/99 AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT TO ALLOW NEW PROPERTY OWNER TIME TO REVISE PLANS) 2. 5 -99 -005 (517 -36 -009) - HAKONE GARDENS, 21000 Big Basin Way; Request for Sign Permit approval to construct a new 18 sq. ft. non - illuminated monument sign at the intersection of the park's driveway with Big Basin Way. The site is 16.5 acres and is located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. SM -99 -001 & F -99 -001 (503 -75 -010) - JEPSEN /GUERRETTE, 21756 Congress Hall Lane; Request for Site Modification permit to construct a pool with associated hillside grading, and Fence permit to construct a fence enclosing 12,938 sq. ft., in a zoning district that limits hillside fencing to no more than 4,000 sq. ft. 4. SD -99 -001 (503 -20 -061) - WANG, 20520 Verde Vista Lane; Request to subdivide a 41,793 sq. ft. lot into two lots of 29,057 sq. ft. and 12,736 sq. ft. The property is located in an R -1- 12,500 zoning district. Planning Commission Agena- Page 2 April 14, 1999 5. DR -98 -058 & V -98 -020 (503 -26 -015) - HOYT, 14471 Springer Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to remodel and add 422 sq. ft. to the existing first story and add a 695 sq. ft. second story to an existing 1,218 sq. ft. residence. There is an existing detached 371 sq. ft. garage on site. Total proposed floor area is 2,706 sq. ft. The site is a 7,500 sq. ft. (net) parcel located in an R- 1- 10,000 zoning district. Variance is required to allow an undersized garage, when a two -car garage is required. 6. DR -98 -069 (397 -04 -112) - BHEDA, 14812 Gypsy Hill Road; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new single story 5,780 sq. ft. residence with a maximum height of 21 ft. on a vacant 56,619 sq. ft. (net) parcel in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. DIRECTOR ITEMS - Selection of new Planning Commission Chairman and Vice - Chairman City Council 4/27/99 Adjourned Budget Meeting Status of Planning Commission Appointments - Status of Septic System Abatement Ordinance National APA Conference COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS W ritton - City Council Minutes for Special Meetings of March 9 and March 23, 1999, and Regular Meeting of March 17, 1999 - Notices for Planning Commission Meeting of April 28, 1999 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, April 28, 1999, Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, March 24,1999 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Pall Call Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - March 10, 1999 Oral Communications This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to address the Commission on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes. Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on March 19, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. UP -99 -003 (517 -09 -015) - FIRST CITY MORTGAGE, 14440 Big Basin Way, #9; Request for Use Permit approval to allow a professional office located at street level and fronting on Big Basin Way. The site is located within a CH -1 (Commercial Historic) zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 3/10/99 FOR REVOTE). 2. DR -98 -009 (389 -28 -007) - SAGHEZCHI, 13762 Serra Oaks Court; Request for Design Review approval to convert an existing 462 sq. ft. garage to living area and add a new garage and a 453 sq. ft. second story to an existing 2,990 sq. ft. residence. The property is 14,450 sq. ft. and is located in an R -1- 12,500 zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 3/10/99 AT APPLICANT'S REQUEST). 3. UP -99 -001 (389 -15 -014) - MALONE, 18761 McFarland Avenue; Request for Use Permit approval to construct a new 528 sq. ft. detached garage three feet from the side and rear property lines. The applicant also proposes to convert an existing, attached 264 sq. ft. garage to living area. The site is 10,000 sq. ft. and is located within an R -1- 10,000 zoning district. The maximum height of the new garage will be 12 feet. 4. DR -98 -065 & V -98 -021 (517 -20 -017) - MOYLES, 20201 Hill Avenue; Request for Design Review to remodel and add 2,382 sq. ft. to an existing non- conforming three -story 4,270 sq. ft. residence. A 198 sq. ft. pool house is also proposed. Variance approval is requested to expand an existing third -story element of the main residence and to exceed the 26 ft. height limit. Existing height of structure is approximately 34 ft. and will remain unchanged. The site is 1.95 acres and is located in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. Planning Commission Agenda March 24, 1999 Page 2 5. DR -98 -024 (517 -22 -093) - LEXMAR DEVELOPMENT, 15180 .Piedmont Road; Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 3,147 sq. ft. two -story residence and construct a 4,704 sq. ft. two story residence with a maximum building height of 26 ft. from natural grade on a 1.07 acre site. The site is located in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. :DIRECTOR ITEMS - City Council /Planning Commission /Heritage Preservation Commission Joint Meeting - Saratoga Elementary and Redwood Middle School Updates - March 25th California League of Cities Conference COMMISSION ITEMS - Request for modifications to approved plans for DR -93 -019; SHAH, 21409 TOLLGATE ROAD COMMUNICATIONS Written - City Council Minutes dated March 3, 1999 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, April 14, 1999, Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, March 10, 1999 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Rnll Call Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - February 24, 1999 Oral Communications This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to address the Commission on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes. Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on March 5, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet CONSENT CALENDAR 1. DR -98 -009 (389 -28 -007) - SAGHEZCHI, 13762 Serra Oaks Court; Request for Design Review approval to convert an existing 462 sq. ft. garage to living area and add a new garage and a 453 sq. ft. second story to an existing 2,990 sq. ft. residence. The property is 14,450 sq. ft. and is located in an R -1- 12,500 zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 3/24/99 AT APPLICANT'S REQUEST). PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. DR -98 -038 (503 -14 -028) - ZHANG/LI, 13612 Vaquero Court; Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 2,574 sq. ft. two -story residence and a 1,020 sq. ft. accessory structure and construct a new 5,417 sq. ft. two -story residence. The site is 34,465 sq. ft. and is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 2/24/99). 3. V -98 -022 (517 -14 -038) - THUSH, 15395 Kittridge Road; Request for Variance approval of retaining walls exceeding 5 ft. in height. Retaining walls have already been constructed to a maximum height of 8 ft. The site is 44,431 sq. ft. and is located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 2/24/99). 4. UP -99 -003 (517 -09 -015) - FIRST CITY MORTGAGE, 14440 Big Basin Way, #9; Request for Use Permit approval to allow a professional office located at street level and fronting on Big Basin Way. The site is located within a CH -1 (Commercial Historic) zoning district. Planning Commission Agenda March 10, 1999 DIRECTOR ITEMS Page 2 • SD -98 -003 & SD -98 -003.1 - PICETTI, 13650 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road; Request for approval of fencing and landscape improvement plan for Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road frontage. • Responses to Redwood Middle School Initial Study. • Topics for 3/23/99 City Council /Planning Commission /Heritage Preservation Commission joint meeting. COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS Written • City Council Minutes dated February 9 and February 17, 1999 • Notices for Planning Commission Meeting of March 24, 1999 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Wednesday, March 24, 1999, Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, February 24,1999 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call Pledge of Alle1iance Minutes - February 10, 1999 Oral Communications This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to address the Commission on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes. Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 19, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet CONSENT CALENDAR 1. DR -98 -009 (389 -28 -007) - SAGHEZCHI, 13762 Serra Oaks Court; Request for Design Review approval to convert an existing 462 sq. ft. garage to living area and add a new garage and a 453 sq. ft. second story to an existing 2,990 sq. ft. residence. The property is 14,450 sq. ft. in an R -1- 12,500 zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 3/10/99 AT APPLICANT'S REQUEST). 2. DR -98 -038 (503 -14 -028) - ZHANGILI, 13612 Vaquero Court; Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 2,574 sq. ft. two -story residence and a 1,020 sq. ft. accessory structure and construct a new 5,568 sq. ft. two -story residence. The site is 34,465 sq. ft. and is located within a Flillside Residential zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 3/10/99 AT APPLICANT'S REQUEST). 3. V -98 -022 (517 -14 -038) - THUSH, 15395 Kittridge Road; Request for Variance approval of retaining walls exceeding 5 ft. in height. Retaining walls have already been constructed to a maximum height of 7 ft. The site is 44,431 sq. ft. and is located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 3/10/99 AT APPLICANT'S REQUEST). PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. DR -99 -008 (510 -02 -018) - WALT, 15427 Hume Drive; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 612 sq. ft. addition to an existing 5,506 sq. ft. residence. The proposal includes demolition of a portion of the existing residence and guest house. Design Review is required because the addition will put the square footage over 6,000 sq. ft. at 6,118 sq. ft. The property is 43,500 sq. ft. and is located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. Planning Commission Agenda February 24, 1999 Page 2 5. DR -98 -059 (386 -05 -022) - DOLL, 19145 Brookview Drive; Request for Design Review approval to add a 765 sq. ft. second story addition and a 105 sq. ft. first floor addition to an existing 2,117 sq. ft., single story residence. The maximum height of the finished structure will be 22 feet. The site is 9,375 sq. ft. and is located within an R -1- 10,000 zoning district. 6. DR -98 -066 (389 -16 -003) - SALAH, 13033 Montrose Street; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 3,212 sq. ft., two -story residence with a 1,959 sq. ft. basement and a detached 427 sq. ft. garage. The maximum height of the main building will be 24 feet. The site is 14,330 sq. ft. and is located within an R -1- 10,000 zoning district. DIRECTOR ITEMS • Redwood Middle School Initial Study COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS W rittvn • City Council Minutes dated January 26, February 3 and February 8, 1999 • Notices for Planning Commission Meeting of March 10, 1999 • Response to Saratoga Elementary School Initial Study • Memo to City Council Outlining Commission Reappointments ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING • Wednesday, March 1.0, 1999, Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, February 10, 1999 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - January 27, 1999 Oral Communications This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to address the Commission on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes. Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 5, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. UP -98 -017 & V -98 -018 (510 -24 -035) - HOLTON, 19280 Bainter Avenue; Request for Use Permit approval to add 354 sq. ft. to an existing 793 sq. ft. Kownacki guest house, located within the rear yard setback, 6 ft. from the rear property line. The height of the structure would remain at its current 12 ft. A Variance is also requested to maintain the existing -0- ft. setback from the side access easement, as well as expansion of an existing non- conforming use. The site is 57,883 (net) sq. ft. and is located in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. 2. DR -98 -054 (503 -27 -018) - PENUEN, 14380 Elva Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to add 755 sq. ft. on the first floor and a second floor of 768 sq. ft. to an existing 1,219 sq. ft. one -story residence. The maximum height of the finished structure will be 21 feet. The site is approximately 7,500 sq. ft. and is located within an R- 1- 10,000 zoning district. 3. DR -98 -071 (393 -40 -022) - BOISSERANC/PICETTI, 13650 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road; Request for Design Review approval to construct three new single family homes. Lot I is 12,513 sq. ft. in area with a 3,707 sq. ft. residence proposed, Lot 2 is 19,075 sq. ft. with a 4,235 sq. ft. residence proposed and Lot 3 is 12,526 sq. ft. with a 3,707 sq. ft. residence proposed. All homes will be 18 feet in height. The properties are located within an R -1- 12,500 zoning district. Planning Commission Agenda Page 2 February 10, 1999 4. V -98 -014.1 (379 -25 -041) - AHMADIAN, 14031 Saratoga Avenue; Request for Variance approval to allow an existing single -story residence to be replaced with a new two -story structure to be built in the same location four feet from the property line where six feet is the required setback and to allow the second floor to be built four feet from the property line where eleven feet is the required setback. The new house totals 1,897 sq. ft. with a 400 sq. ft. detached garage. This proposal was previously approved as a second -story addition to the attic of the existing residence, but the structure has since been demolished. Therefore, an application for a new Variance to maintain the non - conforming setbacks of the previously existing structure must be considered by the Planning Commission. DIRECTOR ITEMS COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS Written • City Council Minutes dated January 20, 1999 • Notices for Planning Commission Meeting of February 24, 1999 • League of California Cities Conference Schedule ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING • Wednesday, February 24, 1999, Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, January 27,1999 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - January 13, 1999 Oral Communications This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to address the Commission on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes. Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 22, 1999. Technical Corrections to .Packet CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. SM -98 -004 & F -98 -004 (397 -40 -020) - MOROYAN, 14961 Via De Marcos; Request for Site Modification and Fence permits to erect a fence enclosing 25,978 sq. ft. and construct a pool in the San Marcos Heights Subdivision. The property is 40,766 sq. ft. and is located in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. 2. DR -98 -038 (503 -14 -028) - ZHANG /LI, 13612 Vaquero Court; Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 2,574 sq. ft. two -story residence and a 1,020 accessory structure and construct a new 5,568 sq. ft. two -story residence. The site is 34,465 sq. ft. and is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. 3. DR -98 -009 (389 -28 -007) - SAGHEZCHI, 13762 Serra Oaks Ct.; Request for Design Review approval to convert an existing 462 sq. ft. garage to living area and add a new garage and a 453 sq. ft. second story to an exiting 2,990 sq. ft. residence. The property is 14,450 sq. ft. in an R- 1- 12,500 zoning district. DIRECTOR ITEMS COMMISSION ITEMS Planning Commission Agenda January 27, 1999 COMMUNICATIONS Written • City Council Minutes dated January 6, 1999 • Notices for Planning Commission Meeting of February 10, 1999 • Letter to Rath in Neogy re: Removed Tree • Saratoga Elementary School Initial Study ADJOURNMENT TO STUDY SESSION STUDY SESSION Page 2 1. DR -98 -060 (389 -34 -003) - YAMAOKA DEVELOPMENT, 18180 Sage Ct.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,829 sq. ft. residence on Lot 1 of the Fitzsimmons subdivision. The height of the proposed residence is 18 feet from natural grade. The site is 24,052 sq. ft. DR -98 -061 (389 -34 -003) - YAMAOKA DEVELOPMENT, 18625 Sage Ct.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,752 sq. ft. residence on Lot 2 of the Fitzsimmons subdivision. The height of the proposed residence is 19 feet from natural grade. The site is 24,004 sq. ft. DR -98 -062 (389 -34 -003) - YAMAOKA DEVELOPMENT, 18587 Sage Ct.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,450 sq. ft. residence on Lot 3 of the Fitzsimmons subdivision. The height of the proposed residence is 19 feet from natural grade. The site is 20,013 sq. ft. DR -98 -063 (389 -34 -003) - YAMAOKA DEVELOPMENT, 18380 Sage Ct.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,517 sq. ft. residence on Lot 4 of the Fitzsimmons subdivision. The height of the proposed residence is 18 feet from natural grade. The site is 20,223 sq. ft. DR -98 -064 (389 -34 -003) - YAMAOKA DEVELOPMENT, 18288 Sage Ct.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,516 sq. ft. residence on Lot 5 of the Fitzsimmons subdivision. The height of the proposed residence is 18 feet from natural grade. The site is 20,875 sq. ft. (CONTINUED FROM 1/27/99). ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING • Wednesday, February 10, 1999, Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, January 13,1999 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - December 9, 1998 Oral Communications This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to address the Commission on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes. Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 8, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet CONSENT CALENDAR 1. UP -98 -016 (503 -24 -067) - ROSENFELD, 14471 Big Basin Way; Request for Use Permit approval for the placement of a wireless telecommunications facility (antennas) within the perimeter of the roof of the two story building located at 14471 Big Basin Way. The rooftop already has antennas from two other telecommunications companies. The site is 9,116 square feet and is located within CH -1 (Historic Commercial) zoning districts. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. DR -98 -042 (397 -28 -035) - COOK, 20405 Williams Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 2,880 sq. ft. two -story residence at a height of 24 feet from natural grade on a 7,680 sq. ft. lot located in an R -1- 10,000 zoning district. The application also includes an exemption request from the floor area reduction requirement for heights over 18 feet. 3. DR -98 -040 & V -98 -023 (397 -01 -068) - .LEINWAND/ROSTANKOWSKI, 19050 Camino Barco; Request for Design Review approval to add a 1,519 sq. ft. second story to an existing single -story residence. The total floor area on the site will be 5,469 sq. ft. The net site area is 34,215 sq. ft. and the property is located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. Variance approval is also requested for building height exceeding 26 ft. The existing structure is 28 ft. 6 in. from natural grade. Proposal calls for maximum building height of 30 ft. Planning Commission Agenda Page 2 .January 13, 1999 4. DR -98 -060 (389 -34 -003) - YAMAOKA DEVELOPMENT, 18180 Sage Ct.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,829 sq. ft. residence on Lot 1 of the Fitzsimmons subdivision. The height of the proposed residence is 18 feet from natural grade. The site is 24,052 sq. ft. DR -98 -061 (389 -34 -003) - YAMAOKA DEVELOPMENT, 18625 Sage Ct.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,752 sq. ft. residence on Lot 2 of the Fitzsimmons subdivision. The height of the proposed residence is 19 feet from natural grade. The site is 24,004 sq. ft. DR -98 -062 (389 -34 -003) - YAMAO.KA DEVELOPMENT, 18587 Sage Ct.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,450 sq. ft. residence on Lot 3 of the Fitzsimmons subdivision. The height of the proposed residence is 19 feet from natural grade. The site is 20,013 sq. ft. DR -98 -063 (389 -34 -003) - YAMAOKA DEVELOPMENT, 18380 Sage Ct.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,517 sq. ft. residence on Lot 4 of the Fitzsimmons subdivision. The height of the proposed residence is 18 feet from natural grade. The site is 20,223 sq. ft. DR -98 -064 (389 -34 -003) - YAMAOKA DEVELOPMENT, 18288 Sage Ct.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,516 sq. ft. residence on Lot 5 of the Fitzsimmons subdivision. The height of the proposed residence is 18 feet from natural grade. The site is 20,875 sq. ft. 5. DR -98 -055 (397 -24 -010, -038, -073, -074, -075) - PINN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, 18895 Hayfield Ct.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,558 sq. ft. residence on Lot 10 of the Spaich subdivision. The height of the proposed residence is 18 feet from natural grade. The site is 26,634 sq. ft. DR -98 -056 (397 -24 -010, -038, -073, -074, -075) - PINN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, 18913 Hayfield Ct.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,781 sq. ft. residence on Lot 12 of the Spaich subdivision. The height of the proposed residence is 21 feet from natural grade. The site is 28,183 sq. ft. DR -98 -057 (397 -24 -010, -038, -073, -074, -075) - PINN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, 18907 Hayfield Ct.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,971 sq. ft. residence on Lot 1 1. of the Spaich subdivision. The height of the proposed residence is 18 feet from natural grade. The site is 28,149 sq. ft. 6. DR -98 -047 (397 -28 -031) - BLACKWELL HOMES, 20345 Williams Ave.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 3,029 sq. ft., two -story residence on a lot currently developed with a 3,220 sq. ft., two -story apartment building (to be demolished). The site is 8,590 sq. ft. and is located within an R- 1- 10,000 zoning district. The application also includes an exception request from the floor area reduction requirement for heights over 18 feet. 7. DR -98 -048 & V -98 -016 (397 -28 -031) - BLACKWELL HOMES, 20345'/2 (lot 23) Williams Ave.; Request for Design Review and Variance approval to construct a 2,583 sq. ft. two -story residence and a detached 441 sq. f t. garage on a lot currently developed with an 800 sq. ft. residence (to be demolished). A Variance is requested to allow the garage to be constructed within both the front and side yard required setbacks. The site is 9,020 sq. ft. and is located within an R -1- 10,000 zoning district. The application also includes an exception request from the floor area reduction requirement for heights over 18 feet. Planning Commission Agenda Page 3 January 13, 1999 8. V -98 -01.1 (503 -19 -157) - LOH, 20651 Leonard Road; Request for Variance approval to allow a recently constructed detached accessory structure to encroach into a required 30 ft. front yard setback. The structure was built without City building permits. The Variance application includes a gazebo structure and a detached rear yard deck that also encroach into required setbacks and were also built Without permits. The subject property is 1.48 gross acres in size and is located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. DIRECTOR ITEMS COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS Written • City Council Minutes dated December 1, 2, 8 and 16, 1998 • Notices for Planning Commission Meeting of January 27, 1999 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING • Wednesday, January 27, 1999, Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, December 8,1999 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting The meeting was called to order at 7:33 p.m. by Chairwoman Bernald. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Barry, Jackman, Kurasch, Page, Patrick, Roupe, and Chairwoman Bernald Absent: None Staff: Director Walgren Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - November 23,1999 IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /JACKMAN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 23,1999, WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS. PASSED 6 -1 (COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSTAINED). Page 6, paragraph 4, line 3: "...of what is allowed and what is not allowed in an application." Page 11, paragraph 1, line 6: "....more patrons with a 750 -seat increase." Page 11, paragraph 1, line 7: "...and the addition of a 501500 square foot kitchen." Page 11, paragraph 1, line 10: "She did not understand how 844 parking spaces would be Fequired by sufficient for this increase. Oral Communications - None. Report of Posting Agenda Director Walgren announced that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on December 3,1999. Technical Corrections to Packet Director Walgren announced that under Item #2 of the Public Hearing (Liu application), the applicants have requested that this item be put at the end of the agenda so they can PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8,1999 Page 2 attend to present their plan modifications. Commissioner Patrick noted that the applicants were in the audience and perhaps the item could be heard as scheduled in the agenda. Additionally, Director Walgren distributed an exhibit of the landslide repair detail on Item #2 which did not go out with the agenda packet. The exhibit was designated Exhibit C of the file record. 1. AZO -99 -001 (Citywide) - CITY OF SARATOGA; The Planning Commission will consider changes to the City's zoning ordinance regarding hillside fencing regulations and administrative appeals. Under consideration will be: 1) amendments to the Hillside Residential zoning district fencing regulations, and 2) amendments to the administrative appeals process. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared by the City of Saratoga and are on file in the Community Development Department. (CONTINUED TO 1/12,/2000). COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. PASSED 7 -0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. DR -97 -061 (503 -72 -014) - LIU, 14805 Masson Court; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,461 square foot two -story residence on a vacant 2.75 acre lot. The property is within a Hillside Residential zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 11/10/1999). Director Walgren reported that this is a continued hearing from the October 13, 1999 Commission meeting, noting the proposal is for a contemporary, new, two -story family home at 6500 square feet on a 2.75 acre parcel located within the Saratoga Heights subdivision and within a hillside residential zoning district. He said this is the last lot of the approximately 60 -lot subdivision that was approved in the early 1980's. He described the property as being at the end of Masson Court, a private cul -de -sac minimum access road which is developed with two or three relatively new single - family homes. He said the architectural style in the area is an eclectic mix of newer French chateau, Mediterranean villas style, and traditional wood -sided gable roof buildings. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8,1999 Page 3 Director Walgren added that the Liu application is unique in its design which he described as a very organic, free - flowing, modern building. The building uses natural materials such as stone and wood. He said the plan proposes a copper roof which was a topic of the October 13 Commission discussion. He said the materials should integrate the building well into the hillside terrain; however, he opined that the issue of integrating and compatibility with the existing single- family homes is a difficult decision to make. He stated that a significant landslide exists on the property; that the project had been under geological review for sometime to pinpoint the landslide and to determine what needed to be done to correct it. He said the landslide repair to stabilize the site does not require any significant native vegetation removal. However, he noted concern had been expressed that a particular Coast Live Oak tree be retained, and upon further geotechnical investigation, it was confirmed that the tree would be retained. Director Walgren reported that staff had previously told the applicant that staff would take the design review application to the Commission for a preliminary consensus regarding Commission support before the applicant continued to spend time and money in obtaining the necessary geological clearance. The item was heard at the October 13 meeting, and concerns were raised regarding the amount of impervious surface proposed. He said at that time, discussion focused on architecture, landslide repair, and copper roofing and the environmental effect of copper draining into the soil and potentially the storm drain system. Commissioner Barry had not been appointed Commissioner at that time, and the 4- 1 vote of the six - member Commission (Commissioner Jackman was absent) resulted in a consensus that the architecture could be supported. The applicant then proceeded to finish the plans. The plan was revised to slightly reduce the lot coverage by eliminating the driveway which previously extended parallel to Masson Court and modifying it to a direct connection perpendicular to the cul -de -sac. He said the pool has been reconfigured to reduce its paved area; the grading plan has been revised to outline the landslide; the landscape plan has been completed as requested; and the area of fencing is under the 4,000 square feet permitted in the hillside districts. Director Walgren reported that the applicant has provided the research materials on copper roofing, noting that the report concluded that copper components that get into the public storm water system become bioavailable and diluted. (For an explanation, he referred to the report on file). He said that the report stated that for this type of application, it is found that there is no environmental concern with the proposed material. He said this finding is consistent with the findings presented to the Planning Commission several years ago by the Bay Area Regional Water Quality Board. He said that the applicant has noted that should copper roofing material be unacceptable to the Commission, an alternative asphalt shingle roofing could be used. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8,1999 Page 4 Director Walgren read into the record three letters received from the public regarding the project since distribution of the agenda packet. A letter from Robert and Mabel Sze, 14780 Masson Court, noted concerns about the location of the building and its proximity to their home. Correspondence from Joseph C. H. Park, 14800 Masson Court, expressed concern with the siting of the home, its height, and the copper roofing. Jon and Kathy Kwong,14581 Saratoga Heights Court, expressed concerns with soils support and compatibility. Director Walgren responded to Chairwoman Bernald's questions regarding the project meeting the required setbacks and consistent standards for all homes in the area. Commissioner Barry noted that the letter from the neighbors at 14805 Masson Court states that all existing homes on Masson Court are one -story or were required by the Commission to make the front part of the house one -story to minimize massiveness and that all houses have setback of 30 -45 feet. Director Walgren stated that not all homes are one - story; that they are all two -story buildings. He said 30 feet is the minimum front yard setback requirement. Commissioner Barry asked whether staff had done any checking beyond the industry - funded copper runoff study that was presented to the Commission. Director Walgren responded that this was done on the applicant's initiative, and staff had not done any additional research. Commissioner Barry commented that she had more current information on this subject. Commissioner Barry expressed concern that Commissioners did not have a chance to review the grading specification. Director Walgren said that the City Geologist made it clear that it would be necessary to make this a stable building site. He said the only concern was the exact location of the landslide. Staff felt that the landslide was large enough, and close enough to a native tree, that it requested a more accurate definition before the project went through the design review process. He noted that the City Geologist reviews the document and it was provided as a very clear graphic depiction of where the landslide is exactly located. The location was on the original Exhibit A, and it has now been more clearly defined. Commissioner Roupe asked whether the information presented tonight was substantially different than what the Commission was led to believe in earlier submittals. Director Walgren responded that it was not expected to be different, and the concern was that it is a significantly large area of repair. He said from a construction standpoint, it PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8,1999 Page 5 would not be unusual for it to grow 10 -20 feet in one direction or another. Considering there was a significant tree in the area, it was necessary to have a clear depiction. He further noted that the landslide encroaches onto the Kwong property, and if the landslide is to be repaired, it would require the Kwongs' cooperation and consent. Commissioner Kurasch asked whether Commissioners had been previously made aware of any reference to actual size, and Director Walgren responded that the landslide was plotted on the original plans and the exhibit presented tonight is very similar to the original plan. Additionally, supplemental geologic information was submitted with the original report. Commissioner Jackman stated she felt at a disadvantage being handed Exhibit C tonight. She said she was absent at the October 13 meeting; has read and reviewed the October 13 minutes; and made recent site visits, individually and as a group. She expressed concern with the landslide and noticed an area in back of the Kwong property that has also slid. She said she does not feel comfortable making a decision on this tonight and she would want to go back and look at the area. Director Walgren reiterated that the geologic review process on the project did not occur recently. He said the application was submitted in November 1997, and has been in geologic review since. The landslide information was defined earlier and acknowledged. However, the process is that once the area is defined as a landslide needing repair, the exact location of the landslide is deferred until the applicant applies for the building permits. He noted Exhibit C is only a graphic depiction, and that the information has already been presented to the Commission. Commissioner Page said this is not something the Commissioners would normally see because it is part of the process conducted by staff before the building permits are issued. Director Walgren said that when landslide repair is involved, the applicant is required to submit a preliminary identification of the area to determine how many trees would be removed or whether the building can be shifted to another location that does not require landslide repair. He reiterated that the landslide was depicted on the plans reviewed at the October 13 meeting, and staff asked the applicant to go back and verify the extent of the landslide, which is what was presented tonight. Chairwoman Bernald noted that of four new Commissioners, three have expressed concern with addressing the issue at hand. She asked since the Commissioners are new whether additional time is needed for their consideration. Commissioner Jackman said she did not want to delay the hearing again and asked if this is what the Planning Department routinely does in the geological preparation. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 6 Director Walgren responded that the information submitted at the October 13 meeting is standard process. He said the Geologist had granted a preliminary geotechnical clearance at that stage based on the several extensive studies that had been done; however, staff felt that the applicant needed to go to the next stage, particularly because of the large oak tree, for a clear understanding that the landslide could be repaired without impacting the tree. Commissioner Barry stated she was prepared to go forward in discussing the project. However, she noted for the record that there is an issue to contend with regarding late - arriving information which cannot be made part of her deliberation if she has not had time to review it. She said her issue is not because she is new but an issue of the timing of the information. Commissioner Jackman stated she was ready to go ahead with discussion. Commissioner Kurasch stated she was mainly concerned with the size of the repair area and how it would impact the neighbor. Chairwoman Bernald shared her earlier experience as a Commissioner and said that when reviewing her agenda packet it is a tight timeframe in which to digest all the information, but Commissioners with questions do have three days to contact staff for answers. She would like to reiterate that when Commissioners have questions on issues as complicated as this, it would be most helpful if Commissioners contacted staff and had their questions answered. She said staff does a tremendous job in presenting information to the Commissioners in a timely manner, and that they have certain things which are out of their control and certain things that they present to the Commissioners just for their further edification and not necessarily for their means in making a decision. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 8:07 p.m. Mr. Non Chi Wang, 1918 North Main Street, Suite 201, Los Angeles, California, addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicants. He described the revisions made to the plan based on comments made at the October 13 Commission meeting. They include: reducing the lot coverage from 14,914 square feet to 13,805 square feet by changing the driveway configuration to minimize the hard pavement area. He said the grading plan was revised to clearly indicate the area of landslide and completed the landscape drawing to indicate the vegetation to provide privacy for the neighbors. He stated that the plan now includes a fence around the pool as required by code. Describing his efforts in researching the copper roof issue, he explained that he spoke to a geotechnical engineer to understand the possibility of installing a drainage system on the property, and in the engineer's opinion, that solution would not be good for the property because of the landslide problem. He said putting more water into the soil would create a greater burden as runoff from the copper roof would be led through the hard pavement into the storm drain and lead to the bay. He PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8,1999 Page 7 noted that was the only method to address the issue, and now has to rely on the research he did to provide a solution. He asked if that would be acceptable to the Commission. Mr. Wang said that after the October 13 Commission meeting, he met with the neighbors. He said concerns expressed in the Park letter were raised since he met with Mr. Park, and that the issue would be discussed with him later on. He said he spoke to Mr. Kwong about privacy issues. He said because of the long and narrow size of the lot, it is necessary to push the limit of the setback. He tried to mitigate the problem by architectural means to address the privacy issue. He addressed Mr. Kwong's other concern regarding the soils on the Kwong property, explaining how the soil would be protected. Commissioner Barry noted that although she was not a member of the Commission at the October 13 meeting, she was in the audience, heard the presentation, and took notes. Chairwoman Bernald referred to the privacy issue and asked Mr. Wang to describe and explain the project on the model which was passed to Commissioners for their review. Commissioner Page asked whether raising the soil level would be part of the landslide repair and whether additional fill would be required. Mr. Wang responded that fixing the slide takes quite a bit of excavation. The grade cannot be altered and would have to match the Kwong property grade. Mr. Wang responded to questions from Commissioner Kurasch regarding using semi- permeable material to reduce water runoff. Commissioner Jackman inquired about the percentage of permeable coverage, and Mr. Wang said that it could probably go up to 30 percent but it would depend on the type of material used. Commissioner Roupe asked whether plans were to use iron pipe for the drainage from the copper roof. Mr. Wang said he read the report and understood iron piping is significant material to absorb copper ions; therefore, he would use cast iron as a drainage pipe to absorb copper. Mr. Wang confirmed Commissioner Roupe's comment that instead of draining the roof to the concrete surface, the applicant would be willing to use an iron pipe going to the storm sewer system. Responding to a question from Commissioner Roupe, Director Walgren recalled that previous discussion required the roof drains go into pervious landscape areas and not PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8,1999 Page 8 directly into the storm drain system. Commissioner Roupe understood from the Geologist report that the drainage should not go into the soils, but should drain across the concrete into the storm sewer system directly. He reiterated that he was still concerned with the report from the Copper Institute regarding this issue, and he would suggest that perhaps more study could be made on this point. He said he was hesitant to render a decision regarding this issue until he could see additional data or see how the applicant proposes to address the issue to conform the site to the report. Commissioner Barry cited the following from a flyer published by the Regional Quality Control Plant operated by the City of Palo Alto: "Copper in our roofs is copper in our bay and that's a problem for mussels and other organisms, and the recommendation is to builders and architects to use alternatives to copper roofing and gutters and to advise your clients of the adverse effects of copper and copper products." She said that with respect to a further study, her information from a local water district contradicts the Copper Institute report. Director Walgren said that a condition could be imposed which would defer to the Bay Area Regional Water Quality Board on the topic, and materials could be forwarded to them for evaluation and determine whether they would recommend that local jurisdictions not permit copper roof and rain gutter materials. Commissioner Patrick asked what difference it would make in the plans if copper roof were used or not used. Mr. Wang responded that the only difference would be that he would not have to do the iron drainage system. He said asphalt would be the alternative because it is like a metal roof and flexible. Mr. Wang asked if another type of metal material would be acceptable other than copper. He said other metal roof materials are available which do not create the pollution concern and do not have metallic sheen if it is treated. Chairwoman Bernald responded that they would be acceptable as long as the material meets fire ordinance standards and color requirements. Mr. Wang described the alternate materials as zinc - plated metal, noting that asphalt shingle is not the best option. If another type of material were acceptable, he would submit a material sample for approval. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 9 Mr. Wang thanked the Commission for challenging the information he previously submitted which encouraged him to do more research and learn more about copper. Mr. Joseph C. Park, 14800 Masson Court, presented three concerns which he discovered this morning. He said the location of the house is such that the entry cuts right across a part of his property which extends beyond the cul -de -sac. Another issue he raised is the height. He said he was led to believe that the location was different than the mock -up shows. He said the copper roof was of concern to him because of the unique characteristics of the area. Using the property drawing tacked on the wall, Mr. Park described and demonstrated his concern regarding the building location. Jon Kwong, 14581 Saratoga Heights Court, addressed the Commission regarding the landslide area in back of his house. He said his concern was the soil moving downhill and once it goes downhill, it can no longer support the adjacent soils. He noted that in 1995, the soil slid downhill and went down 10 feet overnight. He said the proposed repair does not address his concern. He said he is a registered engineer and soil compaction is not the issue. He said the soil adjacent to his property is natural and is better than 98 percent compacted. He said it is still eroding because there is no support on one side of it. He said that without support, no amount of compaction is going to do any good. He said the applicant is doing the proper thing where the pool is, but it does not guarantee that his part of the lot will not continue to erode. He said this is not being addressed, and Mr. Wang has told him it will be addressed later. He is concerned that the erosion will continue onto his property. He cited a letter from the City Geologist dated September 2, 1999, stating that, "Without appropriate mitigation, a significant portion of the residential development located at the southern end of Saratoga Heights Court is at moderate to high risk to damage from landsliding. We recommend that the City notify the appropriate property owner of this concern." (Later in the meeting, Director Walgren addressed this letter.) Commissioner Roupe noting that once the repair has been made, asked Mr. Kwong whether he would be in a better position regarding his property, and Mr. Kwong responded that the issue had not been addressed. Commissioner Jackman referred to Mr. Kwong's statement regarding the 1995 land drop, and asked when the landslide is rebuilt and regraded whether the new property would bring the property back to the 10 feet it lost. Mr. Kwong responded that the subject had not been addressed. Director Walgren noted that the landslide repair is not only for the pool area, but for the substantial portion of the property which goes into Mr. Kwong's property and it raises the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 10 property approximately 10 feet back up to its condition before the landslide. He said he noted earlier in his comments that this would have to be coordinated with Mr. Kwong to do the improvements. He said this is shown on page 3 of Exhibit C. Chairwoman Bernald asked Director Walgren to provide Mr. Kwong with a copy of Exhibit C. Mr. Kwong addressed the privacy issue and said that the vertical structure of the building is not compatible with the surrounding homes. Director Walgren responded to a question from Commissioner Barry regarding the Geologist report dated September 2, 1999. Director Walgren explained that when an application for the hillsides comes in, staff uses a city -wide base map developed by the City's consulting firm of geologists to determine whether the area is subject to unstable soil. Staff refers the plans to the consulting firm who reviews the proposal based on their database of information, and submit a response memo indicating that the property has been cleared or further investigations are necessary. He said that in this case further investigations were necessary and have been ongoing for the past two years, an unusually long period. He noted that every time a geotechnical or geological report is prepared, it is resubmitted to the City Geologist for review and response to the City. Mr. Kwong was probably referring to the latest response memo which was available prior to the October 13 public hearing. At that time the geologist had granted the project a preliminary geotechnical clearance. He reiterated that the project was delayed to have further investigations done, specifically because of the landslide. If it had not been for the landslide on the property, the October 13 meeting would have been the point where the geologic work for this process would have concluded. Commissioner Barry asked whether the Geologist had considered and addressed that if the repair work was done, there could be natural forces moving the ground. Director Walgren replied in the affirmative, noting that the process was designed to uncover such issues and that the City Geologist and consulting firm was like a checks and balance system. Mabel Sze, 14780 Masson Court, stated that she did not realize how tall and close to the street the house will be, and it does not blend in with the neighborhood. She said that her view is almost completely obstructed and asked that something be done so that it is not such an imposing structure. Commissioner Page asked Ms. Sze if her view which would be impacted was from the second story, and she replied that she could not see from the second story. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 11 In response to Commissioner Roupe's inquiry, Director Walgren referred to the staff report of October 13, and noted that the site map indicated a larger subdivision that was approved as a single subdivision comprised of cul -de -sacs that access off Pierce Road or Saratoga Heights Road, and almost all of them are five, six, or eight clusters of development within themselves. He said this particular cul -de -sac is the only private cul -de -sac which accesses four lots - three on the west side which have been developed, and this project would be the fourth. He said the large parcel which runs down the center is the dedicated open space. He said as is required on all hillside subdivisions, a site development plan is required at the Tentative Subdivision Map stage which indicates where the homes are going to be placed for the purposes of evaluating grading, tree removal, geology, etc. Commissioner Roupe asked Ms. Sze if she reviewed the plans before purchasing her home. Ms. Sze responded that a different owner existed at the time she purchased her home; that the land had a different house proposal; and because the building pad was larger, it was her understanding that the house would be more spread out. Ms. Sze responded to questions from Commissioners regarding the year she purchased her home and the square footage of the house. Mr. Wang indicated he had a lengthy discussion with Mr. Kwong a few weeks ago and a communication impasse exists in that Mr. Kwong maintains that the issue will be addressed later. He said the landslide issue is the foundation of the project and if the issue cannot be resolved in a satisfactory manner, the applicant will not put the house at risk on the lot. Mr. Wang said that Mr. Liu purchased the lot three years ago and the landslide happened five years ago. The longer the property sits there the more damage it will sustain to the neighbors. He said once the landslide is repaired, Mr. Kwong's property will benefit from the repair, and that is how the applicant intends to work with the neighbors. Mr. Wang said the intent is to excavate 30 -40 feet down in the landslide area to remove the dirt and put in appropriate materials to stabilize the soil. He said the concern is if the landslide goes beyond the Liu property, what would be the Commissions position in asking the neighbors to work with the applicant in sharing the costs for the repair. Director Walgren responded that this would not be a question for the Commission and would be an issue between the two property owners. Mr. Wang indicated he would work with Mr. Kwong as the issue will not go away and needs to be addressed. Mr. Wang responded to the issue of the design proximity to the neighbors, noting this is a very narrow lot and every effort has been made to be friendly to the surrounding buildings PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8,1999 Page 12 and not intimidating to the neighbors. Chairwoman Bernald asked whether Mr. Wang's geological engineer had suggested putting in piers or steel supports either in the house or to backup the swimming pool or under the driveway. Mr. Wang responded that two methods to repair the landslide were considered - one is not to excavate all the way to 40 feet, and install piers to stabilize the soil, and ignore slide planes. He said he chose to excavate the entire slide to give better stability rather than just installing something to hold it. Chairwoman Bernald asked what kind of support would go in the back wall of the swimming pool. Mr. Wang responded that the area had not been designed yet; however, he said once the soil is compacted and has been certified, it should support any kind of structure put on it. However, if necessary, materials would be installed to support the swimming pool. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 9:14 P.M.). PASSED 7 -0. Chairwoman Bernald asked Commissioner Barry if she would like to read into the record the report regarding copper roofing. Commissioner Barry responded that if the Commission as a whole agrees that they will not accept a copper roof tonight, she would be pleased to make the report available to Director Walgren for further study. Commissioner Bernald stated that as long as the Commission is not voting for a copper roof tonight, she would prefer that the information be provided to Director Walgren. Commissioner Roupe commented that the Commission has visited the site twice, and while he finds that the house is contemporary and unique in its design, he also sees the neighborhood does not have a prevailing style. He said the design is acceptable and as a condition of his support, he would want the copper roof issue be held in abeyance until further information is available, with the option of other materials being considered. Commissioner Kurasch commented on the architectural style and the compatibility due to the materials and style of the house. She said she agreed with the neighbors that the house is quite imposing. Her main objections are aesthetic. She stated that asphalt may be a more acceptable option for the roof instead of copper or an aluminum look. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8,1999 Page 13 Commissioner Page stated this is a lovely design with a contemporary look. He said he revisited the site today and saw an area filled with unique styles, noting that a lot of stone and wood is used. He noted that aside from its unique style, the design uses primarily dark wood and would keep it in the blending of the area. He expressed concern with the metal sculpture piece in the front which does not help to blend in. He would prefer to see an asphalt roof and do away with the copper roof altogether. He would support the project without a copper roof, not for what it would do to the soil and environment, but what it would do to the view. Commissioner Jackman noted this was a very well designed house; however, her concern is the neighborhood compatibility. She said it is such a different house and the site is on a knoll. She said she could not support the project because of the appearance of bulk. She would be interested in seeing the same style of house in a one -story design that goes down along Masson Court. She said that the project violates many of the recommendations of the Hillside Residential Design Handbook of having projects blend into the community such as the views. She said because of its prominence on this location, she cannot support the project. Commissioner Patrick stated she will support the project. She remarked that it is a wonderful design and cannot say she would want it to be compatible with what the neighbors say they want. Her view of the neighborhood is that they are homes which reflect the light, very visible homes that do not fit into the hillside, and do not fit into the environment. However, she feels this house does fit in. She would prefer the copper roof, but cannot support it because it is not environmentally safe. She commented on the landslide area and landslides that slide into the neighbors' homes. She said the only way to stop the slide is to build on the property and work with the geotechnical firm to get the necessary support to the hillside. She said that because of the site size, she did not see any other place on the property where anything else could be built as suggested by others. She said she would prefer to have another type of roofing, other than asphalt, submitted for review. She reiterated she would support the project without copper roofing. Commissioner Barry expressed concern with design handbook issues. She said the Commission has on every other occasion that she has been present, whether as a Commissioner or in the audience, taken to heart concerns of the neighbors, and the neighborhood appears to be unhappy with this design. She cited from the design handbook, policy 1, technique #5, the difference between relatively similar homes and one that is significantly different. She said this home is significantly different and stated this is a violation of the design handbook. She also cited from policy 2, technique #2, which specifically says to avoid large geometric shapes that appear as foreign objects in the setting, and said that the design is a foreign object in this setting. Additionally, she referred to the hillside plan book, she said she could not support the project as it is now. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8,1999 Page 14 Director Walgren responded to a question from Commissioner Jackman regarding parts of the house stepping down into the hillside. Chairwoman Bernald noted that when she first saw the plans for the house, she visited the hillside and realized that this was an eclectic neighborhood. She noted that the house is significantly different from the other homes; however, the design mimics the beautiful hillsides in which it would be placed. She stated that she repeatedly got an impression of the gently rolling hillsides that surround the home; strongly feels that the house fits into the setting; and is probably better designed to fit its location than any of the surrounding homes. By placing the home as a two -story structure, it provides more open space to the surrounding area. She said she understood the neighbors' concerns regarding their view; however, the homes were purchased with the idea that cluster homes would be built. The fact that the property has a landslide is of no fault to the owner and what the owner is proposing to repair would also benefit his neighbors. She said this is an exciting design well- situated in its location. She expressed concerns with the copper roof and leaching. She would like to have more information and alternate materials, other than asphalt, considered. COMMISSIONER ROUPE/ PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE DR -97 -061 AS PROPOSED WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE COPPER ROOF ISSUE BE DEFERRED TO FURTHER STUDY, BROUGHT BACK FOR STAFF REVIEW AND BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR FINAL APPROVAL. PASSED 4 -3 (COMMISSIONERS BARRY, JACKMAN, AND KURASCH OPPOSED). Chairwoman Bernald declared a recess at 9:40 p.m. Upon reconvening at 9:50 p.m., the same Commissioners and staff were present. 3. DR -99 -049 (397 -28 -047, Lot #5) - BLACKWELL PROPERTIES, 14088 Alta Vista Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 4,067 square foot two - story residence with a 792 square foot basement. Maximum height of the residence is proposed to be 26 feet. The site is located on a 15,200 square foot (net) vacant parcel in an R -1- 12,500 zoning district. Director Walgren reported that this is lot #5 of a five -lot subdivision approved last year. He said the design is very compatible with the other homes in the subdivision. He said staff recommends approval with conditions outlined in the resolution. At the request of Commissioner Roupe, Director Walgren explained there had been an issue which arose upon review of lots #1 and #2 regarding which zoning ordinances apply to the development of those lots. He said that a vesting tentative map is specifically designed to allow a builder to use the ordinances in effect when the map was approved if they provide certain details to the City. The details can be as minimal as a building PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8,1999 Page 15 footprint. He said that upon staff request, the applicants agreed to develop the actual plans, which were approved as a vesting tentative map. This process allows the applicants to use the setback ordinances that were in effect at that time. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 9:55 p.m. David Britt, 108 North Santa Cruz Avenue, Los Gatos, addressed the Commission stating that the staff report clearly stated the design intent. He referred to a concern expressed at the site visit yesterday regarding the overall height of the house. He submitted a proposed sketch redesigning the roof of lot #5 which takes the roof from a gable -type roof to a hip roof and considerably reduces the bulk of the roof. He said the house would remain at 26 feet high at a pyramid shape and down to a lower point as shown on the original plans. He noted the bulk of the roof would be considerably reduced in the new sketch. Commissioner Kurasch asked whether this redesign compromised any of the interior spacing. Mr. Britt responded in the negative, noting that the hip roof solution is an improvement over the original design. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 10:00 P.M.). PASSED 7 -0. Commissioner Jackman expressed she liked the design which takes away much of the bulk. Commissioner Kurasch stated she was pleased with how the house fit in. Commissioner Roupe liked the design improvements and will be supporting the project. Commissioner Barry said she would not disapprove because of its size; however, she asked about the second chimney. She said on the previous lot design, the Commissions intent was to set a precedent to send a message to design with only one chimney. Commissioner Page said one of the issues he had was with the second chimney; however, on this house it adds to the balance. He inquired about the view from lot #3, and what the roof line near the garage doors looked like, which he considered to be a minor issue. He liked the design and will be voting for the project. Commissioner Patrick stated she liked the design, noting that she had no problem with the roof lines. She will be supporting the project. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8,1999 Page 16 Commissioner Barry said that at the site visit it was brought to her attention that the house was designed around the neighbors' input and that the living and dining rooms were moved. She commended the designers for their attention to the neighbors' input. She said discussions were held regarding the pine tree which provides a screening; however, should the tree not live very long, she would prefer redwoods as future screening. Chairwoman Bernald commented this is a lovely house and commended the quick responsiveness. COMMISSIONERS PAGE / ROUPE MOVED TO APPROVE DR -99 -049 WITH A HIP ROOF. PASSED 7 -0. 4. UP -99 -020 (393 -21 -006) - GTE MOBILNET, Glen Brae Avenue and Southern Pacific Railroad Tracks; Request for Use Permit approval to install six eight -foot- tall panels (with two antennas each) mounted on top of an existing 135 foot tall utility tower. An associated 220 square foot equipment structure located at the base of the tower is also proposed. The project is located in an Agricultural zoning district. Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting this is a request for a conditional use permit consideration required for all telecommunication antennas in Saratoga regardless of where they are located. The proposal is to install six eight -foot tall panels on top of an existing PG &E 135 foot tower located within the utility right of way along the Southern Pacific Railroad right of way. He said it was determined several years ago that in Saratoga all telecommunication antenna proposals, whether single monopole or an antenna attached to an existing utility pole, would be subject to a conditional use permit to provide the Commission with discretionary review. He said the two main criteria the Commission and staff focuses on are the aesthetic impacts and public safety of the facilities relative to their radio frequency emissions. He noted that the antennas are subject to a California Environmental Quality Act analysis, and a radio frequency emissions study has been provided for Commission review. He reported that the radio frequency engineer's conclusions on the emissions are that they are well below the standards developed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). He stated that being able to use existing utility poles allows the antennas to be camouflaged into the existing utility. He said that all the necessary findings can be made to support an environmental negative declaration and granting of a conditional use permit. Director Walgren confirmed Commissioner Roupe's remark that the applicant had requested painting the panels white, however, the condition in the resolution states they will be painted a flat gray to closer match the steel structure on which they will be placed. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 10:10 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 17 Therese Schmidt of the Matthews Land Company, 1033 Snowcarver, Salinas, stated she was present as the agent for GTE Mobilnet. Ms. Schmidt noted that the project would increase the overall height of the existing tower; however, given the nature of the wireless industry, height is crucial to get a signal across to the greatest distance possible. She said a radio engineer accompanied her to address questions regarding radio frequency. She addressed each of the conditions, noting that the applicant was more than willing to comply with them. Commissioner Barry referred to the effective radiated power and asked how many channels was the calculation of 528 watts based on. Ms. Schmidt noted she would respond to the question after clarifying that due to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the federal government has indicated that local jurisdictions are not allowed to vote against a project based on radio frequency range emissions if federal standards are met. Ms. Schmidt deferred to the radio engineer for response to Commissioner Barry. Russ Bentson, 3432 Lodge Drive, Belmont, introduced himself as the radio engineer for GTE Wireless in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. He said that the power referred to by Commissioner Barry is one of three phases for this site, and it generally covers 60 radio channels. Commissioner Barry asked what the total capacity of the antennas was, and Mr. Bentson responded that the antenna itself did not determine the capacity of the cell cite. He said it is determined by the equipment used, and GTE uses equipment made by Lucent Technologies. The number of channels which can be handled by one cell site with all antennas combined may exceed 180 channels; however, the size of the community does not support that number. Commissioner Barry asked how many channels the FCC had approved. Mr. Bentson replied that the FCC application allows them to operate on all channels assigned to the cellular radio system to which GTE has the license for the San Francisco Bay Area which totals in excess of 500 channels. Commissioner Kurasch asked whether limiting the placement of the antenna to the height of the tower would compromise the transmission significantly. Mr. Bentson responded that currently in Saratoga, GTE has only one small site in The Village, and they receive many complaints from people driving away from the area due to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8,1999 Page 18 fading coverage. He said GTE is looking to this site to put in a higher structure which would provide a wider range of coverage. In response to a question from Commissioner Kurasch, Mr. Bentson said that with PG &E, one cannot adjust the height to one's desires because of the high tension wires. He said the antennas must be installed above PG &E's property or significantly below them. He said putting them significantly below would drastically reduce GTE coverage. Responding to a question from Commissioner Jackman, Mr. Bentson said that GTE's next closest site to the proposed site is located (easterly direction) at the shopping center on Saratoga Avenue and Lawrence Expressway; (northerly direction) where Highway 85 crosses Sunnyvale- Saratoga Road; and (southerly direction) downtown Los Gatos and near a water tank system on top of a hill off Quito Road. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ ROUPE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 10:24 P.M.). PASSED 7 -0. Commissioner Page asked whether the City had any requirements for certain lights or blinking lights at top of the tower. Director Walgren responded that requirements did exist and he was not familiar with them as they were not local requirements. He said when structures exceed a certain height they require lights placed on them. Commissioner Page asked whether the towers were anywhere near the height requiring lights, and Director Walgren responded he could check into the issue and report back. Upon further discussion, it was decided to re -open the public hearing. COMMISSIONERS ROUPE/ PATRICK MOVED TO RE -OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:25 P.M. PASSED 7 -0. Responding to Commissioner Page's inquiry, Mr. Bentson said that on the particular structure, a red blinking light was not necessary. Mr. Bentson said that once the structure gets to the 150 -foot level special permission has to be obtained from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA.) If it is located near an airport, there is a slope ratio between the distance to the airport and the height of the tower; however, in this case, the project would stay at least ten feet under the minimum where permission would have to be obtained from the FAA. COMMISSIONERS ROUPE/ BARRY MOVED TO RE -CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 10:26 P.M.). PASSED 7 -0. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8,1999 Page 19 Commissioner Page commented this would be an appropriate place for a cellular antenna, and he will support the application. Commissioner Kurasch wondered about the screening and watering of native plants. She could not envision how a watering system could be put in the middle of asphalt from any source and saw that as a problematic issue. She asked for ideas from the applicant, and did not see a solution to the issue, however, it was acceptable to her. Chairwoman Bernald asked what had been done in the past with a similar situation, and Director Walgren responded that it had been a difficult situation, and the best solution was to keep the landscaping drought - tolerant and as simple as possible. He said the solution could be to physically bring water to the property until the plants are established. He has said shrubs have been most successful. Commissioner Roupe expressed that the site was a proper location, and commended the applicant for choosing the particular site, trying to minimize the number of the towers in the community, and using existing infrastructure. He said he Would support the project. Commissioner Barry concurred with Commissioner Roupe. She said to the extent that she understood the technical issues, she said it is best to have the antenna at the top of this tower. She suggested changes to the wording of the resolution to reflect in the first paragraph that the use permit would cover 60 channels. She said that with 60 channels it would be known what the effective radiated power is. She noted also that without coming back to the Commission, the applicant has FCC approval for many more channels. She further added that under item #4 of Section 1, she would like to add a request for yearly test data, which she described as an issue of reliability and to demonstrate that no additional power is being put into the environment. Under item #9 of Section 1, she requested that the applicant submit a yearly insurance certificate with the City of Saratoga as an additional insured. Chairwoman Bernald commented that procedurally she had a concern with asking to limit the application with something that has not been discussed with the applicant. She said either vote for or against this or reopen the public hearing to allow the applicant another opportunity to discuss this further. She recalled that the City Council direction was that the Commission should not be changing things after the public hearing has been closed and the applicants have no further opportunity to discuss with Commissioners. Director Walgren agreed with Chairwoman Bernald, noting that if the conditional use permits are to contain a numerical channel limit, that should be disclosed up- front. He said the applicants could anticipate the facility growing beyond the limit, and they would be given the opportunity to do the radio frequency evaluation based on a worst case scenario, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 20 regardless of how it starts out. COMMISSIONERS ROUPE/ BARRY MOVED TO RE -OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:33 P.M. PASSED 7 -0. Mr. Bentson noted that the Hammett & Edison analysis was based on 60 channels per phase, or a total of 180 channels for three phases. By putting a limitation, the Commission would be stepping on FCC boundaries which may have some pre - emption in this area. Ms. Schmidt addressed the issue of the annual test data. She said that such a condition exists in other jurisdictions, and they are made known by policy ahead of time. She said it has never been required of any other carriers of the city (Saratoga), and she would question whether this would be a new requirement. Chairwoman Bernald recalled that the Commission cannot show preference to one carrier over another and Ms. Schmidt's comments would apply in this case. Director Walgren said that the annual test would not be as difficult if the radio frequency analysis was based on 180 channels, and the worst case analysis was already available, in which case the conditional use permit could be approved with a not -to- exceed 180 channels and receive annual reporting that it is within that level. He stated that if the maximum range the antenna can accommodate is known, and it is addressed in the environmental analysis, then that should be the threshold in the conditional use permit. Ms. Schmidt asked whether the annual report would be required from Hammett & Edison or would it be a statement from the company that it has not changed its antennas. Director Walgren responded that the city would only want an annual statement for the files that the channel capacity has not increased. Commissioner Jackman stated that the Commission has discussed having a study session regarding cellular phones and that much work needs to be done that would apply to all carriers within the city; therefore, no extra rules should be made at this time. She said she would like to see a monitoring plan go into effect for all carriers at some point, but one carrier cannot be held to a standard that does not apply to another carrier. She said she would not be inclined to require an annual insurance policy from GTE which has many assets. Responding to a question from Commissioner Kurasch, Director Walgren said if applicants are told up -front that they need to provide a maximum number of channels they could possibly anticipate and evaluate the emissions based on that, then that could be a numerical restriction in the conditional use permit. He suggested deferring this issue to the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 21 Commission's telecommunications study session. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/ ROUPE MOVED TO RE -CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 10:40 P.M.). PASSED 7 -0. Commissioners Barry, Jackman, and Patrick noted they would support the project. Chairwoman Bernald concurred. COMMISSIONERS PAGE / ROUPE MOVED TO APPROVE THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION. PASSED 7 -0. COMMISSIONERS PAGE / JACKMAN MOVED TO APPROVE UP -99 -020 AS PROPOSED. PASSED 7 -0. DIRECTOR ITEMS Director Walgren reported that Lynda Ramirez Jones, Minutes Clerk, had submitted her resignation some time ago, effective after tonight's meeting. Director Walgren reported on the Mountain Winery Draft Environmental Impact Report. He said that he and Mayor Bogosian had attended the County Planning Commission meeting, and Mayor Bogosian presented an overview of the Council's position. He said the Commission was very receptive to the City's request for a continuance for clarification of the conditional use permit and annexation. He noted that the City's final comments will be submitted by January 15. Director Walgren distributed the City Council meeting schedule for 2000, noting a joint meeting with the Planning Commission is scheduled for January 25, at which time the status of the Housing Element Update will be discussed. Director Walgren reported that the telecommunications study session would be on the January 12, 2000 Commission agenda. Director Walgren reported that the next Commission meeting should be in a new dais and new sound system. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8,1999 Page 22 COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Barry had planned to present two proposals tonight, but instead will present the information to Director Walgren to be agendized at a later date. COMMUNICATIONS Written City Council minutes for regular meeting of November 17 and adjourned regular meeting of November 23,1999 - Noted. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m., to Wednesday, January 12, 2000, at the Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Lynda Ramirez Jones Minutes Clerk MINUTES AMENDED AND APPROVED BY: 1<-'JtA 1rA'1&6 Jjrne Walgrq� )' S b e T ' e t a r y t o t htTlanning Commission CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Tuesday, November 23,1999 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairwoman Bernald. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Barry, Jackman, Kurasch, Page and Chairwoman Bernald Absent: Commissioners Patrick and Roupe Staff: Director Walgren, Assistant Planner Ratcliffe Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - November 10, 1999 ON A MOTION BY COMMISSIONERS JACKMAN /PAGE, THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE NOVEMBER 10, 1999 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Page 1, the first item underneath "Minutes" amended to indicate that the motion was made by Commissioners Patrick and Jackman to approve the October 27, 1999 Minutes (Commissioner Page abstained). Page 3, first paragraph, line S, amended to read: "...the proposed homes fronting Seagull Way should make be integrated into the one story home. Page 6, paragraph five amended to read: "Commissioner Jackman asked Mr. Ward to,. convert the 10.3 dwelling units per acre... " Page 7, paragraph six, line 2, amended to read: "...She said Measure G either does or does not - - - - - = - - -- - - - - - -o app y.... Page 10, paragraph eight amended to read: Responding to Commissioner Patrick's inquiry regarding her vision of fencing, Ms. Siadat described sag the open space where one can see the trees, ground, and the wildflowers." Page 10, last paragraph, line 2 amended to read: "...applicant could consider samet-hing fencing at the end of the property .. " Page 12, paragraph 13 amended to read: "Commissioner Patrick stated that she had no objection to the proposal, and noted that the red with a green roof is hardly unobtrusive... " Page 14, second paragraph, last sentence amended to read: "...He said that there are ways to take down the chimney and have a projection off the wall, but he would argue that it would not be as good - looking as a full chimney." PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23,1999 PAGE -2- Page 14, paragraph 13, last two sentences amended to read: "...He said just because some houses over the hill and through the dale can be seen does not make A- them part of the neighborhood and one lfts should consider the homes one gees has to go through in the egress and ingress to the site.. . " THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -0 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER KURASCH ABSTAINING AND COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND ROUPE ABSENT. Oral Communications No comments were offered. Report of Posting Agenda Planner Ratcliffe stated that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on November 19,1999. Technical Corrections to Packet No corrections were noted. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. SD -95 -007.2 (503 -19 -048, 070, &r 075) - KENNEDY, Rodeo Creek Hollow /Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road; Request for a one -year extension for Phase Two (7 lots) of an approved Tentative Subdivision Map for a 12 -lot subdivision located off Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Paramount Court. This is the second request for a one -year extension. Up to three one -year extensions are permitted to Tentative Subdivision Map approvals. The total site area is 9.42 acres and is located within both the R -1- 12,500 and the R -1- 40,000 zoning districts. 2. DR -96 -023.1 &r UP -96- 002.1(517 -08 -048) - SARATOGA MOTEL, 14626 Big Basin Way; Request for one -year extensions of approved Design Review and Use Permit applications to construct two single story and two, two -story motel "cabins" at the Saratoga Motel in the upper Saratoga Village area. Up to three one -year extensions are permitted to Design Review and Use Permit approvals. The three existing cottages along St. Charles Street would be removed and the front motel abutting Big Basin Way would remain. The subject property is approximately 11,252 sq. ft. in size and is located in an R -M -3,000 zoning district. COMMISSIONERS PAGE /JACKMAN MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 1 AND 2, APPROVING BY MINUTE ACTION THE ONE -YEAR EXTENSION REQUESTS. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND ROUPE ABSENT. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23,1999 PAGE - 3 - PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. DR -99 -032 (397 -28 -047: Lot #3) - BLACKWELL PROPERTIES, 14000 Alta Vista Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 4,197 square foot two -story residence with a 687 square foot basement. Maximum height of the residence is proposed to be 26 feet. The site is located on a 23,185 (net) square foot vacant parcel within an R -1- 12,500 zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 11/10/99 FOR A RE -VOTE AFTER MOTION FOR APPROVAL FAILED ON VOTE OF 3 -3). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- Planner Ratcliffe presented the staff report. She stated that at the time of subdivision approval, the five -lot subdivision, the architectural design as well as the footprints of the houses and the driveways were included as part of the tentative map approval process. Staff felt that the lot layout was the only one that would adequately insure proper protection of the trees involved and to get a better idea of what the final subdivision would look like. The architecture designs for all five homes and the footprints were reviewed and approved in concept at that tune. The individual applications, as a condition of subdivision approval, have to come back before the Planning Commission. She indicated that at the last Planning Commission meeting, this project was heard and resulted in a split vote. At that time, the applicant had the option of continuing the application to the next meeting to have another vote taken or they could have accepted a split vote as a denial and then appeal this vote to the City Council. She indicated that another split vote would result in a denial. Planner Ratcliffe informed the Commission that the applicant has chosen to try and address some of the Commission's concerns expressed at the last meeting such as the appearance of bulk and height, proposed at 26 feet, as well as the second chimney. Although it was a non - functioning chimney, concern was expressed that it may be converted at a later date. She identified the changes made to the original elevations from the revised elevations. The roof has been reduced to 24 -feet, the pitch has been altered and the second chimney located to the left of the original front elevation has been removed. The applicant has made these modifications in order to respond to the Commission's concerns. She noted that the floor area proposed is 4,197 square feet with a 687 square foot basement. At the time of subdivision approval and the tentative map was vested, the applicants had the option of requesting a floor area exception to allow the maximum floor area for heights in excess of 18 feet. The maximum floor area with this exception would be 4,362 square feet. At the reduced height of 24 feet, if the floor area was not to be granted by the Commission, would be 3,969 square feet. The difference of what the applicant is proposing at this time is 228 square feet. Staff felt that the findings can be made to support the design review and the floor area exception. The changes that the applicant has made serve to reduce the appearance of bulk and height and further serve to support these findings. Staff recommended approval of the application by the adoption of Resolution DR -99 -032. Commissioner Kurasch stated that since she was absent from the last meeting, she has read the minutes, reviewed the video and also visited the site with Director Walgren. Therefore, she was prepared to vote this evening. She said that she reviewed the minutes for the September 15,1999 City Council meeting where the City Council voted on the appeal to the Commission's action on the exception request for lots 1 and 2. The recommendation by staff, according to the report, was to deny the appeal and to uphold the Planning Commission's action and not to grant the floor area PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23,1999 PAGE -4- exception. She asked if it is usual for city staff to vote with the Commission as this was so indicated in the minutes for that meeting? Commissioner Jackman stated that it was her recollection that the Planning Commission turned down the square footage above what is current and that it did not allow the vested square footage. The City Council reversed the Planning Commission's action and stated that the applicant could have the vested square footage. Chairwoman Bernald indicated that page 4, bottom paragraph of the November 10, 1999 staff report states: "Earlier this year, the Planning Commission approved lots 1 and 2 of the subdivision with the condition that the floor areas be reduced to meet the current zoning requirements. The applicant appealed this condition to the City Council. The City Council stated that the vesting tentative map gave the applicant the right to request the floor area exception, found that findings could be made to support the exception and approved the appeal." This means that the City Council overturned the Planning Commission's action. Commissioner Kurasch referred to page 32 of the November 10, 1999 staff report distributed to the Planning Commission. The report indicates that staff's recommendation was to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's recommendation. Commissioner Page clarified that it is typical for staff to support the Planning Commission's decision. Planner Ratcliffe clarified that there are times when staff recommends approval of a project, only to be denied by the Planning Commission. When the Planning Commission denies an application and the action is appealed, staff argues the Planning Commission's action. Chairwoman Bernald said that it was staff's responsibility to represent what occurred at the Planning Commission meeting to the City Council. It may appear that staff may have reversed themselves but clarified that staff was representing the Planning Commission's vote. Commissioner Barry requested that staff explain what is meant by its statement that "staff approved the footprint in concept." Planner Ratcliffe said that the entire subdivision was designed with tree protection measures in mind. The footprints were designed as two stories in order to bring the house in and not spread out so that you would impact as few trees as possible. Commissioner Barry asked if the size of the footprint had been determined at this point. Planner Ratcliffe responded that at the time of submittal of the tentative subdivision map, there were specific floor areas that were submitted with the tentative subdivision map. The square footage and the design of the homes were not approved at that time. The designs were submitted as part of the tentative map which is unusual in this case. It was her belief that the Commission felt that it was a sensitive site and that they wanted as much information as possible up- front. She said PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23,1999 PAGE -5- that the footprints of the driveway were an integral part of the tree protection and the layout of the individual lots. Commissioner Barry stated that she understood the review was to identify the orientation and the location of the lots. Planner Ratcliffe clarified that the review, in part, included the size of the home. She said that when staff met with the applicant it was determined that two -story structures would be more appropriate because of the smaller footprint that would result. Commissioner Page said that at the time that the Commission reviewed these plans, it was his thinking, at the time, that the Planning Commission had all the information in front of it but that it was in no way, shape, or form voting on the floor area of the homes at that time. The Planning Commission understood what the applicant was going to propose but that the Commission was not approving the homes at that time. The design is returning to the Planning Commission for the third time. He noted that all three reviews resulted in requested modifications. He said that the City Council took a different view the last time the project was reviewed and said that because you can see the houses across the way and through the woods, they would consider them part of the neighborhood. The City Council viewed this as the only reason for allowing the floor area exception. He said that he stated at the last meeting that one needs to look at the size of the homes. He said that Commissioner Patrick eloquently stated that the size of the house is what the Commission is making an issue of. He said that the Planning Commission should consider the floor exception each time. Chairwoman Bernald indicated that her understanding was different from that of Commissioner Page which she would address following the presentation this evening. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. David Britt, 108 North Santa Cruz Avenue, Los Gatos, shared a rendering with the Planning Commission and explained the changes made to the design since the last meeting. He said that the Commission expressed concern with the overall height of the building. He was able to reduce the height by two feet, bringing the top of the ridge down from 26 feet to 24 feet. He also eliminated the very long ridge that occurred at the top of the house and has broken up the ridge at three locations by redesigning the roof element. He said that he was very pleased with the changes that were made to the residences and felt that it was still in keeping with the original craftsman style design and an improvement over the last design. He noted that he also took out the chimney that occurred at the living room fireplace to ensure that this never becomes a gas -fired box. Chairwoman Bernald informed Mr. Britt that the Planning Commission appreciated the changes made in response to its concerns. COMMISSIONERS PAGE /JACKMAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Commissioner Barry appreciated that modifications were made to the roof design as it was one of her issues. She said that the modification has definitely made a difference. She said that she is still PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23,1999 PAGE -6- struggling with this application. She stated that she understood the vesting issue as it has been explained. She said that she will set this issue aside and respond to the design based on design review criteria and characteristics. She read from Policy No. l of the Design Review Handbook that talks about the bulk of the structure and its relationship to its surroundings, not only other buildings. She said that the Planning Commission has had a lot of discussion about two -story homes and the neighborhood. She said that from her perspective, the wooded glen is its own neighborhood and environment. This was the neighborhood as she sees it. She felt that this is part of Saratoga's heritage as Saratoga does not have glens similar to this and felt that this property was a real gem. The issue of bulk relates to the trees in the glen. The issue for her would be what size and bulk would fit in with the natural settings, noting that these are words that are contained in Policy No. 1. Also, what size and bulk would not overwhelm the natural setting. She was looking for a size and shape of a house that would recede into the trees and not overwhelm the trees. She said that she understood the reason that the two -story homes were designed and stated that she could support this. However, if they are too big, they would overwhelm the trees. She felt that the trees would attract individuals to reside in the subdivision. Commissioner Jackman also appreciated the effort made by the applicant to contact her and go over the roof design. She sympathized with Commissioner Barry's comments. However, she felt that the City has stated that a property owner can build a certain square footage. This is what the builder has gone ahead and planned. She did not feel that the city, after it has said this, can state that it wants a smaller house. She felt that the Blackwell Builders have done everything in their power to design an acceptable home. If the city did not want this big a house in this area, she felt that the city should have stated so when it was first subdivided into lots. She said that at this point, she was very willing to vote for the house. She felt that Blackwell Builders have worked very hard to have the design address the Planning Commission's concerns. Commissioner Page felt that the changes were good ones. Lowering the roof really helps to minimize the "extra bigness" of the house. He felt that now, coming down the road as you look at the house, you will not only see the roof but that you will see a nice house hidden behind the trees. He stated that it was his recollection when the Planning Commission first approved the project, that the Commission had discussion about the square footage of the home. The Planning Commission specifically stated that it was not in any way, shape or form vesting the right to the design. He said that the Planning Commission can approve a floor area exception based upon certain criteria but that it does not have to be granted. He stated that he would support the project and support the floor area exception to the amount that it has been minimized. Commissioner Kurasch said that she supported Commissioner Page's comments expressed at the previous hearing and that she supports his comments, in part, this time. She felt that it was important to make the distinction of what is allowed and what is not allowed in an application. She said that no one has said that an individual has a specific right to a project before it is approved by the Planning Commission or City Council. It simply means that a property owner has a right to apply for a floor area exception. Whether the floor area exception is granted or not is a discretionary decision and that it is why the Planning Commission was here and to apply the California Land Use Law. However, she felt that in order to be fair, a check and balance occurs. Looking at the count of one and two story homes, she sees them as almost being evenly split. She felt that all of the two story homes were a little heavy handed in defining this neighborhood. She did not believe that the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23,1999 PAGE - 7 - neighborhood was defined and felt that the Commission would be defining the neighborhood. She concurred with the comments as expressed by Commissioner Barry because the Planning Commission has design review findings that need to be made in order to grant an exception, floor area, or design review. One finding that occurs to her is compatibility with the environment. The environment of the neighborhood is the wonderful glen as it does define the area. She noted that it states clearly in the City's codes and the handbooks that there needs to be compatibility with what is built and the natural environment. She said that she was torn because she felt that the design has turned out wonderful and that she would like to support a quality project like this one. However, she could not support it at this time as she would have to look at the results that the city wants. She felt that a mix of one and two story homes would be very appropriate and would help the view sheds, the community views of the trees and would help it to be integrated as a whole, retaining the resale value of all of the homes. She stated her appreciation of the applicants' work. Chairwoman Bernald stated that she agreed with some of the comments expressed by her fellow Carmnissioners. She said that she has a different interpretation of what happened during the meeting with the vesting issue. She said that at the original subdivision application review, the Planning Commission reviewed the footprints and that it saw architectural drawings because they were included in the plans with the idea that the Planning Commission would see two story homes in the subdivision. It was felt that the two story homes would fit the best to minimize the impact to ordinance protected trees and provide a riparian easements, specifically to this lot. She agreed that design review was not included. However, she felt that the Commission gave some indication to the applicant that he could move forward. She felt that in fairness, the subdivision was approved with these plans in mind. She also felt that a 4,197 square foot home was a reasonably sized house in Saratoga these days and that she did not believe that it was overwhelming. She felt that the design was well articulated and fits well on the site. She commended the applicant /designer for lowering the roofline as it helps reduce the bulk. At the time of subdivision approval, the home conformed to a city ordinance that has been reviewed and tweaked over many years. Much thought was given to what works and does not work in Saratoga in situations similar to this. The ordinance may have been changed but she felt that the design precedes the amendments to the ordinance. She said that this is a two -story subdivision and that with the two existing homes on Alta Vista and the two that the City Council have approved, it will create its own neighborhood. She agreed that the trees do create the neighborhood and that is the joy of being there because of the lovely setting. She felt that the wood siding and the stone siding blends well with the natural setting. She noted that the home is under the floor area coverage allowed at the time of subdivision approval. The two previous home applications were approved by the City Council with the floor area exceptions. Therefore, she felt that it was time to move forward. She stated that she would be voting in support of the project. Commissioner Barry requested staff clarification regarding the 24 -foot height limit. Planner Ratcliffe explained that under the current zoning code, it requires that a structure over 1S feet in height have a reduction of 1.5 % for every foot above 1S feet. She said that the last proposal was at 26 feet. It had a 12% reduction of the allowable floor area. By lowering the height, there is only a 9% reduction in the allowable floor area. Therefore, the percentage changed from the last staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23,1999 PAGE -8- Commissioner Jackman said that after the Planning Commission takes a vote on the Blackwell property, she would like to have a general discussion on size that is not related to the Blackwell property in particular. She did not want to mix general discussion with a specific discussion. COMMISSIONERS JACKMAN /PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR -99 -032. THE MOTION CARRIED 3 -2 WITH COMMISSIONERS BARRY AND KURASCH VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND ROUPE ABSENT. Commissioner Page asked if the Commission should request that Commissioner Jackman's request for general discussion relating to size be agendized? Chairwoman Bernald agreed that this item should be agendized for a future meeting or scheduled for discussion at a study session or at a Planning Commission retreat. Commissioner Jackman said that Director Walgren provided her with a floor area table per net lot size. She said that she felt bad that things are coming before the Planning Commission all drawn at a great expanse by the contractor with the Planning Commission stating that the lot does not really fit with a certain amount of square feet. She recommended that the Planning Commission review and discuss the floor area before the issue gets far along. The Planning Commission may review a lot and notice that it has a lot of trees and states that a property owner cannot build a house of a certain size. She said that she would like this concern raised prior to the plans being drawn so that the applicants hear from the Planning Commission that the home is too large. She would like this concern addressed early in the planning stage and that it comes to the Planning Commission early on. Director Walgren stated that the topic is so comprehensive and that it has been looked at very carefully every couple of years. The issue of allowable building size and process comes up and the city will convene a task force consisting of Council Members and Planning Commissioners to look at the issue. This has been done several times over the recent years. Rather than to try to take this as an agendized item or adjourned meeting item, this may be a topic for the Planning Commission that can be scheduled as a retreat topic early next year. Commissioner Jackman recommended that this issue be discussed by the Commission as a whole. Commissioner Barry supported this issue being discussed at the Planning Commission retreat as she is struggling with the desire of not encouraging larger and larger homes. She said that the Planning Commission is starting to see 7,000 square foot homes coming before it. She asked if the Planning Commission can look at the allowable square footage and did not know if this issue requires a zone change. Director Walgren stated that the maximum square footage that a house can be built is based on the net site area adjusted for slope, creeks, roads, rights of way, and landslides. He said that in the mid to late 1980s, the City of Saratoga was seeing 10,000 to 12,000 square foot homes being built. These homes were built on lots where the floor area table kept extrapolating upwards so that you can have these types of homes. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23,1999 PAGE -9- Commissioner Kurasch agreed with Commissioner Barry that a perception carries a lot of weight. The perception of a builder would be that they would want to protect their property rights. On the other hand, adjacent residents are stating that the proposed design is too big and questioned why the property owner is being allowed to overwhelm the neighborhood. She said that the perception depends on what side of the fence you are on. Adding the word "maximum" helps her to understand the issue. When individuals come in with an application for 6,120 square feet and the allowable maximum is 6,125, they acknowledge that they are proposing a design that is under the maximum allowed, therefore, the design should be approved. She asked if the words "maximum allowable" could be included in the staff report as a basis for the applicant to understand that a certain square footage is the maximum as defined in the code. She felt that this would be a general improvement although it may not be substantive. Commissioner Jackman stated that young families seem to feel that a 4,000 square foot home is not an awfully large home. She said that she was having trouble with how much Americans consume and that she was trying not to let this enter into her judgment. She said that she could not imagine what two people could do with a 7,000 square foot home. However, she could not make this value judgment nor was it the job of the Planning Commission to do so. Commissioner Kurasch stated that the community makes the value judgment every time something is built. She felt that individuals react to the scale of the homes in neighborhoods. She felt that comments of concerns are expressed about neighborhood compatibility as a big issue. Planner Walgren stated that the table can be adjusted and that it is continuously adjusted. Commissioner Page noted that large homes keep getting built and individuals want to move into them. He felt that the community does want large homes. Chairwoman Bernald felt that good, valid remarks have been expressed this evening and felt that the Commission needs to move forward with its discussion. However, she felt that the issue needs to be agendized for a future meeting or a retreat. She said that the Planning Commission has to work with the ordinances that are in place. Director Walgren recommended that discussion of this issue start at the scheduled retreat and then from there, take the issue to public meetings. BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSION CONCURRED WITH DIRECTOR WALGREN'S RECOMMENDATION. DIRECTOR ITEMS Director Walgren informed the Planning Commission that it should not feel obligated this evening to review the entire document draft EIR and be prepared to respond to it. He said that he is trying to prepare a draft response this week or early next week for the City Council's review at their December 1, 1999 scheduled public meeting. He indicated that he had this item scheduled before the Parks and Recreation Commission, Planning Commission, and Public Safety Commission to keep PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23,1999 PAGE -10 - the three Commissions that would be most directly involved in the loop and direct him on specific areas of concern that they would like to see addressed in his evaluation of the document. He said that the public review deadline for submitting comments to the County Planning Commission is December 15,1999. The County Planning Commission will be holding a public meeting open to any member from the community or the Commissioners to attend at the County Planning Commission Chambers on Thursday, December 2,1999. He said that he and the Mayor would be attending the meeting. He said that staff is trying to get the City's and the Mayor's formal response prepared by Wednesday evening, December 1 so that staff can have these comments read into the record at the December 2 meeting. If the comments are not completed by that time, the City has until December 15 to generate responses. He said that the responses would be regarding the draft EIR that has been prepared to legalize the events that have been occurring at the Mountain Winery for many years which include the restaurant, business retreat activities, wedding reception activities and the concert series. If the EIR if determined to be adequate and is adopted by the County, the property owners would be able to move forward with a conditional use permit to legalize the facility and the uses. It was his understanding that the document does not approve any physical expansion. Expansion would occur at a later date and would be subject to later discretionary approvals. He said that staff wants to fully utilize this opportunity to review the project. He requested Planning Commission feedback on the draft EIR. In response to Chairwoman Bernald's question, Director Walgren stated that there may be a chance that the City of Saratoga could incorporate this area and have it under its control. If the property was included in the city's urban services boundary, being contiguous to Saratoga, the city's agreement with the County states that the City has the first opportunity to annex county properties within the city's urban services and within its spheres as the property redevelops or expands. Since the property is not currently under the city's urban services, the city does not have any control. The property owner would have to voluntarily come to the city to request annexation. At the request of Commissioner Barry, Director Walgren explained that sewer is one of the primary utilities that is not currently available to the Mountain Winery. This is one of the reasons that the property is not included in the City's urban services boundary. He said that this is something that staff would be looking at carefully. If the determination is that the septic system cannot be upgraded and sanitary sewer connection is required, this would set off a chain of events that would bring the property into the city's urban services and give the city more leverage to negotiate annexation. He indicated that the closest sewer line to the Mountain Winery site is located near Pierce Road. He noted that the new homes off Vintage Lane and Congress Hall Lane are served by sanitary sewer. Commissioner Jackman asked if the City would receive tax revenues from the Mountain Winery if the property was annexed into the City? She felt that the City is paying for all of the road upkeep on Pierce Road, Big Basin and Congress Springs without the City receiving any monetary benefit or reimbursement. She referred to page 3.2 -17, intersection studies and their grading and noted that the existing level of services is rated at D and C on several of the intersections that are affected by the current status. She said that Pierce Road/Saratoga Heights Drive, Pierce Road/Vintage Lane access roads are currently rated as level of service A, noting that they are minor intersections and that the big intersections are rated as C and D. She felt that the level of service would only get worse. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23,1999 PAGE -11- Commissioner Kurasch addressed her four areas of concern as follows: traffic, noise, potential growth and sewer /septic question. She did not follow the way that the study characterized the volume growth in percentages. The draft EIR is stating that there is no impact. She felt that more review and attention needs to be given to looking at the micro area and surface roads as individuals are already impacted, noting that the Mountain Winery owners /operators are talking about adding more patrons with a 750 -seat increase. She did not see that the analysis includes the increased seating capacity in the main amphitheater, the retreats and the addition of a 1,500 square foot kitchen area. This may result in additional trips being generated and more surface roads that would be impacted. She requested that these issues be addressed. She also requested that the already existing parking problem be addressed. She did not understand how 844 parking spaces would be sufficient by this increase. She felt that adding more services and individuals is considered an expansion. It is stated that the Winery already has adequate parking. However, she noted that individuals are parking in homeowners' driveways. She felt that these two issues were critical impacts. Director Walgren stated that it was his initial impression of the document that the consultant performed a thorough, but traditional traffic engineering analysis of levels of services using traffic projection modeling which is accepted for key intersections. However, the issue is how patrons are getting into and out of the site. He felt that the study is short on conducting field observations during attendances at the summer concert series during peak hours. A worse case scenario has been used for the study's traffic modeling (e.g., 2,500 seat venue sold out with a corporate activity occurring at the same time during p.m. peak periods). He did not believe that the consultant conducted field observations at Pierce Road at Highway 9 or Pierce Road and the project's entrance. Commissioner Barry stated that in terms of representing how the city or the Planning Commission feels about the draft EIR, she said that her point is that you cannot buy the characterization that this is just a conditional use permit for activities that already exist and are ongoing. It is being requested that there be an increase of 750 seats and a new building being proposed at 1,500 square feet. She said that common sense would indicate that you are talking about an increase in usage. She felt that the applicant is miss characterizing what they are asking for. She agreed with the comments of her fellow Commissioners that the use would result in additional traffic and more wear and tear of the roads. She said that 750 additional individuals would overload the septic system. Conunissioner Kurasch felt that expansion should be acknowledged because most of the analogies are based on a 750 -seat amphitheater change. She felt that a 43% increase in the existing seating would be more of a impact than "minor impact" on solid waste, wastewater, traffic and parking. She said that she would like the response of the blanket statements to be more specific. Director Walgren clarified that staff would be responding to the projected increases. He said that the discretionary approval only applies to the current facility but that there would be another discretionary approval necessary for the expansion. He noted that the facility is not operating legally at this time. Commissioner Jackman referred to chapter 2, page 2 -18, Consistency. She said that this chapter describes a winery's low density, recreational and structures being a small percentage of the site. She would call it a sporadic use but that she could not call 1,725 seats low density in any shape or form. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23,1999 PAGE -12 - She agreed that the winery is not used eight hours, five days a week but that it is a high density use. She expressed concern with grease going into the septic tank system with the addition of a kitchen because it may leech into nearby wells. She did not believe that the septic tank could support the addition. Commissioner Page also expressed concern regarding the septic tank, noting that Director Walgren has indicated that he would consider the Commission's concerns. What struck him as interesting is the number of additional car rides. The study talks about an average of 2.2 passengers per car but only talks about two- tenths of a second increase at the intersection of Cox and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. He said that he sat more than 50 seconds at this intersection on his way to the Planning Commission meeting this evening and that it was not during the rush traffic hour. It was curious to him how the numbers were derived. He agreed that field observations were warranted when concert series are held. Director Walgren agreed that the study has to model for future projections. He noted that the document has been in the works for many years and felt that site specific observations should have been. included from the past several summers. Commissioner Page felt that it was interesting to note the usage and how it has gone down from the number of concerts. He noted that the study indicates that in 1991 there were 110 performing art sessions and in 1999 there were only 68 performing art sessions. The number of weddings, banquet and corporate events have gone up. He noted that these events do not typically occur during the rush hour traffic. He said that most corporate events that he attends start at 9:00 or 9:30 a.m., therefore, he misses rush hour traffic. Even though the impact would not be great, it would increase traffic at off peak hours. The impact may not be recognized except by an individual who is home during the day or driving around. He felt that the broader perspective needs to be looked at as well. He felt that the study included interesting dichotomies. In response to Commissioner Barry's question, Director Walgren said that there has been discussion regarding a shuttle system getting people up to the winery instead of everyone driving their cars. He said that this is the opportunity to pursue a shuttle service. He said that the Chamber group and the Village Merchants group would be supportive of individuals taking their cars, parking the cars at the Village and spending some time in the Village on their way up to the Winery. He said that this alternative would be something that staff would be looking into and something that would be included in the traffic management plan. Issues to be addressed would include how do you keep individuals from using Pierce Road, a very narrow, winding collector residential road, and a traffic management plan that can be developed that would use shuttling from West Valley College or other areas. Commissioner Jackman felt that the merchants could come up with a gimmick such as a free shuttle for patrons who eat at their restaurants. This would increase their business and decrease the number of cars going up Pierce and Congress Springs. Director Walgren noted that there is not enough parking in the Village. Therefore, parking would need to occur in areas like West Valley College. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23,1999 PAGE -13- Commissioner Kurasch requested that the study also address or answer the concern that the design review would occur at a later date. Therefore, it is not known how much expansion is possible. It troubles her that it is not known what the cap would be on commercial activities, noting that this is a "hot button" issue in the community. She felt that it was important for the study to accurately reflect the potential impacts. Director Walgren said that the city could state that its position is that an increase of 750 seats is absolutely not acceptable. This message can be conveyed at this time as part of this document before the property owner submits plans for an amphitheater and/or other uses. Commissioner Kurasch asked how this issue has been posted or noticed? Has the city received community input or solicited community input? Director Walgren said that meetings have been held by the three commissions mentioned. He said that there is a community mailing list of community groups consisting of approximately 120 groups that were mailed notices. He said that the City Council meeting will be treated as a public hearing. A public announcement was posted in the Saratoga News. He indicated that the City Attorney has been provided with a copy of the study and has been requested to comment on the document. The City Attorney is aware of the turnaround time to respond to the document. He said that the City Council will decide on December 1 who will be joining him at the County's December 2 meeting. He said that everyone has been invited to attend the meeting. However, procedurally, the Commission should be represented by the Chairperson or the appointed representative at the Council meeting. On the other hand, the County meeting is open to any member of the public who wants to comment on the document. He said that other comments can be forwarded to the Chairperson. Memorandum from City Attorney Director Walgren informed the Planning Commission that a City Attorney memorandum was distributed some time ago that talks about the development of the city's web site. It addressed how to deal with e -mail correspondence and its ramification relative to the Brown Act. He said that Commissioner Barry raised the question relative to correspondence sent to him by a Commissioner and then distributed to other Commissioners in advance of a hearing. There was a question as to whether this was a Brown Act violation. The City Attorney was also asked this question. The City Attorney's office referred to the e -mail policy as a good guideline to use for all correspondence. The policy states that if in advance of a hearing, a Commissioner forwards information to him to be distributed to the rest of the Planning Commission it is acceptable in itself. A problem arises if a quorum of Commissioners begin discussing the correspondence in a manner that might lead to the development of a pre- conceived position on a topic. If there is information that is directed to him that he and the Planning Commissioner feel may be useful for other commissioners to have, the information can be made available. However, it needs to be kept in mind that the Commission should not be debating this correspondence. He clarified that this policy would only apply to correspondence that is substantive in nature or decision oriented. Chairwoman Bernald asked why it is stated that you should only talk to one council member as it takes three council members to be a majority. She asked if this number applies to the Planning PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23,1999 PAGE -14 - Commission as it takes four votes to constitute a majority. She requested that the City Attorney be consulted about this question. Director Walgren agreed with the City Attorney's position. Should the Planning Commission receive correspondence, he did not recommend that Commissioners contact other commissioners regarding the correspondence because the Commissioner does not know if the Commissioner will be contacting another Commissioner. As soon as four planning commissioners link together in a connected conversation, this would result in a Brown Act concern. Commissioner Barry said that she understood the issue of individuals talking to each other and reaching a consensus or influencing each other ahead of time. She felt that it was helpful to put ideas down on paper as the Commission reads through the material presented to it as a way of clarifying them or better communicating with them. When the Commission comes together, it is hoped that the Commission will listen to the issues raised by other commissioners and be prepared to debate the issues. She felt that the written communication portion, with the qualification that the Commission does not meet and confer ahead of the meeting, should be supported. She could not understand why written communication could not be made available to Commissioners ahead of a scheduled meeting as this correspondence would become part of the public record. Director Walgren said that submittal of written information is acceptable in advance of a hearing. However, if written communication is to be made available to other commissioners, it needs to be made sure that it is not going to the next level. Chairwoman Bernald said that the Commission would only make its determination after receipt of the report from the applicant and the members of the community who come before the Planning Commmission. She felt that it was essential that the Planning Commission come to meetings with an open mind and that the discussion that occurs before a meeting, evening if only with one other individual, may create an unfair setting for the responsiveness to the information that the Commission will receive at a public hearing. Commissioner Page felt that it was wrong to receive a letter that tries to influence his decision before he hears all of the facts. Correspondence from one Commissioner to another in advance of a public hearing is regulated by the Brown Act as the communication is an influence. If he gets inundated with several e- mails, he may form an opinion before he attends the meeting, resulting in a violation of the Brown Act. He said that the Commission has a set agenda and a described method of conducting its meetings that is formal. He felt that the Commission has a responsibility to follow the procedures. If there are side conversations occurring, the Commission was taking away from the public and what the City Council appointed it to do. He felt that the Commission's discussion should take place at the meetings as the Commissioners are public appointed officials. It is the Commission's job to discuss issues in front of the community and not in back rooms. Commissioner Barry said that the Commission is also deliberating on written material that it will look at before public discussion. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23,1999 PAGE -15 - Commissioner Kurasch indicated that she forwarded information to the Commission on deer protection and alternatives which she felt was appropriate information that would aid in the discussion. Chairman Bernald clarified that information can be distributed in advance of the meeting but that it would be inappropriate to discuss the information in advance of the meeting. She felt that the Commission needs to come to public hearings with an open mind with the idea that there is still an appropriate forum for additional information to come to the commission at this point and not forming small discussion groups. Commissioner Barry said that she raised the issue of forwarding written communication to the Commission that would be made public. She gave an example of a public hearing proposal where the Commission had a seven -page letter on the dais. She did not believe that the Commission had the opportunity to read a portion or the entire seven page document at the meeting. She asked how the Commission can consider fully this kind of communication when the Planning Commission does not even see it until it arrives at the meeting. The issue of being able to consider written communication ahead of time is a serious one if the Commission is to be giving serious consideration to what someone has taken the time to write. She requested that this be added to the discussion. Chairwoman Bernald agreed that Commissioner Barry's request was an appropriate one. It is hoped that any citizen who feels strongly enough about an issue to write an extensive document would submit it early enough to be included in the Planning Commission packet. She agreed that the Planning Commission should have the opportunity to read correspondence because it is part of the hearing process. She felt that the discussion was specific to the concerns of the Brown Act and the understanding that the Commission has to conduct itself appropriately and not talk out of school. Commissioner Jackman felt that if one of the Commissioners has some good background information similar to the information that Commissioner Kurasch had on the deer, the information should go through Director Walgren to be distributed to the Planning Commission. This procedure would eliminate concern with prior discussion of submitted material. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Kurasch thanked everyone for their condolences. She appreciated that the Commission accommodated her schedule. She requested that staff identify the topics that are to be scheduled the next meeting. Director Walgren said that staff is proposing a 6:00 p.m. to 7:00/7:15 p.m. meeting to discuss the telecommunication memorandum prepared by the City Attorney. Also, the fencing zoning ordinance amendments are scheduled for this agenda under the regularly scheduled public hearing. If it is decided that the Commission needs an adjourned study session meeting, the fencing zoning ordinance amendments can be postponed as there is no pressing deadline to act on this item. Commissioner Page indicated that he may be out of town on December 8 but that he would try to see what he can do to change his schedule in order to be in attendance at the meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23,1999 PAGE -16 - Chairwoman Bernald stated that she received some communication this evening from Dr. Arthur Anderson regarding the Tennis Club. She said that there appears to be a rather extensive neighborhood questionnaire that should go through staff before it comes to her so that it can be summarized, reproduced and distributed to the Planning Commission. She indicated that there was a tremendous amount of input on the questionnaire and noted that it was very detailed. Director Walgren recommended that staff hold on to the communication until an application is submitted. It was his understanding that Dr. Anderson plans to submit a new application soon. Commissioner Jackman recommended that the meeting begin at 5:30 as 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. seems too short a time period to discuss issues. Director Walgren said that staff can schedule the study session to begin at 5:30 p.m. He indicated that the Commission needs to plan for its retreat for the month of January or February. If the topic gets continued to January, the Commission may wish to schedule this issue as a retreat topic. Commissioner Kurasch did not believe that the issue should be deferred to the retreat and that it should be considered at a public meeting. COMMUNICATIONS Written City Council Minutes for adjourned regular meeting of October 26 and regular meeting of November 3,1999 Notices for regular Planning Commission meeting of December 8, 1999 ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business, the Commission adjourned at 9:05 p.m. to Wednesday, December 8,1999, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk MINUTES AMENDED AND APPROVED BY: //�J ) 0. 1 tA,1 Ja es a gren Se ary to the anning Commission CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call Present: Commissioners Barry, Jackman, Page, Patrick, Roupe, and Chairwoman Bernald (Director Walgren introduced Dr. Cynthia Barry as a new Commissioner.) Absent: Commissioner Kurasch (who notified staff she would not be present tonight) Staff: Director Walgren On behalf of the Commission, Chairwoman Bernald expressed condolences to Commissioner Kurasch on the loss of her mother -in -law. Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - October 27,1999 COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/JACKMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27, 1999, AS WRITTEN. PASSED 3 -3 (COMMISSIONERS BARRY, PAGE, AND ROUPE ABSTAINED; COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). Oral Communications There was no one present who wished to speak on any subject not on the agenda. Report of Posting Agenda Director Walgren declared that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on November 5,1999. Technical Corrections to Packet Director Walgren referred to page 3 of the staff report for Public Hearing Item /#7, and corrected the parcel size shown as 23,185 square feet (net) to read (gross). He said the actual net parcel size is 18,731 square feet. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. DR -97 -061 (503 -72 -014) - LIU, 14805 Masson Court; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,461 square foot two -story residence on a vacant 2.75 acre lot. The property is within a Hillside Residential zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 11/23/99 AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT). Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1999 Page 2 of 19 2. AZO -99 -001 (Citywide) - CITY OF SARATOGA; The Planning Commission will consider changes to the City's zoning ordinance regarding hillside fencing regulations and administrative appeals. Under consideration will be: 1) amendments to the Hillside Residential zoning district fencing regulations, and 2) amendments to the administrative appeals process. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared by the City of Saratoga and are on file in the Community Development Department. (CONTINUED TO 11/23/99 AT THE RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF). COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. PASSED 6 -0 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. SD -99 -005, UP -99 -018 &r DR -99 -037 (386 -53 -001 &r -029) - AZULE CROSSING INC., 12312 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road; Request for Subdivision, Use Permit and Design Review approval to construct 25 new residential units of approximately 1,524 to 2,345 sq. ft. and remodel the existing commercial building located at the front of the property. The commercial building will be expanded from its current 11,931 sq. ft. to 14,233 sq. ft. The property is located in a Commercial Neighborhood zoning district. The residential component of the project would occupy 2.62 acres while the commercial component would occupy 1.28 acres. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. (CONTINUED FROM 10/27/99). Director Walgren reported that considering the complexity of the issues related to the project and considering that it was in the middle of the environmental review period, it was appropriate to schedule a pre - meeting for the Commission to give staff and the applicants an opportunity to discuss more substantive issues before tonight's' potential final meeting. He said the proposal is to demolish three office buildings, retain the retail building, and expand it by approximately 2,000 square feet. He referred to the maps mounted on the wall to describe the project. He said the discretionary approvals required by the Commission include subdivision approval to allow 25 residential lots to be created and one commercial lot; a conditional use permit approval to allow a mix use and multiple - family /commercial development within a commercial zoning district; and design review consideration for the architecture, size, and massing of the buildings. He reported that the item was presented at the October 27 meeting, at which time the report was presented and distributed, and Commissioners reviewed the environmental initial study in detail. He stated that the environmental initial study consisted of a traffic analysis and an economic analysis. He referred to the discussion held at the October 27 meeting, and reported that the Commission, in general, supported the mix of commercial/residential development, and generally was in concurrence that the initial environmental study was complete, and discussed project details. Regarding the proportional mix, he said this has been a significant issue since the first proposal was submitted in 1998 which was much more dense and did not meet minimum zoning ordinance standards. Director Walgren conveyed that the commercial zoning district allows for mixed -use developments and for multiple - family developments. He noted that Saratoga has very little land to provide such alternative housing as long as the project is appropriate, meets the City's development criteria, and meets the goals and policies of the City's General Plan and zoning ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 19 November 10, 1999 Director Walgren noted at its October 27 meeting, the Commission addressed project specifics such as recommending that the applicant incorporate more open space into the project, provide a more gradual transition of housing types from single - family to commercial; better integrate the development with the commercial component to the west (both pedestrian access and vehicular access); and it was noted that the proposed homes fronting Seagull Way should be integrated into the one -story homes on Seagull. Director Walgren commended the applicant for comprehensively addressing the issues, noting the modified exhibits propose a secondary vehicular access; a pedestrian connection linked to a private open space; and two private open spaces incorporated as a result of eliminating two home sites. He said the applicants have also redesigned the homes closest to Seagull Way. He noted the perimeter units are all small lot detached single - family units with 25 feet rear setbacks, and the interior has been revised to eliminate the row houses and incorporate duplexes, thereby addressing the more subtle transition recommended by the Commission. Director Walgren stated that staff recommends approval of the plan as presented with two conditions - one is that the utilities fronting the project would be required to be underground and the park in lieu fee of $10,000 per residential unit would still apply. Another condition would be that the applicant is required to pay 50 percent of the required traffic signal at Seagull Way and Saratoga - Sunnyvale. He said the signal was not necessary because of the development as it is already a warranted signal; however, the development would contribute additional traffic to the minor road accesses to the signal. Director Walgren noted that it has been brought up before, and again through correspondence tonight, that this project may be or should be subject to Measure G. He stated that the project is not subject to the technical requirements of Measure G which would prevent a residential property from being re- designated to a more intensive property without voter approval. He added that in terms of the spirit of Measure G, this is a commercial proposal of a commercial- designated property at the front and the residential component in the back which is a less intensive use in the commercial designation. Director Walgren read into the records two letters - one an e -mail note from Joan Green expressing concern that the private open space not be credited to the public's park in lieu fees and concerns about increased traffic as a result of the proposal. Other correspondence was from William and Hung -Chin Guthrie, 20422 Seagull Way, Saratoga, with a petition attached citing their concerns. Commissioner Barry stated for the record that since she was not present at the October 27th meeting, she has reviewed previous reports and tonight's reports carefully; has reviewed the minutes; and has spoken with other Commissioners. She conveyed that she has received a thorough orientation from Director Walgren at which time she asked many questions regarding this proposal. She said that although she was not at the October 27th meeting, she intends to vote on the proposal tonight if it should come for a vote, and she has prepared herself to do so. Commissioner Roupe indicated he was interested in the overall direction from the City regarding the relative balance between commercial property, multi - family use, and single - family occupancy, and what position or policy is in place to address these issues. Director Walgren responded that the City Council has given the Planning Commission and staff clear direction and consistently their concern has been to maximize the viability of land designated commercial in Saratoga. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 7:55 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 19 November 10, 1999 Mr. Scott Ward, 1068 E. Meadows Circle, Palo Alto, representing Classic Communities, recalled comments he made at the October 27 meeting, and reviewed in detail the modifications they made based on concerns expressed at that meeting. He noted that while they do not plan to contest the condition regarding the obligation to pay for 50 percent of the signal cost, it entails a disproportionate cost to them. Commissioner Page referred to lot #1, and asked what fencing and landscaping plans were proposed for the side abutting Seagull Way. Mr. Ward responded that they are considering a low wall or fence at the edge of the right -of -way along Seagull and extending to the enclosed side of the home. He said there was no plan to install a six -foot fence within the 20' setback area along Seagull. Commissioner Page referred to the commercial site and the stucco front design and said it appeared to be out of character with the rest of what is on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. Mr. Dennis Griffin, 12303 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, stated he represented the commercial side of the project, and responded that would consider using wood siding or another material. Commissioner Jackman asked whether the windows on the commercial building would be more visible than they currently exist, and Mr. Griffin responded that they would be and that the intent would be to remove a foot and one -half of the overhang. Commissioner Barry noted that a basement section of the building is included in the retail space and asked how the basement would be used. Mr. Griffin replied that the basement was built when the structure was built in 1939, and he has completely gutted it, cleaned it, and raised the ceiling. He said it was unknown what business would go in, but every effort is being made to keep it retail. Mr. Griffin, responding to Commissioner Barry, stated that the basement does have a stairway. Commissioner Jackman expressed that this is about the last underdeveloped commercial area in Saratoga, and it needs to be carefully considered. Ms. Kristin Davis, 12378 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, representing her family, expressed her and her family's various interests in this property. Her family is the current owner of Azule Crossing, and they intend to remain the owners of the commercial building. She noted her family has lived in this area for over 75 years and that her grandfather purchased the site in 1937. She said many family members live in the surrounding homes and are impacted like other residents by this property. She said whether or not the property is zoned commercial or residential, the City must do its best to represent and make decisions on the interests of all concerned. She conveyed that the impact on the current residents would be less if the property is zoned residential and Classic Communities is allowed to continue with the project than if it remains commercially zoned. She expressed that there is a need for smaller homes with less maintenance within the City of Saratoga, especially for the elderly, some of which are in her own family. Mr. William Guthrie, 20422 Seagull Way, stated he submitted a lengthy set of comments, took his concerns to the neighborhood, and many of the neighbors agreed and signed a petition which was also submitted. He apologized for section 7 of the comments submitted, saying he tried to carefully present Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 19 November 10, 1999 this section because it could be misinterpreted. He said it was not intended to sound harsh or challenging. He noted that reducing to 25 units does not alleviate his concerns. He referred to a conditional use article that says this type of application infers no rights to the applicant. He said that because this project creates problems for the community such as inadequate parking and a load on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road commute traffic, the burden needs to fall back on the owners and developer to explain why they should be allowed to create those problems. He said the number of parking spaces allocated is inadequate and will cause a problem in the retail section and on Seagull Way. He noted that if the minimal number of parking spaces is not enough to resolve the problem, then he would question why such a position is acceptable. The parking problem could be easily solved in a number of ways by providing each unit with a long enough driveway so the guests can use the driveway if required; increase the number of communal parking spaces; or put in a 36' wide road instead of a 20' wide drive so parking would be legal along the road. He said if the developer does not wish to implement a solution, he would question why, when they are asking a favor from Saratoga to be allowed to create this residential development, should they also be allowed to create problems for the community. He said these questions would also apply to the commute on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and the fact that he and his neighbors feel it would be injurious to the neighborhood. Responding to a question from Chairwoman Bernald, Mr. Guthrie said that regarding the environmental impact, it is important to note the total number of trips whether there is a reduction or increase. As far as impact on congestion, a residential section is going to contribute traffic to the standard commute. He noted that the traffic analysis clearly stated that the congestion on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, especially the Prospect light intersection, is unacceptable at the commute hours and this will further aggravate traffic. He said the impact on congestion is clearly detrimental. Chairwoman Bernald asked if Mr. Guthrie had a problem with the traffic light in general, and Mr. Guthrie stated he did not comment on the traffic light at all. Chairwoman Bernald asked Mr. Guthrie what he viewed as reasonable, and he responded that after discussing among the neighbors, they are proposing consideration centered around 6,000 -8,000 square feet lot size per unit on average, which would bring the density to about 18. Commissioner Barry asked if there was anything else Mr. Guthrie or his neighbors would like to add to the project, as she noted in his written comments that Mr. Guthrie did not necessarily oppose the project. Mr. Guthrie replied that he did not oppose the project; however, as proposed, it is too much at odds with the surrounding neighborhood and inappropriate. He said that at lower density, they would not oppose it. Ms. Abby Krimotat, Executive Director, Saratoga Chamber of Commerce, reiterated her comments from the October 27 meeting, stating that the Chamber's Board of Directors and Executive Board are in unanimous support of this project, both residential and commercial. They feel this would be a great asset to the community and a much - needed improvement in the gateway business district. Mr. John Mallory, 12258 Kirkdale Drive, addressed the Commission, stating he reviewed the developer's letter modifying the proposal, the staff recommendations, comments prepared by Mr. Guthrie, and spoke to local residents. Based on those observations, he would encourage a study session to allow the residents and developer to meet and ask questions to feel comfortable with the project. He expressed concern that agreement be reached to meet the high standards for Saratoga. He said that, generally, some mistakes have been made in the city, which is what led to Measure G. He conveyed that although Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 19 November 10, 1999 this project is not covered by Measure G, this is very important to the citizens, and suggested more time be spent on it. He said that the comments prepared by Mr. Guthrie should be analyzed in detail, noting that Mr. Guthrie's point regarding incompatibility with the neighborhood is real. He said the way it is designed, there are going to be parking and traffic problems and agreed that too much density could be injurious. He expressed concern that all the houses, especially those bordering the neighborhood, are two -story, thereby, creating bulk, height, and common walls. He added that he would like to see in the contained area of houses something that would bring people together, such as a pool, a community center, or a pavilion. He noted that this would be the fourth major high- density development area in this part of the city. Mr. Ward responded to allocation of retail versus residential, saying that the area to the west of the side is not a viable retail area. He said it has not, and will not, generate retail tax revenues for the city. Market forces are working against the retention of this portion of the property for retail use. Mr. Ward said that the developer prides itself in reaching out to the community. The developer wrote a series of letters to the neighbors of the property, writing three letters and placing three phone calls to Mr. Guthrie. He said they never received a response, but they did have an opportunity to meet with most of the other neighbors, and they conducted a public hearing at the offices adjacent to the property. He said they got input from the community prior to making the application, and the application was based on that input. He says they believe they have been responsive to the community. The developer has attempted to work collaboratively. He reiterated that it is not easy for the developer /owners to make changes because it costs them money; however, they have listened to the community and have made appropriate responses. He pointed out that each unit has its own full two -car apron parking place to accommodate four spaces on site - two in the garage, two in the apron. Additionally, there are 13 spaces beyond that. Mr. Ward addressed the traffic questions, noting that 60 trips are added by this project, and between 26 to 30 peak hour trips are reduced, most of them in the evening. To him this is a limited traffic impact for redevelopment of a site that delivers so many assets. Commissioner Jackman asked Mr. Ward to convert the 10.3 dwelling units per acre to the average square feet per unit. Mr. Guthrie responded that the revised proposal provided 7.5 units per acre in the single - family component; the attached component is about 11.5 units per acre. The land area for the single - family units is 4,500 square feet per unit, and the land area for attached units is approximately 3,000 square feet. Director Walgren noted this is a multiple - family project, and the maximum density permitted by the General Plan and zoning regulations would be approximately 38 units total, with approximately 14.5 units per acre. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Ward to address the comment regarding a study session with the neighbors and the developer. Mr. Ward responded that the proposal for this project has been out for over a year and explained that a series of meetings have been held with the neighbors. Commissioner Bernald asked whether an agreement could be drawn up to allow residential overflow parking on the commercial portion. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 19 November 10, 1999 Mr. Ward responded he would be open to such an agreement. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 8:40 P.M.). PASSED 6 -0 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). Commissioner Roupe stated he had visited the site, reviewed the record, and recognizing limited opportunities in the city for multi- family dwellings and that the city is trying to promote existing commercial properties to the maximum extent possible, this is a reasonable compromise and he can support the project. Commissioner Page concurred with Commissioner Roupe, noting that the Commission has a responsibility to the greater community. He said that the graduation of homes from commercial to the single - family on the smaller lots is acceptable for the classification of the property, although at first he had a reservation with the lot size. He commended Ms. Davis and her family in their efforts to stay with the project. He said he is in support of the project. Commissioner Jackman commented she is in favor of the project, stating she was pleased that Mr. and Mrs. Guthrie took the time to submit their comments. She reiterated that Measure G did not apply to this project. While the homes are not the same as those on Seagull, this was designed to be a transitional zone. She said she would be supporting the project. Commissioner Patrick concurred with what has been stated. She commented that there are no technical requirements of Measure G. She said Measure G either does or does not apply. She said Measure G does not apply to this situation. She applauded the planning and response that has gone into this project. She would prefer to see wood on the frontage of the retail because it gives it more of a rural ambiance. She said the stucco does not match the residential. She said the issues raised by the speakers are real issues. The City has a responsibility to provide affordable housing in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding neighbors. She applauded the planning of the project and said she would be supporting the proposal. Commissioner Barry said she is very close to supporting this project. She agreed with her fellow Commissioners regarding the good intent and hard work. She said it would be a shame to have serious neighbor opposition. She said the spirit of Measure G is an issue. She expressed concern that while the data shows a viable retail situation may not be existent today, it does not speak to tomorrow. She said there is a fiscal impact to the city, and if the economic situation changes, there is no going back as one normally could with a conditional use permit. She stated that she would hope the numbers could be addressed and she hoped that this could be resolved. Therefore, she is not prepared to support the proposal tonight. She noted she liked the design. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with other Commissioners. She recognized Commissioner Barry's concerns. She said this development has concerned her enough for a long time that her votes for changing any type of commercial space from retail property to even office buildings have been negative. She said she has taken this project with a lot of concern and determination to help support the commercial aspects. She reviewed the General Plan and cited land use items 4.0 through 4.3. Additionally, she asked herself the questions regarding reasonableness, and cited those questions. She said the project as proposed complies with those sections she cited, and she will be voting in favor of the project. Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 19 November 10, 1999 Commissioner Barry asked whether the units would meet the median cost housing, and Director Walgren responded that considering the market conditions, these units would not meet the criteria for moderate, medium, or low- income housing. COMMISSIONERS PAGE /PATRICK MOVED TO ADOPT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION. PASSED 5-1 (COMMISSIONER BARRY OPPOSED; COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). COMMISSIONERS ROUPE /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE SD -99 -005. PASSED 5 -1 (COMMISSIONER BARRY OPPOSED; COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). COMMISSIONERS ROUPE /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE UP -99 -018. PASSED 5 -1 (COMMISSIONER BARRY OPPOSED; COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). COMMISSIONERS PAGE /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE DR -99 -037 WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT THE UTILITIES IN FRONT BE PLACED UNDERGROUND; THAT PARK IN LIEU FEE OF $10,000 PER RESIDENCE BE ASSESSED; THAT THE APPLICANT PAY HALF THE COST OF THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT SEAGULL WAY AND SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE ROAD; THAT AN AGREEMENT BE MADE THAT WILL ALLOW OVERFLOW PARKING OR EVENING PARKING FOR THE RESIDENTS IN THE COMMERCIAL AREA; AND THAT THE FRONTAGE WHICH IS CURRENTLY DESIGNED AS STUCCO BE CHANGED TO WOOD AS COMPATIBLE WITH STAFF'S DIRECTION. PASSED 5-1 (COMMISSIONER BARRY OPPOSED; COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). Chairwoman Bernald declared a recess. Upon reconvening, the same Commissioners and staff were present. 4. DR -99 -040 (397 -24 -084) — PINN BROTHERS, 18921 Hayfield Court (Lot 6); Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,063 square foot single story residence on a vacant 65,436 square foot lot. The property is located within an R -1- 20,000 zoning district. Director Walgren presented the staff report. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 8:59 p.m. Mr. Chuck Bommarito, 14315 Douglas Lane, stated he had nothing to add to the staff report and was present to respond to Commissioners' questions. Mr. Bommarito responded to Commissioners' questions. Commissioner Page inquired about the peak of the house which stands out and takes away from the design. He asked if removing or modifying that portion had been considered. Mr. Bommarito asked whether Commissioner Page was concerned with the columns or the grill effect above. Commissioner Page responded that if the columns were removed, and the peak came down a bit it would suit him fine. He said the columns are a little over the top for the neighborhood, especially with the elegant Julia Morgan house. A discussion ensued, and Commissioner Page conveyed that he was not happy with the columns. Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 19 November 10, 1999 There was no one from the public who wished to address this subject. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/JACKMAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 9:15 P.M.). PASSED 6 -0 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). Commissioner Barry commented she liked the design, noting that the project met the infill design criteria. She said the houses and plans are compatible within the neighborhood. Commissioner Patrick noted she had no objections to the proposal. Commissioner Jackman remarked that the project was large but compatible with the neighborhood. She will vote to support the proposal. Commissioner Page concurred that this is a great design, except for the columns as he described and he would like to see those changed. He will support the underfloor exception. Commissioner Roupe stated he supports the project. He referred to the rendering and elevations which he said shows the front porch area is lower than the peak of the house and does not look so accentuated, which may be an artistic illusion. He suggested the applicant work with staff to address Commissioner Page's concerns. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with other Commissioners, stating she supports the underfloor, feels the entryway is a bit grandiose, and would like to see the objects that go across the top removed and the whole element lowered. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/BARRY MOVED TO APPROVE DR -99 -040, GRANTING THE UNDERFLOOR EXCEPTION AND WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT WORK WITH STAFF TO MODIFY THE ENTRANCE TO NOT BE SO IMPOSING. PASSED 6 -0 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). 5. DR -99 -006 (517 -19 -040) - SIADAT, 14780 Vickery Avenue; Request for Design Review approval for the demolition of the existing residence and the construction of a new 5,229 square foot, two -story residence. The driveway will be relocated so that primary access to the site will be from Montalvo Road. The site will have a net lot size of 44,480 square feet and is located within an R -1- 20,000 zoning district. Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting this is a request for design review consideration to deanolish an existing home which sits on the property bounded by Vickery Avenue to the north and Montalvo Road to the south. He said this is a very long, narrow parcel that fronts up to Highway 9. It is located within an R -1- 20,000 zoning district and the net size of the property is just over one acre. The proposal includes changing the access from Vickery Avenue to Montalvo Road and retain the existing cottage building. Director Walgren reported that the second part of the application is a request for a building site approval for all properties in Saratoga that were created more than 15 years ago or as part of a subdivision that was recorded more than 15 years ago. He said the building site approval process allows the City to determine if additional roads rights -of -ways, and public improvements such as fire hydrants are necessary. He said the City Public Works Department is recommending exemption from the process which is standard when all utilities and roads rights of ways issues have been addressed satisfactorily. He noted that the City has Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1999 Page 10 of 19 surplus right -of -way that is being dedicated for public road right -of -way on Vickery Avenue, and the City has been working with the property owners to process a relinquishment or abandonment of the surplus right -of -way. He conveyed that the benefit to the applicants is that it increases their net site area and allows the home to be at the 5,200 square foot as proposed. He said that without the abandonment of the right -of -way, the floor area would be reduced. In exchange for that abandonment, the Public Works Department has met with the applicants and developed a list of conditions, including that public storm drain improvements be completed along Montalvo Road and requiring a pedestrian connection perpendicular across the property approximately within the middle of the finger that extends out to Highway 9. Director Walgren expressed that the applicants are concerned with the requirement regarding the pedestrian connection, and continued to describe the benefits of the easement. He said that the proposal meets the minimum zoning ordinance standards. Responding to a question from Commissioner Page regarding the applicant's concern about insurance or legal ramifications of the easement should somebody be hurt, Director Walgren said that the issue has been researched and tried and precedent has been set. He said it would be no different than public sidewalks or public pedestrian/equestrian trails, and the liability would ultimately fall on the City if it becomes a public easement. Chairwoman Bernald asked if there were any restrictions as to how high a fence on the easement could be, and Director Walgren responded that the section should be no more than 36 or 42 inches in height; however, a section could be six feet in the area where debris is coming in to the property. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 9:38 p.m. Ms. Lorraine Siadat, 14780 Vickery Avenue, addressed the Commission as the owner of the property. She asked that the condition of the foot path be removed. She said her concern is liability, and she does not want the area turned into a dog run. She noted the area is dark at night, and she would not want anyone tripping and falling along the path. She said the traffic on Vickery and Montalvo are not used to people darting out from the trees which is what would happen and someone could get injured. She said although there is a designated crosswalk, people tend to cut through her property. Commissioner Patrick asked whether the applicant had any plans to fence off the "finger" of the property to prevent off -road vehicles, and Ms. Siadat described the incidents related to off -road vehicles entering the property. Ms. Siadat said once the plans are approved, she would like to call in a landscape architect and begin designs for fencing. Responding to Commissioner Patrick's inquiry regarding her vision of fencing, Ms. Siadat described the open space where one can see the trees, ground, and wildflowers. In reply to Commissioner Patrick's question, Ms. Siadat said she would not be opposed to a condition that she put in a split -rail or open type of fence. Commissioner Roupe described the path/sidewalk he saw at yesterday's site visit and suggested that the applicant could consider fencing at the end of the property which would not be obtrusive to the applicant but would still allow access to the downtown area without having to get on Highway 9. He asked if the applicant would object to a pedestrian connection being placed at the end of the property inside the barrier (on the property side) instead of the middle of the property. Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1999 Ms. Siadat responded she would have no objection. Page 11 of 19 Commissioner Jackman commented that putting the walkway through the center of the applicant's property would be very destructive to the applicant's privacy. She said she would like to see on the applicant's side of the traffic barrier some way of continuing the asphalt walk along the very tip of the property and leave the rest of the property so it is closed in for the applicant's use. Mr. James Iverson, 14701 Vickery Avenue, addressed the Commission as the property owner across the street from the "finger" of the Siadat property, stating he was opposed to the path through the middle of the property. His concerns for not putting the path in the center of the property included the City making that kind of requirement of any property owner against their wishes; liability issues; maintenance issues; safety issues; loitering and littering; and privacy issues. He encouraged the Commission to favor the end -of- property approach to the path and if a fence is required, he asked that neighbors who would be impacted be included for input. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 9:42 P.M.). PASSED 6 -0 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). Commissioner Jackman stated she liked the property layout and felt strongly about not having the walkway through the middle of the property. She said she would like to see a see - through fence, and would like to see the project go forward. Commissioner Page agreed with Commissioner Jackman and noted the design is appropriate to the neighborhood. He said he was in support of the pathway at the end of the property. He said it was appropriate to note that the City is giving up its easement on the property in lieu of other elements. He said he was not in support of fencing the area aside from open fencing, and strongly urged the applicants to work with the neighbors before installing fencing. He said he would support the project with the condition that the walkway be at the end of the property. Commissioner Roupe said he could support the project with the condition of the relocation of the walkway. He urged the applicant and neighbors to work with staff to maintain open fencing so the area remains an open space. Commissioner Barry agreed with her fellow Commissioners. She commended the applicant on the good job she has done in taking care of the area. Commissioner Patrick conveyed that this is not a taking, but a trade -off, and that the applicants are getting something in exchange for giving up a portion of their property for the path. She said she would want the path at the end, and noted it is important that it be a continuation of the Highway 9 pathway. She stated she would require the peninsula be fenced in open fencing as approved by staff as a condition. She commended Mr. Spaulding, the architect, for the wonderful design. She said fencing is very important for the applicant's safety as well as the City's safety. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with other Commissioners, noting the design fits in beautifully with the neighborhood, and expressed her appreciation to Ms. Siadit for the care to the property she has demonstrated. COMMISSIONERS JACKMAN /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE DR -99 -006 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE WALKWAY THROUGH THE CENTER OF THE PROPERTY BE OMITTED AND PLACED ALONG THE TIP OF THE PENINSULA NEAR HIGHWAY 9, AND THAT THE Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 of 19 November 10, 1999 PROPERTY BE FENCED WITH A SEE - THROUGH FENCE, SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL. PASSED 6 -0 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT.) 6. DR -99 -041 (503 -09 -022) - SVOBODA, 22040 Mt. Eden Road; Request for Design Review approval for the construction of a new 864 square foot horse stable. The application includes a request for an exception to allow the prefabricated structure to exceed the 12 foot height limit by one and one -half feet. The site is 5.15 acres and is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. Director Walgren presented the details of the staff report. He said this type of application would normally not be required to come before the Commission; however, the cumulative square footage of the property, including the existing home and stable, exceeds 6,000 square feet, and design review approval is required by the Commission. Additionally, the prefabricated structure exceeds the height limit of 12' , and the Commission can approve additional height up to 15' maximum if the findings can be made. He described the lot, stating the proposal meets all zoning ordinance requirements and horse permitting requirements. He noted that no corral is proposed at this time; however, if it were proposed in the future, there would be two constraints to doing so. He said the constraints are that the hillside district limits fencing to no more than 4,000 square feet total and corrals are only permitted in areas that have an average slope of less than 15 percent. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 9:53 p.m. Mr. Bill Svoboda, 22040 Mt. Eden Road, presented a brief history of the project, noting that the raised roof creates ventilation and better circulation for the horses. Responding to a question from Commissioner Page regarding an easement on the property, Mr. Svoboda said that the area is an existing trail with no easement, but he does not have access to Mt. Eden Road. Mr. Svoboda said he brought in gravel to help the erosion problem. Commissioner Roupe asked whether the applicant would be pursuing a corral or paddock in the future, and Mr. Svoboda responded that he envisioned such a component in the upper level east of the house. Commissioner Roupe cautioned that great care should be taken because of the hillside district if the applicant proceeds with a corral or paddock. Commissioner Barry asked if there was room to put in a corral, and Mr. Svoboda responded that approximately one and one -half flat acre exists in the area. Responding to a question from Commissioner Bernald, Mr. Svoboda said he planned to walk the horses up from the house area to the upper level and walk them down. There was no one else present who wished to address this issue. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/BARRY MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 10:00 P.M.). PASSED 6 -0 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). Commissioner Patrick stated she had no objection to the proposal, and noted that red with a green roof is hardly unobtrusive, but it cannot be seen from where it is sited. She would vote in favor of the project. Commissioner Barry concurred. Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 of 19 November 10, 1999 Commissioner Jackman concurred; however, she noted she was biased toward wood. Commissioner Page said he could support the project. Commissioner Roupe concurred with other Commissioners. Chairwoman Bernald stated she would support the project. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /JACKMAN MOVED TO APPROVE DR -99 -041. PASSED 6 -0 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT.) 7. DR -99 -032 (397 -28 -047: Lot #3) - BLACKWELL PROPERTIES, 14000 Alta Vista Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 4,197 square foot two -story residence with a 687 square foot basement. Maximum height of the residence is proposed to be 26 feet. The site is located on a 23,185 (net) square foot vacant parcel within an R -1- 12,500 zoning district. --------------------------------------------------------------- ------------- -------- ---------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the details of the staff report. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 10:05 p.m. Mr. David Britt, 108 North Santa Cruz Avenue, Los Gatos, addressed the Commission representing Blackwell Properties. He said that the staff report provides a comprehensive outline of this subdivision. He added that the preliminary designs presented during the vesting subdivision map process were used in creating the design presented tonight. He said that the property dictated designing two -story homes to be more environmentally sensitive to the site; thus saving more trees and creating more open space. When the preliminary two -story designs were requested by staff, the applicant worked closely with the arborist to ensure tree protection and determine the best location for each house. They also worked closely with staff to ensure the house designs would be compatible with the City's design standards, and modified the design and lot shapes to be more sensitive to the neighbors' views and privacy. He said the preliminary designs were well received by the staff, Commission, and neighbors, and the subdivision was approved. He noted the designs which they have been presenting are essentially the same as those presented when they were in the subdivision approval process. Mr. Britt conveyed that the house design presented tonight would require a floor area exception. He said when the City Council visited the site, they determined the two two -story homes on Alta Vista and the five two -story homes on Ocala Way should be defined as the neighborhood. He said that by not granting the exception the total square footage of the house would have to be reduced by 358 square feet, equivalent to two bedrooms and a bathroom, which he would consider a complete redesign of the residence. Commissioner Roupe asked whether there was a project arborist associated with this project as well as a city arborist, and Director Walgren noted that was part of the subdivision approval. Commissioner Roupe commented that the trees protected by the tree ordinance are not doing well during the construction period. Commissioner Barry inquired about the condition of the trees, and Director Walgren responded that some trees were affected by natural causes, and explained that demolition of the buildings was conducted very carefully, but the city arborist noted there would be some degradation done on the site, Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 of 19 November 10, 1999 and extensive conditions were put in place to minimize those impacts. Chairwoman Bernald asked about the two fireplace chimneys and referred to an ordinance that asks for only one wood - burning fireplace. She asked Mr. Britt to address the issue of removing one of the chimneys. Mr. Britt responded that one of the fireplaces per the ordinance has to be an Environmental Protection Agency- approved firebox without emissions; however, the conversion of such a box into a wood - burning fireplace would be very difficult. He said he would like to see any projection off the building wall with a fireplace have a full chimney for an authentic chimney look. He said there are ways to take down the chimney and have a projection off the wall, but he would argue it would not be as good - looking as a full chimney. Chairwoman Bernald commented she agreed; however, she was looking to the health aspect and asked what was involved in converting a box to a fireplace. Mr. Britt responded that the entire prefabricated box would have to be completely removed all the way up through the chimney and replaced with a wood - burning box, and he would have to reframe the chimney. Commissioner Jackman commented that the two chimneys give a nice balance to the exterior look, even if it cannot be converted. Commissioner Roupe proposed keeping the chimney structure and blocking it so it is not an effective flue, and installing a vent to prevent possibility of conversion without tearing the chimney down and rebuilding it. A discussion ensued regarding the chimney. Commissioner Barry asked for staff advice. Director Walgren responded that the simplest approach would be to eliminate the chimney, noting that the conversion of the venting to a wood - burning fireplace would be just as difficult. Restricting to a non - wood- burning box would comply with the ordinance. Mr. Britt confirmed Commissioner Page's inquiry that the gas- burning fireplace is in the living room and that chimney is separate from the second story of the house. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 10:22 P.M.). PASSED 6 -0 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). Commissioner Page commented that this was a nice design, but he did not see the purpose of the chimney in the living room., but he would go along with what his fellow Commissioners say. He opined that the City Council was wrong in granting the floor area exception. He said just because some houses over the hill and through the dale can be seen does not make it part of the neighborhood and one has to consider the homes one goes through in the egress and ingress to the site. He said he could support the project as it is and consider the chimney as his fellow Commissioners do. Commissioner Roupe commented he would support the project as proposed. Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 of 19 November 10, 1999 Commissioner Jackman stated she would support the project as presented. Commissioner Patrick stated she disagreed with the floor area exception and disagreed with the City Council's reading. She did not agree that the applicant is entitled to the floor area exception. She remarked that the houses are too big. She said this site is special and spectacular and was kept as such by the people who owned the property for a long time. She does not like putting in maximum size houses. She did not think the floor area exception should be granted because the house should not be so big. Regarding the fireplace chimney, she said she did not see that aesthetically it made a difference. She was not opposed to it either way, but did not feel it was aesthetically required. She would prefer no wood- burning fireplaces because this will be a polluted area quickly. She said she would prefer to be looking at no wood - burning fireplaces. She suggested the applicant might look into the wood - burning fireplaces which emit no pollutants into the air. She said although the design is wonderful, she will be opposing the project based on its size. Commissioner Barry noted she had no history of this project as the other Commissioners do; however, from listening to the discussion, she wants to support Commissioner Patrick's comments. She agreed that bigger is not better and that designing to what is allowable is not in anyone's best interest. She referred to the issue of the chimney and fireplaces, and said that if the Commission does not want to encourage more fireplaces on future plans, it could ask the applicant to remove the second chimney as a way of sending a message. She noted that the roof looks very massive. She said if every design in that area is that big it is going to be overpowering. Chairwoman Bernald conveyed that this is a very well- designed home and very well thought out. She said in looking at the site, the design fits well onto the site. She said this is a neighborhood onto itself, noting the other two homes which have been approved are two -story. She said she could support the project, but is adamant about the chimney, agreed with Commissioner Barry's comment about sending a message, and stated it would be reasonable to ask that the chimney be removed and side - vented. COMMISSIONERS ROUPE /JACKMAN MOVED TO APPROVE DR -99 -032 AS PROPOSED WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE CHIMNEY EXHAUST IN THE LIVING ROOM FIREPLACE BE REMOVED AND THAT THE FIREPLACE BE VENTED EXTERNAL TO THE BUILDING AS APPROPRIATE. MOTION FAILED 3 -3 (COMMISSIONERS BARRY, PAGE, AND PATRICK OPPOSED; COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). Director Walgren commented that this was a failed motion and an attempt could be made for a second motion with other mitigating conditions that could be considered. COMMISSIONERS PAGE /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE DR -99 -032 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE FIREPLACE IN THE LIVING ROOM BE VENTED AND THE CHIMNEY BE REMOVED AND THAT THE FLOOR AREA EXCEPTION NOT BE ALLOWED. MOTION FAILED 3 -3 (COMMISSIONERS ROUPE, JACKMAN AND CHAIRWOMAN BERNALD OPPOSED; COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). Director Walgren announced that the next step would be to automatically continue this to the next Commission meeting on November 23, noting that the applicant has an opportunity not to wait until that meeting for a final vote, can accept the failed motion and appeal directly with the City Council. He said this was not a decision that the applicant had to make this evening. Director Walgren clarified that the negative votes were not based on the floor area exception findings. It is a fact that this was a vesting subdivision map, and the applicants have the right to request the full area Planning Commission Minutes Page 16 of 19 November 10, 1999 permitted at the time their vesting subdivision and house designs were approved. He said the issue is whether the exception finding can be made to allow the maximum permitted square footage. The two findings are that the homes are architecturally compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and that there is a predominance of two -story homes in the neighborhood. He said architecturally, it has been found that the homes are compatible. He said in a count of 60 homes, 31 were two -story and 29 single - story homes, which is a predominance of two -story homes. Commissioner Patrick said her vote was based on the house being too big, whether it is a predominantly two -story home neighborhood made no difference to her in how she voted. Commissioner Barry concurred with Commissioner Patrick, noting that for her it is a design review issue that there is too much bulk and the bulk is lot greater than the closest houses and is overpowering. She said if the same design shrunk a little, she could support the project. DR -98 -044 (503 -13 -021) - CHIU, 21777 Mt. Eden Road; Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 2,488 square foot single story residence, and construct a 7,326 square foot single story residence with a maximum height of 26 feet. The site is located on a 2.72 (net) acre parcel within a Hillside Residential zoning district. Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting the property backs up to the Calabazas Creek. He said that approximately 75 percent of the property levels off and drops quickly to the creek. He noted that a Santa Clara Valley Water District creek maintenance easement in back of the property has been deducted from the gross site area. The application has been reviewed by staff and the proposal meets all minimum zoning standards; however, the staff recommendation is to deny because there did not seem to be a lot of room left to work with the design to achieve something that staff could find would be compatible and described the compatibility issues. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 10:39 p.m. Mr. Scott Stotler, Stotler Design Group, 275 Tennant Avenue, #100, Morgan Hill, addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicants. He distributed a rendering of the project to Commissioners to describe the project, noting that the owners have put in $14,000 worth of trees in the property. He said the lot is over 118,000 square feet, over 3 acres gross, and 2.72 acres net. The size of the lot is nearly the size of three residential one -acre lots. He explained that the coverage on the house including the garage and driveway is about 12.5 percent coverage, under the 25 percent allowed. The house is designed with spacious setbacks, earthtone colors, stucco, dark gray roof exterior, and the stone columns are a sandstone color to blend in with the environment. He said the applicants wanted a single -story house so it would be low- impact and not too vertical, and a house where they would not have to go up and down stairs. He said the house has a low -pitch roof and described the articulation of the roof. He noted that no basement was proposed for the house. He addressed staff's comments, conveying that the 25 -foot height roof is only the peak of the entry, and the majority of the house is 18 -20 feet tall to the rooflines. He stated that the footprint is called sprawling but coverage is only at 12.5 percent, which is relatively low. He said the house is set back quite a way which picks up more driveway. He continued to discuss the efforts to minimize the impact to the street. He distributed photos of new homes in the neighborhood and the proposed project to demonstrate the compatibility of the project. Mr. Stotler said that it has been over one year that the applicants have been trying to satisfy staff's conditions. There was no one else who wished to address the Commission on this subject. Planning Commission Minutes Page 17 of 19 November 10, 1999 COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 10:50 P.M.). PASSED 6 -0 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). Commissioner Patrick indicated she concurred with staff. She reiterated that just because one is entitled to go up to 15,000 square feet of impervious coverage does not mean one has to. She said she did not see where the fire department required a turnaround or driveway area. She could envision easier ways to design the driveway right along the side of the property and into the garage in a much more efficient manner. She noted the house is sprawling and is not compatible with its site along a creekside that is wooded. She stated she is opposed to the design. Commissioner Roupe stated he agreed with Commissioner Patrick on the point that a bad example should not serve as a precedent, and the Commissioners are here to judge the design on its own merits. He said there is a certain compatibility question to consider. He shared the concern that this house seems to occupy the entire width of the lot and in doing so, it makes it seem more massive. He expressed that the house would have a large impact when viewed from the street. He said he would have difficulty supporting the project. Commissioner Jackman conveyed that she was overwhelmed by the size and sprawl from the street. The house looks huge. She said she would have trouble approving 7,326 square feet even if it went toward the back. She noted this is a hillside residential area and the proposal is not in keeping with the residential area. She expressed that the house was too big for the lot, and the massiveness is too much. She said she could not support the project. Commissioner Barry agreed with her fellow Commissioners. Stating this was her first meeting, she said she would want to look at the guidance and guidelines that were available to the applicant in deciding what kind of design and building to plan. She cited Item #9 from the Hillside Specific Plan and noted that if someone else has approved something that should not have been approved because it does not fit with the rural character of that land, the Commission cannot perpetuate that error. She appreciated what she heard from Mr. Stotler regarding decisions made in an effort to minimize impacts; however, the property has more depth than width, and the applicants did not take advantage of that. She said the lot could be better used, noting that the house does not fit in with the terrain because of the way it is situated. Commissioner Page agreed with other Commissioners. He said more could be done to utilize the space. He said the elements are not fitting with what the City is trying to do in the character of the hillside residential district. He said the proposal is not appropriate to the neighborhood, and he could not support it. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with other Commissioners, and stated she could not support the project. Commissioner Jackman commented that she could understand the applicants' desire to live in this area, and she would like to see them design a different plan to enable them to live there and still not destroy the hillside area concept. COMMISSIONER PATRICK MOVED TO DENY DR -98 -044. Director Walgren suggested for the benefit of the applicants that an alternative to denying the proposal would be continue the application indefinitely to address all of the comments made in the staff report Planning Commission Minutes Page 18 of 19 November 10, 1999 and made at tonight's meeting. This alternative would be the applicants' choice. By doing so, the applicants would forego an opportunity to appeal the decision, but would allow them to continue to work with staff to bring a revised application back to the Commission. The applicants were asked whether they preferred a vote or indefinite continuance, and they chose the latter. COMMISSIONER PATRICK WITHDREW HER MOTION. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CONTINUE THE ITEM INDEFINITELY PER STAFF AND APPLICANT. PASSED 6 -0 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). DIRECTOR ITEMS Appointment to Bicycle Advisory Committee Director Walgren reported that former Commissioner Waltsonsmith was the Commission's representative to the Bicycle Advisory Committee; however since she became a Council member, a vacancy exists. A discussion ensued. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/BERNALD MOVED TO APPOINT COMMISSIONER BARRY TO SERVE AS THE COMMISSION'S REPRESENTATIVE TO THE BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. PASSED 6 -0 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). Director Walgren reported that the Circulation Element community participation meetings were held, public hearings will be ongoing until early next year, and the plan should be adopted by early spring. Director Walgren announced that the Mountain Winery draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been released, and the city has until mid- December to share comments with the County of Santa Clara Planning Commission. He said the draft EIR addresses only existing conditions and does not include expansion of the facility. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioners Roupe and Page said they would not be in attendance at the November 23, 1999 Commission meeting. Director Walgren discussed the proposed agenda for November 23,1999, noting that some agenda items for that meeting have been previously postponed for a full Commission. A discussion ensued regarding whether there was a need for a November 23,1999 Commission meeting. As only two agenda items to address one -year extensions would be on the agenda, Director Walgren said there would not be a need for the November 23,1999 meeting. Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1999 COMMUNICATIONS Written City Council minutes for regular meeting of October 20,1999 - Noted. Notices for regular Planning Commission meeting of November 23,1999 - Noted. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Page 19 of 19 Chairwoman Bcrnald adjourned the meeting at 11:10 p.m., to 7:30 p.m., December 8, 1999, at the Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Lynda Ramirez Jones MINUTES AMENDED AND APPROVED BY: Ja yes algren Sc ary to the lning Commission CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Roll Call Present: Commissioners Jackman, Kurasch, Patrick, and Chairwoman Bernald Absent: Commissioners Page and Roupe (who had indicated earlier they would not be present tonight) Staff: Director Walgren Pledge of Allegiance Minutes COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KURASCH MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 13, 1999, AS AMENDED BELOW. PASSED 4 -0 (COMMISSIONERS PAGE AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT). Page 3, paragraph 3, line 9, amended to read: "....support the expanse expansive hard surface..." Page 3, paragraph 8, line 1, amended to read: "Mr. Non Chi Cho Wang...." Page 9, paragraph 7, line 9, amended to read: "....said that electromagnetic i-s fields are bad for.." Page 10, paragraph 7, - delete paragraph in its entirety. Page 16, last paragraph on page, line 1, amended to read: "....he would rst it be required that the applicant discuss the plan with neighbors." Page 17, paragraph 9, line 1, amended to read: "....Chairwoman Bernald distributed apphGatiexs questionnaires to Commissioners.." Oral Communications There was no one present who wished to speak on any subject not on the agenda. Report of Posting Agenda Director Walgren declared that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 22, 1999. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 14 October 27, 1999 Technical Corrections to Packet Director Walgren announced that under Public Hearing Item #4, on page 3 under the staff analysis under Proposal, Lot Coverage, the second line should read "Residential Building (not Impervious) Coverage, (excluding streets). CONSENT CALENDAR AZO -99 -001 (Citywide) - CITY OF SARATOGA; The Planning Commission will consider changes to the City's zoning ordinance regarding hillside fencing regulations and administrative appeals. Under consideration will be: 1) amendments to the Hillside Residential zoning district fencing regulations, and 2) amendments to the administrative appeals process. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared by the City of Saratoga and are on file in the Community Development Department. (CONTINUED TO 11/10/99 AT THE REQUEST OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION). COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KURASCH MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. PASSED 4 -0 (COMMISSIONERS PAGE AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT). PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. DR -99 -038 (397 -07 -013) - BEAN, 15161 Oriole Way; Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 3,420 sq. Ft. single story residence and construct a new 6,139 sq. Ft. single story residence with a 1,412 sq. Ft. basement. Maximum height of the residence is proposed to be 26 ft. The site is a 1.06 -acre parcel in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. Director Walgren presented the staff report, stating this is a request for design review consideration to demolish an existing single story home and construct a new single story building in its place. He described the property and reported that the project meets all minimum zoning ordinance requirements and has been reviewed by the applicable utility and public safety providers. He noted that the arborist report indicates that only one tree, a black walnut in marginal condition, is required to be removed. He said no correspondence from adjacent property owners or neighbors opposed to or concerned with the project has been received, and staff recommends approval. Director Walgren referred to trees #14 and #15 and reported that the arborist is recommending removing one of two very large pines on the property which has been leaning precariously for many years. The other tree is in poor condition and the arborist recommends its removal; however, it does not have to be removed, and the project could go forward without the two trees being removed. He said that if the Commission authorizes the removal as a result of approving the project, the City would have an opportunity to require in -kind replacement trees. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 7:47 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 14 October 27, 1999 Mr. William Bean, 21388 Sara Hills Drive, Saratoga, introduced himself as the applicant, designer, and property owner. He referred to the two pine trees, stating he concurred with the arborist in that they are marginal. He inquired about the amount of bond for removal and replacement of trees. Later in the meeting, Director Walgren explained the formula, noting that the arborist report did not include the removal of trees #14 and #15, which removal would reduce the amount of the bond. Director Walgren said this issue could be worked out with staff. Commissioner Kurasch noted that the bulk of the area was very linear and asked Mr. Bean what his requirements were for this type of design. Mr. Bean responded that because the contours of the land are leveled with the existing house it made sense to have a long house that followed the terrain with minimum grading while preserving the rear for a backyard. There was no one from the public who wished to address this proposal. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/JACKMAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 7:54 P.M.). PASSED 4 -0 (COMMISSIONERS PAGE AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT). Commissioner Kurasch commented this is a lovely and visible spot in the neighborhood, and the design would fit in with the neighborhood. She said her reservation was with the configuration horizontally as it almost looks like two homes. She noted that the linear position of the house makes it very difficult to be in character with other houses in the neighborhood, and her impression is that it is incompatible with the other homes because of its visibility. Commissioner Patrick stated she would be voting in favor of the proposal, although she would prefer wood siding. She said the design mimics the house across the street that is being built, yet it is a better design. She would prefer that the two Monterey pines be removed per the arborist report and that should be part of the conditions. She would also want the bonding adjusted by staff. Commissioner Jackman remarked that she liked the layout of the house. She said although it is very long facing the street, the backyard view is a good view, and the applicant is making the best use of the land. She also supports the removal of the two Monterey pines and reducing the bond. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with Commissioners Jackman and Patrick. She said the project is very well articulated and she will support the project. She would rather have a wood -sided house but because of the stucco house across the street, it would not be incompatible. She agreed that the Monterey pines should be removed, the resolution should include an in -kind replacement tree, and the bond should addressed with staff. Commissioner Kurasch added that this is a difficult decision for her because she likes the design; however, the project is one square foot below the maximum allowable, and her issue is that rather than try to ft a house under the maximum, her concern is the way the house is situated. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/JACKMAN MOVED TO APPROVE DR -99 -038 WITH AN ADDITION TO THE RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO THE REMOVAL OF THE TWO MONTEREY PINE TREES PER THE ARBORIST REPORT. PASSED 3 -1 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH OPPOSED; COMMISSIONERS PAGE AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT). Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1999 Page 4 of 14 3. SUP -99 -001 & DR -99 -030 (393 -39 -011) - LUBRAN, 20199 Franklin Avenue; Request for Second Unit Use Permit approval to construct a 1,106 sq. ft. second dwelling unit with a maximum height of 15 ft. from natural grade. Also proposed is a 454 sq. ft. addition to the existing 2,646 sq. ft. main residence. The main residence will remain a single story structure with a maximum building height of 17 ft. Total floor area proposed for the site is 4,206 sq. ft. The site is located on a 16,552 (net) sq. ft. parcel in an R -1- 10,000 zoning district. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report, described the details of the project, and noted that the proposal meets all of the criteria and development standards for a second dwelling unit, and staff recommends approval. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Dominic Passanisi of Scotts Valley, stated he does a lot of design work in Saratoga. He said that this proposal is an attempt by a daughter to take care of her mother on the site where the daughter grew up. He conveyed that in designing the placement of the second unit on the site, he wanted to maintain an easy driveway access as straight as possible for entering and exiting, while simultaneously maintaining as much back yard as possible. Commissioner Patrick indicated she could not determine from the plan whether the driveway coverage went from the lot line inward so that parts of existing vegetation will be cemented. Mr. Passanisi responded in the affirmative and stated the reason for cementing was to give the mother the widest driveway possible. Responding to Commissioner Patrick's question whether he had considered moving the entire grandmother unit forward so the garages would be at the same place, Mr. Passanisi said the first design he submitted to the applicants had the unit further back toward the rear lot line as far as it could go. Commissioner Patrick inquired whether a gate or fence would be installed to prevent access to the back yard from the long driveway, and Mr. Passanisi stated that the gate or fence would go from garage to garage. In response to a question from Commissioner Kurasch regarding whether any screening would be installed in the east side, Mr. Passamsi said although none had been shown in the drawings, the 10 foot side yard setback would be landscaped. Ms. Betty Feldheym, 20184 Franklin Avenue, introduced herself as a neighbor and stated that she had submitted a letter in support of the project. She said she has lived next door to the applicant for 40 years and gets along very well with her. She noted that she would hate to see the oleanders along the driveway go; however, she has a lot of landscaping on her side. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/JACKMAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 8:12 P.M.). PASSED 4 -0 (COMMISSIONERS PAGE AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT). Commissioner Patrick spoke in support of the proposal except for the concrete driveway going right up to the fence line along the neighbor's side. She would prefer a foot or two of planting in the strip which would not get in the way of the driveway access. Commissioner Jackman would like to see planting along the right side. She would like to see a plan with variation in the cement style to break up the volume of the expansive cement. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 14 October 27, 1999 Commissioner Kurasch had no problem with the proposal, liked the use, and stated it would serve a good purpose. Chairwoman Bemald concurred with other Commissioners. She said the project conforms to the development standards and occupancy requirements. She agreed that the oleanders should be kept or other planting should be installed along the fence line. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/JACKMAN MOVED TO APPROVE SUP -99 -001 WITH ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS, SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL, THAT A PLANTING STRIP AREA BE INSTALLED IN THE RIGHT SIDE, AND THAT A DRIVEWAY TREATMENT BE INCLUDED TO BREAK UP THE VISUAL EXPANSE. PASSED 4 -0 (COMMISSIONERS PAGE AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT). COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KURASCH MOVED TO APPROVE DR -99 -030. PASSED 4 -0 (COMMISSIONERS PAGE AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT). 4. SD -99 -005, UP -99 -018 & DR -99 -037 (386 -53 -001 & -029) - AZULE CROSSING INC., 12312 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road; Request for Subdivision, Use Permit and Design Review approval to construct 27 new residential units of approximately 1,815 to 2,345 sq. ft. and remodel the existing commercial building located at the front of the property. The commercial building will be expanded from its current 11,931 sq. ft. to 14,233 sq. ft. The property is located in a Commercial Neighborhood zoning district. The residential component of the project would occupy 2.62 acres while the commercial component would occupy 1.28 acres. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared by the City of Saratoga and are on file in the Community Development Department. Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting this was a request for a mixed use development approval for a 3.9 acre parcel within a commercially zoned district located at the southeast corner of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way. He noted the property is currently developed with four commercial buildings, and one of the buildings is retail. He said the other three buildings are primarily office uses, and one is a restaurant. The application is being presented to the Commission tonight as the first of two public hearings. The project is subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. He said staff has done an environmental initial study on the project comprised of a traffic analysis, and staff is in the middle of the public review period for the initial study; however, given the several land use issues that the Commission needs to consider for this type of project, staff felt it was useful to present the project tonight to generate public input as well as Commissioners' input so that changes could be incorporated as the project develops. Director Walgren reported that specifically the project requires tentative subdivision map approval to subdivide the rear 2.6 acres into 27 residential sites consisting of 12 small lot single - family sites and 15 single- family, owner- occupied, attached units. The 28th parcel would be the commercial use of the front of the property. He said the application requires conditional use permit. He conveyed that this is a commercially designated and zoned property within commercial districts; multiple - family and mixed -use projects of this type are permitted. He noted that to do a mixed -use project and not something that is entirely commercial requires discretionary approval by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 14 October 27, 1999 Director Walgren added that the residential buildings and commercial buildings require design review approval. A mitigated negative declaration has been circulated for public review which is also part of what the Commission needs to consider. When the public review period expires, the Commission will need to either adopt or reject the mitigated negative declaration. The site is under 4 acres and is currently developed with commercial structures of which the majority would be removed. The site abuts the Southern Pacific Railroad right -of -way to the south and residences beyond that, single - family homes to the east and northeast, commercial development to the northwest and to the west of the property across from Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. Director Walgren outlined the three primary land use issues identified by staff . He said numerous discussions have been held regarding the loss of development activity in the City as the little bit of land designated for commercial development is being pressured to be developed with residential projects. These projects have been approved when at appropriate locations, and they have been denied when they were deemed to be inappropriate locations where commercial activity should be preserved and retained. He said in this particular site staff has worked with the applicants for a relatively long period of time, noting the previous application submitted over a year ago for this property had a larger commercial component with a two -story building which the Zoning Ordinance does not permit, and it had approximately 35 residential units which is one -third denser than tonight's proposed project. That project had Zoning Ordinance development regulation problems and staff expressed concern about the configuration in density of the project. That plan was ultimately withdrawn and the plan presented this evening has also gone through significant revisions and is now submitted with 27 units, which is significantly less dense. Director Walgren conveyed that staff review concludes that the overall mixed -use proposal is fairly appropriate for this site. He referred to the property maps, color rendering elevations of the residential units, commercial elevations, building footprint and streets, etc. mounted on the wall. He said though the site is almost four acres of commercial property, very little of the land has commercial frontage that would result in a truly commercial, viably successful retail project, and this is one of the factors staff took into consideration. Director Walgren continued reporting that to augment its review, staff required an economic analysis be prepared and submitted by the applicants, and the analysis is attached to the staff report. He explained that the analysis contains four scenarios outlined by staff. The first scenario includes the buildings as they currently exist but at full occupancy with a limited commercial frontage, and the conclusion was that the buildings would remain to be largely office uses and would not meet the City's objective of trying to expand and encourage retail activity at this particular property. The second scenario is the proposal being considered tonight. The third scenario was where the property was entirely redeveloped at approximately 60,000 square feet of new commercial construction, and the findings were that that would be largely dedicated to office type uses. The fourth scenario was a proposal that would result in a lot line shift and a reduction in residential units with an increase in the commercial component. The applicant's study has cited anecdotal or market reasons why the fourth scenario might not work, noting proximity to existing shopping centers, the current real estate market for retail space. Their conclusion was that the site could not successfully support doubling of retail square footage at approximately 30,000 square feet. Director Walgren referred to the primary issue as land use, asking whether this would be an appropriate mix for this type of project within a commercially zoned piece of land. He said another issue is the environmental initial study, noting that the focus is on the traffic analysis which concludes that the project would result in an anticipated net traffic increase of 72 daily trips and should not affect the level of service on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road as measured at north- and southbound intersections on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 14 October 27, 1999 Road at Prospect, Seagull, and Cox Avenue. He noted that the applicant's report notes that a signal is warranted at Seagull and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and that this project will significantly impact particularly westbound egress traffic in the morning and late afternoon peak hours through that intersection. He said that as a mitigation effort, staff's report concluded that this project should pay towards a proportionate share of a traffic signal at Seagull and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. In determining what the proportionate share should be, staff referred back to a similar project approved many years ago for the old Hubbard & Johnson site, and based on a City Council decision, staff is proposing that the developers contribute a 50 percent cost - share. Director Walgren added that another land use issue is the design review aspect. He said the commercial buildings are proposed to be renovated with new elements that would bring the building up to a more contemporary standard. The staff report is supportive of the architecture of the building with a recommendation that the colors and materials be amended to reflect the colors and materials of the residential units which are deeper earth -tone colors versus the pastels proposed for the commercial building. One amendment staff would further recommend is the actual roof pitch element that covers the internal walkway connecting the buildings. Staff would recommend that the roof pitch be brought down to reflect the roof pitch of the existing building which would bring it closer to the 20' height limit imposed on the Zoning District. Lastly, Director Walgren commented that by combining a large residential component to a commercially zoned property, and by its design, it achieves a buffer that does not exist currently between the residences to the east, which currently back up to a parking lot, and the new commercial component. He commented that by design, the residential piece will provide significant protection to the existing homes to the east. Chairwoman Bernald commented that members of the community probably have a question why Measure G does not apply to this project. Director Walgren responded that Measure G does not apply to this property because it is a commercially designated property and this is a commercial- residential mixed -use development which is consistent with the General Plan designation. He explained that Measure G primarily protects residential properties from being re- designated to commercial, and that is not happening here. Chairwoman Bernald re- affirmed that the Commission tonight should first address whether this project is generally suitable to the site, then address the commercial aspect, and lastly address the residential aspect. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 8:55 P.M. Mr. Scott Ward, Classic Communities, 1068 East Meadow Circle, Palo Alto, addressed the Commission as the co- applicants for the proposal which they believe promises to redevelop and re -use an obsolete commercial property into a high quality, mixed -use development that is integrated into the fabric of the existing neighborhood and the Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road retail corridor. He urged the Commission to support the proposal to revitalize the property in a responsible way. He said the applicants have been able to find a considerable amount of common ground on this property as they have been working on it over the course of the past several months. There is, in their opinion, broad base agreement that something needs to be done to the property to avert continued decline and that this property presents an opportunity to create a high - quality, new community of homes and businesses. The proposal retains the amount of floor area on the property that is actually devoted to retail uses and locates the floor area appropriately in close proximity to Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, thereby achieving the important city-wide goal of retaining limited areas of commercially zoned tax - revenue producing properties. He commented that there are no negative fiscal Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 14 October 27, 1999 impacts from this proposal, noting it re -uses the balance of the property to create a well - designed, new home community, and effectively down -zones the property from more intense commercial uses to less intense residential uses. He said this project establishes a buffer between existing R -1 uses and commercial uses. Mr. Ward went on to describe the project, noting that the landscape plan and architecture have been designed to assure privacy between the new homes and existing homes. He said the existing tree buffer is to be retained and enhanced, in- filled with new trees where it is sparse, and second stories have few, if any, significant openings to the rear. All of the main bedroom windows are to the front or to the side so the impact of the second story is borne by the new homes, not the adjacent properties. He stated that these features have been carefully designed to address neighbors' concerns, and that the residential element is designed to reflect the traditional residential experience of Saratoga at a somewhat more modest scale. In describing the project, he said that all of the homes front on a private drive; front doors and living room windows address the street; each home has a two -car garage and a two -car driveway apron; and each home has a conventional rear yard. He said there is a continuous sidewalk network designed to create a positive pedestrian experience on site. The site plan is open to the rail corridor. He said while the proposal increases the total number of trips it actually reduces the total number of peak hour volumes. Mr. Ward described the common ground of the project. He said this week it was learned that a neighbor to the north had some concerns about retaining the existing masonry wall whereas the applicants had proposed a new masonry wall, and he conveyed that the applicants are prepared to amend the plan to assure that the masonry wall is retained to address grading conditions and to enhance privacy. He said the applicants intend to consider the Commission's recommendations very carefully and do their best to respond to them before the next hearing. Chairwoman Bernald stated she was concerned with safety and getting emergency vehicles in and out of the area and asked about the area designated as an open play area or tot lot. Mr. Ward responded that the dimensions of the right -of -way support emergency access requirements, and they still need to test the requirements to make sure they conform to the standards. He said that they are open to incorporation of some form of common gathering place or recreation area which would serve the need within the community. He respectfully requested that the Commission consider such an area in light of the "park in lieu" fees that the developer is obligated to pay and that there be an appropriate offset regarding the inclusion of an on -site common green area. Mr. Kirk Hereld, Hereld & Ayres Architects, 39560 Stevenson Place, Suite 117, Fremont, CA addressed the Commission regarding the commercial retail portion of the project. He said their concept is to take the existing structure, add additional square footage, and renovate the building with new materials, new colors, different elements to break up the exteriors, make it a little friendlier, and turn it into a true retail center, eliminating some of the office -type uses in this part of the city. He said the building has a walking mall to the side of the center which they plan to skylight and extend all the way through the building, encouraging entry into those areas by addressing an entry feature in each point. They also plan to pave the entire lot, install new gutters, and put in new landscaping. Commissioner Patrick asked if the applicants seriously contemplated using pink and lavender colors. Mr. Hereld responded they would work with staff with whatever colors and hues would be appropriate. Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 14 October 27, 1999 Commissioner Patrick asked what kind of look would be established with pink and lavender colors, and Mr. Hereld replied that the intention was that those colors would be more friendlier and more livelier, and it would get away from the building's current extremely dark look. Mr. Dennis Griffin, 12302 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga, addressed the Commission representing the commercial section of the project. He said the intent is to increase the parking size of the commercial site and increase purchasing power which would increase the sales tax base. Chairwoman Bernald asked if there were any assurances that the commercial site would remain a retail place or that it would be dedicated to 75 percent retail over a course of time. Mr. Griffin replied that it would be difficult to say whether the applicants would maintain that; however, they are committed to only leasing to retail patrons, and the building is being designed and marketed to retail space. Commissioner Jackman asked if the applicants had any idea of what type of retail they would like to have behind the lighting business, and Mr. Griffin replied that the Front Window business is moving from their location next door to the lighting business. Director Walgren read into the record letters from Zoe Alameda, Alameda Family Funeral Home, and from Carl Orr, Color Shop Interiors, businesses on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, expressing their support for the project. Mr. Leon Mendelson, 20408 Seagull Way, Saratoga, conveyed that his major concern was partially addressed by the presentation. He said the existing cement wall serves as a buffer between the properties and as a retaining wall. The Azule parking lot is approximately two feet above his land level. Removal or alteration of that wall would impact his landscaping, drainage, and possibly cause land subsidence into his property. He said he finds it difficult to believe that the existing wall can be removed without removing most of the trees currently lining the wall. He noted that the trees provide a buffer between the proposed properties and his property. Ms. Joan F. Green, 12350 Goleta Avenue, Saratoga, said that she could not understand how traffic would be lower at peak hours. She asked what the rear yards of the houses would be. She said her objection is the same as it was 25 years ago and that would be the amount of cars coming in and going out of the area. She asked to see the traffic ingress and egress on the map. Director Walgren responded, noting that the commercial project would access Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way, and the residential portion would access only at Seagull. Responding to Ms. Green's further questions regarding traffic, Chairwoman Bernald suggested that Ms. Green review the staff's traffic study. Director Walgren clarified that the traffic analysis addresses net increase and traffic trips, comparing the net increase with what currently exists. Ms. Abby Krimotat, Executive Director of the Saratoga Chamber of Commerce, 20460 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, conveyed that the Chamber Board of Directors has unanimously agreed to approve and support the project, noting it is in the best interest of Saratoga. Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 of 14 October 27, 1999 Ms. Kristin Davis, owner of the Front Window, 12378 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, stated she would be moving her store from its location to the new building, noting this was an important step for her and her business. She said Azule Crossing has been a retail spot since 1939, and she hopes this project will help everybody. Mr. John Mallory, 12258 Kirkdale Drive, Saratoga, stated he is a 30 -year Saratoga resident, and expressed concern that this would be the fourth high - density development in this area since he has lived there. He urged the Commission to study this project which deserves a good intensive look. He expressed concern over the emphasis on sales tax. He sees the town as it has been developed as a town of houses, not a town of commercial development. He said if the city needs money, it should not be focused on sales tax, it should be focused on coming to the citizens through property tax or utility tax. He commented because there is very little to be developed in the town, the Commission needs to take a strong look at providing the services that the residences need in town, and it should be done with minimum traffic in mind so people do not have to go too far for services. He expressed concerned with trees, asking that more Oak trees as opposed to Monterey pines be considered. He reiterated that the Commission study this project carefully so it meets the standards expected in Saratoga. Finally, he asked for a community room because of the shortage of community rooms in the city. Chairwoman Bernald asked Mr. Mallory about the density and what he would specifically recommend. Mr. Mallory responded that he was more concerned with the mistakes that have been made (such as the old Hubbard & Johnson site), and noted that when one goes to the development it should feel like Saratoga with more freedom and landscaping. He said he is concerned about the long -run appearance and feeling. Mr. William Guthrie, 20422 Seagull Way, Saratoga, quoted from Article 1555 of the Zoning Ordinance and stated that the application was incomplete because it failed to address the language and intent of Article 1.555. He asked the Commission not to accept the application, especially at the current density. He quoted from Measure G language and expressed that this proposal was placed in the Zoning Ordinance by voters of Saratoga and, therefore, deserves special attention. He said he would submit in writing several reasons why this proposal is inappropriate and inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood. He said the application should be denied based on Measure G. Mr. Jeffrey Walker, 20451 Seagull Way, Saratoga, stated he lives directly across from the subject property. He expressed that the density is too great due to traffic. He said he was not allowed to do a room addition due to the restrictions imposed because he is in an R -1- 10,000 zone, yet, this project proposes 4500 square foot lots with 60 percent structure. He said this did not seem like a good fit. He stated that Seagull could not bear the traffic load of 27 more residences, and if a signal were installed, right turn traffic would back up past his residence, making it impossible for him to back out of his driveway. If the access was available for the residences off Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, some of these issues would be alleviated. Mr. Ward stated that Mr. Mendelson's comment regarding the retaining wall and landscaping would be addressed. Referring to Ms. Green's question, he said the rear yards on the perimeter are generally 25 feet minimum, which is fairly consistent, and that the rear yards of the internal lots are in the 20- foot range. He said he appreciated Mr. Mallory's comments and conveyed that the applicants share some of his concerns and critiques regarding the Hubbard & Johnson property which have been considered. He said he would defer to Director Walgren regarding Mr. Guthrie's comments. He noted that the applicants met with Mr. Walker previously and discussed concerns with singular access to the residential element from Saratoga- Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 of 14 October 27, 1999 Sunnyvale Road. He said it is important for the residential aspect to have its separate identity from Seagull and it may be necessary to coordinate with Mr. Griffin the potential for other points of connection in addition to Seagull. Mr. Hereld noted he would be working with staff to develop a palette that would be more workable. He said he would also work with staff on alternatives regarding the traffic issue. Mr. Ward reiterated that the previous application was for 35 homes on the site, and the current proposal is 75 percent of the earlier submission. Commissioner Kurasch asked the applicant for clarification as to why it was important for the applicants or the community to have separate identities for the project, and why the proposal is two parcels, two separate applications, yet it is a mixed -use project. Mr. Ward responded that they may have over - reacted in terms of establishing separate identities, and perhaps it is an over - reaction to the other site along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road where in order to access the homes, one has to go through a retail strip. He said this has negative impacts on both the retailers and residences, and it is important for the residences to be able to identify their own community in a readable, trackable way. Commissioner Kurasch stated that for her, logically, the project does not necessarily have to be completely separated and walled off to have separate identities. She asked about vehicular or pedestrian access between commercial and residential. A discussion ensued. Mr. Ward stated that there is a continuous sidewalk from Seagull extending in front of the perimeter homes, then connecting to a point of connection at the interface between the townhomes and the single - family homes. He said there is an established pedestrian network that leads to Seagull that takes one to retail and it is accessible from every home in the development. He said a masonry wall is proposed and at the boundary between the two uses it does not, in its current configuration, penetrate that wall. Commissioner Jackman referred to security issues and said she would like to see a common open area and not necessarily play equipment. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KURASCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 9:30 P.M.). PASSED 4 -0 (COMMISSIONERS PAGE AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT). Commissioner Jackman stated she liked the general concept, noting the density of the condominiums and houses concerns her in that there is no open space, and this is very important. Commissioner Kurasch commented that having a connection between the uses would solve the traffic intensity problem from Seagull Way whether it were a driving or walking opening from the Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road side by the railroad tracks. She said traffic needs to be addressed in both uses and not just peak hours. She noted that her experience in commercial development is limited and she could not comment on this aspect of the proposal. She said she was still uncertain about what would be the most successful scenario. Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 of 14 October 27, 1999 Commissioner Patrick commented that the commercial development is a great idea and it does not look like the retail use is being intensified for the commercial use. She said her concerns echo some of Mr. Mallory's concerns. She referred to the on/off access Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and noted the same problem exists at Argonaut retail center. She stated she was uncomfortable with an exit or access out of the commercial onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road turning towards The Village. She said it is a difficult situation now and it would not be made better by the traffic configuration or ingress /egress pattern proposed. From her perspective, the applicants need to work on that aspect of the commercial portion. She conveyed that it is necessary for access between the commercial and residential in some way to eliminate the residential traffic problems which will be discussed later, and to prevent a three -step process to get into the residential itself. She commented that if the residential is going to be part of the neighborhood, there are too many steps in the process. It needs to be more gradual and more natural development into the residential from the commercial. She said she is concerned about the traffic onto Seagull but not from the commercial. She said she would like to see the roof line pursuant to staff change as it pertains to the commercial design. She noted the description of the colors is apparently visually different than the color samples she has seen. She said she had concern about the commercial, noting that the concept of a whole commercial development would work rather than having it all be on the front. She said she understood the difficulty with the existing commercial. She expressed that the parking configuration for retail should help, and that more landscaping is always better. Chairwoman Bernald conveyed that this proposal in general was an appropriate use of the property and shared the concerns heard earlier regarding the ingress /egress off Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and off Seagull. She suggested perhaps looking at left turn lanes outside of the area to access it. She agreed with Commissioner Patrick regarding the more gradual and natural development into the residential from the commercial and the tight parking situation in the residential area. She lauded Mr. Mallory for saying that the services needed in Saratoga should be heeded, however, she feels that the services already in existence at Azule have been there for quite sometime will be able to stay. She expressed concerns that assurances are kept that the project will be maintained as commercial retail. She said that contrary to Mr. Mallory's comments, Saratoga should maintain every tax base that it can. The citizens have not voted in favor of raising their taxes and it is important to maintain what is currently in the tax base. She expressed that Mr. Guthrie's concerns are very legitimate and a discussion with Director Walgren would answer his concerns. She said that most of the citizens of Saratoga would have thought when they voted for Measure G that they were voting for something that would cover such a development; however, unfortunately, she said, it was not worded as such. She stated that the project could get to where it is compatible with the neighborhood and through perhaps less density, less buildings, a single -story building here and there, and definitely some open common ground. Chairwoman Bernald noted it is difficult to separate the project, and moved the focus to address the commercial segment. Commissioner Kurasch stated her main concern was the commercial connection. She said it is important to have a little continuity physically and visually and have a face on the street. She noted the project is an improvement over what is currently in place. Commissioner Patrick conveyed that she would encourage as much of a retail component as possible. She said if the commercial is going to be retail use, she would be much more favorably inclined to support it. She expressed concern that residents in Saratoga have to drive miles to make purchases and likes the idea of having the services close to home. Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 of 14 October 27, 1999 Commissioner Jackman referred to the traffic and the need for the signal at the corner of Seagull. She commented that left -turn lanes could be installed to lighten the issue of the traffic and improve the current situation. She stated that the entrance and exit from the commercial area on the side of the railroad tracks will have to be a right -turn only. She noted that the traffic could be controlled. Chairwoman Bernald lauded that there is wood siding on the building and suggested less stucco. She said she agrees with staff in changing the slope of the roof, and she would like to see more detail on the plans. She said she was having trouble with depth, noted that the lighter colors would be an attractive draw on the commercial buildings, and she would recommend that the colors coordinate with the homes. She would also like to see retail services appropriate to the community and assurance that the retail would be built with that in mind. Chairwoman Bernald declared a recess. Upon reconvening, the same Commissioners and staff were present Chairwoman Bernald turned the focus of discussion to the residential aspect of the proposal. Commissioner Patrick referred to the issue of compatibility with the existing neighborhood, including traffic, and said that the neighbor's questions and concerns need to be addressed. She expressed concern with the transition, specifically, the perimeter housing and the second -story versus single -story configurations, and noted that perhaps it is not as compatible to the neighborhood as it could be with the first few houses being two -story houses versus single -story which is more compatible with the neighborhood. She said she understood that the project would downsize a commercial area into a residential area, which is difficult for everyone. Her concern is that the homes, although very well designed, may not be compatible with the neighborhood. She said she was uncomfortable with the one -lane access to the residential, which seems too restrictive. She noted that rather than looking out to the neighborhood, the development looks inward, and she would prefer that this be more of an outward looking development. She would like to see a plan with every lot marked to try to vary some of the heights to make it more of a mix. The colors seem to be appropriate. She would want open space somewhere, not restricted to the 27 residential units, and available for the neighborhood to use, with walking paths or access to the other neighbors. Commissioner Kurasch stated she would look at the configuration of the streetscape in the internal loop in terms of community versus how it relates to the larger neighborhood. She commented she has seen similar projects with large density units and described how the units were structured and how they relate to each other. She noted that the architecture and quality of design is outstanding. She described other similar projects she has seen where townhomes were connected by pedestrian driveways with sidewalks in between them, with alleys connecting the back of the buildings, and areas used as common ground for recreation. She said the open space is very important to the project. She suggested that perhaps the townhomes not have large, or any, yards, and that those areas could be accumulated as a public space to be used by everyone. Commissioner Jackman stated she was very pleased to see a project with 1400 -1800 square feet homes in the area. She complimented the applicants for considering building homes for people who only need or can only afford homes this size. She said many homes being built in Saratoga are 4000 -6000 square feet with corresponding prices, which many people cannot afford or have no need for a big house. Director Walgren remarked that this is a multiple - family project and it is important to keep in mind when considering whether the homes should be single -story buildings, whether the lots should be larger, and whether there should be greater open space incorporated into the project. He said the more one incorporates design amenities into the project, the more removed it becomes from a multiple - family project. Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1999 Page 14 of 14 Following discussion, consensus was to continue the public hearing to the November 10, 1999 agenda. DIRECTOR ITEMS Planning Commission holiday schedule Director Walgren reported that the Planning Commission meetings for the upcoming holidays are November 23 (instead of November 24), with land use site visits on November 22. He said the second meeting in December is traditionally canceled and will be canceled this year. Director Walgren noted that two hours should be allocated to the telecommunications meeting scheduled for November 10, 1999, and Commissioners agreed. A discussion ensued and Director Walgren responded to questions from Commissioners. COMMISSION ITEMS None. COMMUNICATIONS Written City Council minutes for special meeting of September 23 and regular meeting of October 6, 1999 - Noted. Notice for regular Planning Commission meeting of November 10, 1999 - Noted. Deer control materials provided by Commissioner Kurasch - Noted. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chairwoman Bernald adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m. to the next meeting on Wednesday, November 10, 1999, at the Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY Lynda Ramirez Jones MINUTES AMENDED AND APPROVED BY: Ja es algren Sekary to the Planning Commission CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, October 13, 1999 - 7:30 p.m. Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting Roll Call Present: Commissioners Kurasch, Page, Patrick, Roupe and Chairwoman Bernald Absent: Commissioner Jackman (who had indicated at an earlier meeting she would not be present at tonight's meeting) Staff: Community Development Director Walgren, City Attorney Wittwer Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - September 8 and 22, 1999 COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ROUPE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 8, 1999, AS AMENDED. PASSED 5 -0 (COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT). Page 6, paragraph 5, line 6, amended to read: "...(someone paying) the fine and declaring freedom to do as they please." Page 9, paragraph 11, line 9, amended to read: "...however, it could be done relatively simple simply by just adjusting the garage." Page 10, paragraph 11, line 4, amended to read: "He said that while under construction..." Page 12, paragraph 7, line 2, amended to read: "...and reduced the frieze by to 10 inches." COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 22, 1999. PASSED 5 -0 (COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT.) Page 9, line 1 of page, amended to read: "...(how they are) viewed measured. She said the report indicates...." Page 3, paragraph 9, line 5, amended to read: "...it is also constrained by its configuration of 50 feet in width." Page 5, paragraph 9 line 2, amended to read: "...he would be willing to install a six foot fence and plant screening along that side." Page 10, first line, amended to read: "....4-i-f if it were a closed session item." Oral Communications There was no one present who wished to speak on any item not on the agenda Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 2 of 18 Report of Posting Agenda Director Walgren declared that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 8, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet Director Walgren announced two technical corrections to the packet as follows: Item #2, page 4, paragraph 5, line 4, amended to read: "This total amount of 995 cubic yards is under the....." Item #4, page 3, last line amended to read, "The landscaping will consist of native California flannel bush to entirely surround the enclosure. The plants will be irrigated for approximately one year or until established." CONSENT CALENDAR 1. SD -98 -009 & DR -98 -070 (397 -27 -031) - NAVICO, INC., 14230 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road; Request for Tentative Map and Design Review approval for the subdivision of a 24,391 square foot parcel into six parcels ranging in size from 2,300 to 3,370 square feet. The remaining 7,451 square feet will be common area. Six townhomes ranging in size from approximately 2,700 to 2,900 square feet will be constructed on the new lots. The site is located within an R -M -3,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED INDEFINITELY AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. A NEW HEARING DATE WILL BE ADVERTISED). COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR. PASSED 5 -0 (COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT). PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. DR -97 -061 (503 -72 -014) - LIU, 14805 Masson Court; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,500 square foot two -story residence on a vacant 2.75 acre lot. The property is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting that the proposal is for design consideration to a 6,500 square foot contemporary design home within the Saratoga Heights subdivision. The parcel is 2.75 acres and is constrained on the downslope and base of the property by several landslides. He said the application had been submitted sometime ago but has been delayed because of the length of time it took to get geological clearance on the property. He said the City geologist has granted a preliminary geotechnical clearance, noting that the landslides have been generally identified, and they will need to be repaired before a house can be built on the property. He conveyed that the application is sufficient to present to the Planning Commission for approval; however, because there are still details on the landslides to be identified, including the relationship to adjacent properties and the large oak tree on the property, staff is not prepared to recommend approval at this time. Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 3 of 18 Director Walgren stated that this is one of the last homes in the development, noting that the other homes have been designed in more traditional or rural or English tudor styles. He said this home is a very contemporary and modern design. He expressed that the application is before the Commission tonight for an early read for the applicant's benefit before they continue through the geological investigation process. He said the findings are that the home is consistent and compatible in design, height, size, massing and materials with the natural environment. He noted that although the wood, limestone, and copper roofing should blend in very well with the hillside areas, it is difficult to say that it is compatible with the existing homes in the area. He added that the proposal meets all minimum zoning standards regarding allowable building area, lot coverage, setbacks, and height, and conforms with the original subdivision tentative map, site development and conditions of approval. Commissioner Roupe asked Director Walgren for a briefing on the issue regarding the secondary driveway and parking area. Director Walgren responded that issues raised in the staff report included the roofing material. He said the applicants are proposing a copper roofing and that concerns have been raised in the past about mineral leaching of copper materials. He said that issue could be mitigated through proper roof drains in the landscape areas where it can be absorbed into the soil very quickly. He stated that the applicants are willing to consider a composition roof if the copper roof is not acceptable to the Commission. He conveyed that the original design is a very large, expansive front guest parking area which almost matches the footprint of the home in addition to the two driveways - one accessing the area; the other accessing the garage to the building. He said that the applicants were aware that the City could not support the expansive hard surface on the property, and the plans presented before the Commission tonight show it in a reduced configuration. He said it is a significant improvement over the original proposal. Commissioner Patrick noted a typographical error in the design review portion of the report and confirmed that the term "and do end up in storm water runoff' should say, "and do not end up in storm water runoff..." Commissioner Page referred to the fact that it had been almost two years since the arborist had reviewed the project, and asked whether, depending on what happens with the second driveway, it would be appropriate to have an analysis of the tree below the tree that would be impacted. Director Walgren responded in the affirmative, noting that one of the recommendations to define this landslide would also give the arborist a second chance for a final look. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 7:55 p.m. Mr. Non Cho Wang, 1918 North Main Street, Suite 201, Los Angeles, CA, appeared before the Commission on behalf of the property owner. Using a model of the project as a visual aid„ he described the project. He said much attention had been given to the design guidelines of the Planning Department. He said the intent is to build a building compatible with the surroundings, neighbors, and work with the landscape. He said that to comply with staffs concern about having too much paved driveway, the driveway was reduced and is now under the maximum allowable 15 percent of the lot size. He said his client had certain ideas about how to use the lot which is a very long shape, and that it has close to 900 feet from one point to the other, and the other direction is very short. He said given the shape, two driveways seemed to make more sense because the overall lot can be utilized more efficiently. However, Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 4 of 18 he said he understood the intention of minimizing the driveway because of the water runoff, and that he is contemplating using a material that is semi - permeable to reduce the water runoff during the rain. Mr. Wang referred to the environmental concern associated with the copper roof, and quoted from research done by the International Copper Institute on the environmental impact of copper on the ground soil and groundwater, which, in his opinion, was positive. He opined that the way to use copper as a roof material is to treat it with proper drainage so when it drains to the soil it will not have high concentration and become toxic. Commissioner Patrick stated she did not see a drainage plan to show that water is not running off the roof into pipes and down into drains somewhere, and asked where the water from the roof was going. Mr. Wang responded that he would have to study the issue further to understand what is the proper way to drain, and explained that according to the report he quoted from earlier, 95 percent of the copper being washed off the roof is not biodegradable and the other 5 percent is diluted when it gets to the ground. He said by the time the 5 percent gets to the ground it has already reacted to organic material in the environment and is not toxic anymore. Commissioner Patrick noted she had information to the contrary. She said the only way to prevent damage to the environment is by putting it in the ground and not in the water runoff which can end up in the Bay. Commissioner Patrick referred to the driveway and asked whether it would be aesthetically possible to combine the two driveways such for a turnaround off of the driveway that comes in to the garage, which would serve the purpose of having parking for visitors and eliminating the pavement area. Mr. Wang replied that he would be willing to consider the suggestion. Commissioner Patrick expressed concern that it appeared that the flat or semi -flat area is virtually covered and the rest of the sloping area is uncovered. Commissioner Page noticed that much of the structure has a significant amount of metallic element and asked whether the side with aluminum or metal poles were just design elements, for looks, or for support. Mr. Wang responded that the poles act as design elements as well as structural elements. He said the roof overhang provides much energy conservation which needs more structure to support it. He stated that the south side which Commissioner Page was referring to is the back yard which will used for parties and children's play. Responding to a question from Commissioner Page, Mr. Wang confirmed that the south side is the side seen from the valley on the other hills. Commissioner Page asked whether the applicant had any objection to making the poles wood as most of the house is wood. Mr. Wang said he considered using different material; however, the material would be painted so that it would not look like metallic, and when it is painted, one would not be able to tell whether it was wood or metal underneath. Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 5 of 18 In response to questions from Commissioner Kurasch, Mr. Wang reviewed the materials, describing the detailed materials he plans to use. Commissioner Roupe commended the applicants for a creative and interesting design. He said he did not see a compelling reason that the design had to be compatible with the more contemporary houses, noting that some of then were not so contemporary. He urged the applicants to take seriously the matter regarding the copper roof, and indicated that the Copper Institute report could be biased. He conveyed that with some issues being addressed, he could support the project. Referring to the amount of hard pavement, Mr. Wang indicated he would be willing to work out a solution good for the environment and to the City's satisfaction. Commissioner Roupe urged Mr. Wang to work closely with staff. Ms. Cheriel Jensen, a resident of Quito Road, Saratoga, expressed that this was an unattractive building and did not belong on the hillside. Mr. Wang responded that architecture is an expression of the owner's interest and personality. He said the issues raised by the Commission were of great importance and he would do his best to address them. He indicated he would continue to work with staff. Chairwoman Bernald indicated she did not agree with Ms. Jensen. She said there was an eclectic mix in the hillside, and this project would be an appropriate building. She expressed concerns with the privacy on the east side, and suggested the applicant work with the neighbors, and work with staff to cut back the driveway. She commented she would like to see more research on the copper issue. Mr. Wang responded to Commissioner Kurasch's questions regarding the driveways and the materials proposed for the project. Commissioner Page, responding to Chairwoman Bernald, stated he could support the project with the proposed modifications. Commissioner Patrick indicated she wanted to support the project. She said if she could see evidence that the copper would be no problem, she would have no concerns. She conveyed that two driveways is one too many, and that the drainage is a problem because of the copper roof. She commented that it was a fabulous design. Commissioner Kurasch expressed concern with the design, specifically the poles having different angles and with too many blank walls. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO A LATER DATE. PASSED 5 -0 (COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT). Upon comments from Director Walgren regarding tonight's discussion, a new motion was made. COMMISSIONERS ROUPE/PAGE MOVED TO TENTATIVELY APPROVE THE DESIGN AS PROPOSED WITH THE CONTINUATION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES OF THE COPPER ROOF, FENCING, DRIVEWAY, AND GEOTECHNICAL MATTERS. Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 6 of 18 Responding to a question from Chairwoman Bemald, Director Walgren clarified that the Commission was not bound by any decision until it makes a final decision. He said staff would continue to work with the applicant to address any of the east elevation concerns raised. City Attorney Wittwer opined that a subsequent hearing would not be limited only to the issues raised tonight. FOLLOWING DISCUSSION, THE MOTION PASSED 4 -1 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH OPPOSED; COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT). 3. UP -99 -014 (397 -10 -009) - CELLULAR ONE, Utility pole in the State -owned right -of -way at the northeast corner of Fruitvale Avenue and Highway 9; Request for Use Permit approval to install two panel antennas on an existing utility pole at a height of 30 feet. An associated equipment cabinet located at the base of the pole is part of the proposal. The right -of -way is within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project. Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting that the proposal is for two panel antennas to be located on a less- than -50 feet high PG &E utility pole at approximately 26 feet in height. He reported that the City uses a very comprehensive approach to reviewing antenna applications, noting that antenna proposals can be made throughout the city and that, in the past, the City had ordinances which restricted antennas to particular zoning districts. He reported the City adopted the current ordinance with the provision that all antennas require a conditional use permit. He conveyed that any antenna proposal regardless of its location has to be presented to the Planning Commission for review based on the applicable findings. He said that in many jurisdictions if an antenna is being put on an existing utility pole, they are considered utilities and neighbors are not notified and hearings are not held. He said the City requires conditional use permits; applications are advertised in local newspapers; and mailing notices are sent to all property owners within 500 feet of the proposed facility. He conveyed that Congress adopted the Federal Telecommunications Act (FTA) in 1996 which established federal parameters for emissions that were determined to be not dangerous for humans. The FTA further ruled that if the radio frequency emissions were within the parameters of the standards established by Congress, local J urisdictions were not to deny them strictly on the basis of perceived health effects. Thus, he went on to say, the City is restricted in what can be taken into consideration. He noted, however, that the City requires radio engineers to prepare technical reports to evaluate the radio frequency emissions, both at the worst case scenario (base of the instrument and where a pedestrian may come in contact with the antenna) and broader case scenario (what the area radio frequency emissions may be.) He said the report prepared for this proposal shows that this facility is well under the federal guidelines for impacts to human health, resulting in a negative environmental impact in the initial studies. He said another issue associated with this proposal is aesthetics, noting that the pole is within the public right -of -way, in the center of several mature native trees, and the antenna would be located in the middle of the pole, intended to match the pole. He said that staff found it to be an aesthetically appropriate location for a transmission and primarily on the basis of those findings, staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit. Commissioner Kurasch asked Director Walgren how the General Plan impact on property values would relate to the application. Director Walgren responded that the purpose of the land use element in the General Plan, the circulation, conservation, and open space elements is basically to preserve and protect Saratoga's uniqueness, Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 7 of 18 including property values, quality of life, aesthetics, and standards. He said the purpose of the discretionary permit for antennas is to determine whether the location would be an aesthetically appropriate location. Chairwoman Bernald referred to an article from the American Planning Association and noted that if the Commission were to discuss property values this evening, or deny applications because of property values, it would be necessary to have a formal report that would indicate how a loss in property value would occur. She asked how property value impacts would occur when a utility pole already exists and has existed for quite some time in the area. She asked whether such a situation could be an issue. Director Walgren responded that part of the article refers to situations where a jurisdiction can prove that an area is already being adequately served. The City is further bound by the Public Utilities Commission; cannot deny this service in its jurisdiction; and would have to provide what is basically considered a public utility service. He said the article referred to areas where it can be shown that the community is already being served and would provide the City with greater discretion to deny reasons beyond aesthetics. City Attorney Wittwer replied that the staff report refers to City Code Section 15 -55070 which is the findings for a use permit. He said the City now has an ordinance requiring a use permit for each of the antennas. He said that among the findings that are required are that the proposed location of the use would not be materially injurious to properties or other improvements in the vicinity. He noted that the language is common in most use permit ordinances. He referred to a recent case in New York with similar language in which evidence was presented by real estate experts that a particular 150 -foot tower could have a stigmatizing effect that could reduce property values. He said if the General Plan has language indicating that one of the goals of the plan is to protect property values, it could be one way to develop evidence relevant to the Commission to decide that it might have a use that is materially injurious to the adjoining properties or improvements in the vicinity.. The evidence would have to be presented to the Commission, either in a report from the Director or testimony or documents submitted by members of the public who testify. He conveyed that there would have to be adequate evidence in the record to demonstrate that somehow there is some injury to the properties. He indicated that the evidence would have to be solid evidence such as real estate experts testifying. Chairwoman Bernald asked how the Commission would respond to letters it has received which state that the property owners believe there are safety issues and their property values would be decreased. Mr. Wittwer responded that the weight of the evidence would be something for the Commission to evaluate. He advised that something such as an appraisal would be necessary for the Commission to base its decision on reduction of property value. Commissioner Kurasch requested clarification regarding public testimony, the perception of a risk or perception of a problem with property values. Mr. Wittwer said that the Commission could consider public testimony and public perception, but that it goes to the weight of the evidence, and the Commission's job is to weigh the evidence and decide if there is adequate evidence to make a decision as to whether property values are truly being affected. He said he would advise that if all that is presented is perception and not any documentation or evidence that appears to be based on expertise from someone who has knowledge and experience in the specific area then the Commission may want to continue the hearing to find out if there is such evidence, and give an Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 8 of 18 opportunity for that to be presented. He said he would be reluctant to advise the Commission to make a decision that property values are affected without stronger evidence. Commissioner Kurasch asked if it were possible that such a claim could come up in appeal or challenge of the ruling. Mr. Wittwer responded that it was possible; however, his experience has been that Planning Commissioners take their job seriously and they would want to try to make the right decision based on adequate evidence and, if necessary, continue a matter to assure they had the evidence before it got to an appeal stage. Director Walgren commented that the General Plan does not contain a specific goal stating that the Commission should consider property values for every land use decision. He clarified that his response earlier was very broad, and that he meant that all of the City's goals and policies are to protect the natural environment, but nothing would be found in the General Plan which specifically calls for protecting property values. He said many people could have different opinions on what building a home next to them does to their property values. He noted that the City is bound by certain constraints under the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Act in terms of health impacts and the city's conditional use permit ordinance, and also by the Council's decision to adopt an ordinance which should be used to regulate these types of facilities. He said the what -if decisions being discussed this evening focus on the various court challenges that have gone on across the country which merely address what other individuals are doing to test or challenge some of these provisions. He reiterated that the Commission is looking at a conditional use permit application being reviewed under the City's findings and code and under the FCC ruling of health impacts. Mr. Wittwer stated he conditioned his prior comment on Director Walgren confirming that there was some language in the General Plan which explicitly was designed to protect private property rights, and as such, he would want to look more closely at the General Plan to see if there is any such language if property values becomes an issue in any of the applications before the Commission. He would also want to research any cases that address the words, "materially injurious," in terms of property values. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 8:55 p.m. Sandy Reyes of Cellular One, 651 Gateway Boulevard, San Jose, addressed the Commission, noting that the design was clean, obtrusive, and that the antennas would be installed on an existing utility pole. Commissioner Roupe referred to the cabinet for control equipment and stated that it was possible the dead shrubbery would have to be cleared and screening landscaping replanted. He asked if the applicant would have any objections to the screening. Ms. Reyes responded she would have no problem with placing screening. In response to a question from Commissioner Page, Ms. Reyes confirmed that the antennas would be transmitting to another site toward the street and not the homes behind it. Chairwoman Bernald supposed that a car were to hit the utility pole, causing it to go down into the street, and asked whether safety precautions to disconnect the antennas existed. Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 9 of 18 Ms. Reyes replied that if such circumstances were to occur, the facility would probably be disconnected and probably not function. Chairwoman Bernald asked whether the wires connected with sufficient tension from the pole to the antennas down the pole and into the box that they would be severed, and whether it contained a safety feature. Ms. Reyes responded that there was no safety feature which would automatically turn the site off, and noted that all of Cellular One's facilities are stable enough that they would probably not come off the site, adding that it would be difficult to say whether or not the pole would come off the site. Commissioner Kurasch asked what would happen if the trees close to the site were to block the antenna, and Ms. Reyes answered that the antennas would still be able to transmit. Commissioner Kurasch noted that the antennas are coming out from a large canopy of trees and asked whether the trees, when fully grown, need to be trimmed so that the antenna can function. Ms. Reyes responded that if the antennas are screened, there may be a need for trimming. Chairwoman Bernald commented that the utility provider would be responsible for trimming in the event of any problems. Director Walgren read into the record letters opposing the proposed antennas received from Shih -Toung and Shih -Chi Liao, 1950 Glen Una Road; Kenneth Chen, 15288 Fruitvale Avenue; Francis Chien, 15160 Fruitvale Avenue; Patricia Melehan, 19336 Monte Vista Drive; and a petition signed by 12 property owners. Mr. Bert Martel, 14420 Fruitvale Avenue, addressed the Commission, stating he resides next to West Valley College. He noticed that the study results of the application gives a certain percentage of the applicable public limit which he does not feel should be accepted. He said the percentage is a variable and has changed many times in the past and will change in the future. He noted that the Federal Communications Commission comes out with lots per square centimeter and all through of a lot of investigation it is lots per square centimeter. He suggested that the watts per centimeter should be noted in parenthesis.) us how many watts per centimeter it is. He conveyed that he researched the subject in Electrornagnetic Fields regarding the cumulative effects which the FCC does not seem to mention. He said that electromagnetic fields are bad for the body and nothing is known about the cumulative effect. Mr. William Lawrenson, 19489 Glen Una Road, spoke to the Commission on behalf of himself and neighbors at 19501 Glen Una. He said the property owners were required to bury all utilities so as not to add any more to the environment. He expressed concern with the continual impact of additional utilities in the area from a safety point of view and from a property value point of view. Mr. Wittwer clarified that the case he referred to regarding stigmatizing effect was addressing a stigmatizing effect from aesthetics and noted that a stimgatizing effect with a concern about health would come under the Telecommunications Act prohibition on local governments being able to regulate on that basis. Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 10 of 18 Mr. George Kao, 15288 Fruitvale Avenue, concurred with comments from Mr. Martel and Mr. Lawrenson. He suggested that throughout the years the FCC regulations changes and that there is no guarantee for this type of issue. Mr. Edward Ybarro, 15275 Fruitvale Avenue, stated that his five -year old and nine -year old grandsons play 50 feet from the pole and his kitchen is located 80 feet from the pole in which his wife spends a lot of time. He expressed concern with the cumulative effect. He asked whether 25 years from now it would be discovered that the radiation did affect his grandchildren. Commissioner Kurasch stated that with the current process, unless impacts are stated as significant in the initial study, the City is prohibited from basing its decision on health aspects. She asked Mr. Ybarro for his opinion on the aesthetics of the antenna installation. Mr. Ybarro responded by asking whether others would want to see a similar project out their kitchen window if they lived in his area. He stated he had just built in a $350,000 renovation to his house. Rajiv Das, M.D., M.P.H., 19491 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, addressed the Commission, stating he had done training for the University of San Francisco in environmental health. He expressed concern with the utility pole, indicating that when one speaks of health risks, the subject is breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and effects in unborn children. He noted that the main issue is cumulative effect not just from the one single emitter but multiple emitters around the area. He asked whether there was any approximate level of what the total exposure is to the population surrounding the pole. He expressed there are other areas along the road where the antennas could be sited that are not near residences and where risks associated with health and with decrease in property values related to aesthetics do not exist. Chairwoman Bernald commented that the City cannot give the advantage to one provider over another. She said this is one of the guidelines the Commission must follow in making its decisions. Cheriel Jensen, 13737 Quito Road, conveyed that the initial cell phone tower that was put into the city was close to her, described the history of the project, and noted that the tree next to the first cellular tower is dead. She said when the first cellular tower was installed, many of her neighbors lost reception to some cable stations. She conveyed she was on the City Council in 1980 when the Council initiated a program to put in all utilities underground along Highway 9 (now Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road). She said that every pole is a nonconforming pole at this time, and the Commission would be adding to a nonconforming pole. She said every time a person comes in for a permit, they are not allowed to put in their utilities overhead in the city. She expressed that every one of the cellular applications is in a residential district and is nonconforming. Chairwoman Bernald noted that Ms. Jensen had requested to address the Commission regarding Items 4 and 5 of the agenda, and Ms. Jensen stated that she had to leave the building, but she wanted her comments to apply to each item because each issue is a significant issue, an important issue. She said she did not want these "things" in her city. Stephen LeDoux addressed the Commission as counsel to Cellular One, conveying that Director Walgren and City Attorney Wittwer had accurately summarized the law, the results of case law, and interpreting the Telecommunications Act of 1996. He referred to two cases - one in San Jose and one in Dana Point, California — involving a 75 -foot new monopole with antennas and a 100 -foot pole in the northern San Jose jurisdiction. He said both cases were tract developments with similar homes, and the appraiser compared sales, trying to single out the only factor as proximity to the cellular facilities. When that was Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 11 of 18 done with sales prices and actual market data, there was no evidence that the 75 -foot monopole or the 100 -foot monopole had any negative effect on property values. He said service was in the area because of demand for service, noting that throughout the Bay Area, more than any other carrier, local police and fire rely on Cellular One service to provide important communications redundancy. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ROUPE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 9:26 P.M.) PASSED 5 -0. Commissioner Patrick commented that based on the criteria for making a decision, that the application is within the safety standards set by the FCC and under which the City operates. She conveyed she is satisfied that the application meets the criteria; the project is aesthetically appropriate, and especially more so than others which have come before the Commission. She said she was not satisfied that who perceives what as a risk is an issue. She stated that this is a public utility which the City is required to allow for the public good and public safety as long as there is a need for, the service. The project meets all the criteria, satisfies all the findings required, and she will be supporting the project. Commissioner Page concurred with Commissioner Patrick. He commented that he had seen safety officers and others using cellular phones for dialing 911 (emergency calls), and he would not want to vote against someone being able to call 911; thus, he will be supporting the application. Commissioner Kurasch, indicated she would be opposing the application and urged citizens to attend a future Commission meeting specifically addressing this issue. She indicated possible outcomes from that meeting could include that if the community or if the City was interested in undertaking different standards than FFC or federal standards, the community or City may lower the requirements of an environmental impact report which may mitigate the negative effects. Director Walgren clarified that it has not been concluded that the city can develop different standards from those already set by the FCC and adopted by Congress through the Telecommunications Act which is very specific; however, through the City Attorney's opinion memo, it has been concluded that the city can develop a process where differing opinions or additional studies can be accepted through the CEQA process, but ultimately as the federal law currently stands, the federal emission standards cannot be altered. Chairwoman Bernald commented that adopting a new process would create another layer for the applicants, additional expense, and use of time. Director Walgren recalled that earlier discussions included the possibility of requiring an environmental impact report for each of the applications. Responding to a question from Chairwoman Bernald whether any additional information would be provided as a result of requiring an environmental impact report, Director Walgren stated that earlier discussions included hypothetical alternative, and if a local document concluded that a lower threshold was needed, that document would need to acknowledge that the City is still bound by the FCC's developed thresholds. He said the process would be for the City to acknowledge that there may be different viewpoints or alternative studies. Commissioner Roupe stated that the significant point raised in the City Attorney's memo was that before launching into an expensive and time - consuming process there had to be substantial evidence of the significant impact before undertaking this issue, and he had not seen that evidence yet. Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 12 of 18 Responding to a question from Commissioner Kurasch, Director Walgren responded that a difficult side of the issue would be that great concern has been raised regarding health effects of the facilities that are not yet known. He said articles he has read refer to effects that perhaps have not yet been analyzed, and commented those types of concerns are going to be difficult to document. Commissioner Roupe opined that the application complies with the law, is aesthetically acceptable, and he will be voting in favor of it. He requested a condition that the applicant work with staff for appropriate screening of the control cabinet. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with Commissioners Roupe and Patrick. COMMISSIONERS ROUPE/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE UP -99 -014 WITH THE CONDITION THAT APPROPRIATE SCREENING BE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT WITH STAFF. PASSED 4 -1 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH OPPOSED; COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT). Chairwoman Bernald declared a recess. Upon reconvening, the same Commissioners and staff were present. 4. UP -99 -016 (386 -53 -019) - SPRINT, PG &E tower on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road at the Southern Pacific Railroad crossing; Request for Use Permit approval to install three antenna sectors with three antennas each, mounted on an existing PG &E tower. The proposal also includes several equipment cabinets located under the tower and enclosed by an eight -foot wood fence. The subject property is within an R -1- 12,500 zoning district. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project. Director Walgren presented details of the staff report, noting that all the necessary findings can be made to recommend approval. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 9:50 p.m. Ms. Anne Welsh, 3875 Hopyard Road, Pleasanton, Sprint representative, and Paul Zimmerman, Sprint radio frequency engineer, addressed the Commission. Ms. Welsh remarked that Sprint has tried to prepare a project acceptable to the city and described the area. She said Sprint proposes to put the equipment under the high- tension line and would be visually unobtrusive. She said revisions to the plan were based on staff's comments. She noted that an irrigation plan would be submitted at the building permit stage to maintain the proposed flannel bush screening. Using color boards, Mr. Zimmerman demonstrated the projected coverage area, noting that the site was chosen because of its location, that a new pole would not have to be installed, and it would blend in with the existing conditions. He said the antennas could be painted to match the PG &E tower and aesthetically do what would be required of them. There was no other public comment (except Ms. Jensen's earlier comments under Item #3.) COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:55 P.M. PASSED 5 -0 (COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT). Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 13 of 18 Commissioner Roupe noted this is a good application; encouraged the use of existing structures; aesthetically acceptable, and he will support the project. Commissioner Kurasch concurred with Commissioner Roupe and unlike the last application, she felt this was appropriately located, away from immediate residences, situated to be compatible, and she will vote in favor of the project. Commissioners Page and Patrick concurred. Chairwoman Bernald concurred, stating that the landscaping would be an improvement to what currently exists. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE UP -99 -016. PASSED 5 -0 (COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT). 5. UP -99 -017 (397 -13 -030, 397 -14 -022 & 397 -15 -018) - WEST VALLEY COLLEGE (METRICOM), 14000 Fruitvale Avenue; Request for Use Permit approval for the installation of 16 panel antennas on the sides of the West Valley College theater building and the placement of a 64 square foot prefabricated equipment cabinet on the ground on the north side of the building. The site is located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. All equipment will be painted to match the building. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project. Director Walgren presented the staff report, stating that the application is not for personal telephone communications, but for a mobile internet connection service. Chairwoman Bernald, noting the many antennas on the site, asked whether any study had been made that a threshold would apply because of a cumulative effect. Director Walgren responded that the cumulative emissions effect was analyzed in the radio engineer's report, which noted that the cumulative effect from all the providers (including the applicant) would increase from approximately 2 percent of the federal standard to approximately 3 percent, which is well below the threshold. Commissioner Page asked whether any study of the building rooftop had been made from a structural standpoint. Director Walgren replied that the city does not do the plan checks for the college's building activities; however, it would probably have been done through the state architect's office. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 10 P.M. Mr. Gene Zambetti, 14540 Big Basin Way, addressed the Commission on behalf of Metricom, noting that they produce a wireless internet system connected to a laptop computer. He said there are several subscribers in Saratoga who cannot get the service. He said after considering seven different locations, this site was chosen because it was the highest location in the city. It is a central location in the community and if approved, West Valley College students would have internet access to their professors Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 14 of 18 remotely without having a telephone line, from the city library, senior center, schools, etc. He distributed photos of before and after the antennae installation. He described the antennas as very light, noting that the equipment is on the ground, 56" high, weighing approximately 700 pounds, and they can be painted to match to blend in with the building. He said the other cellular providers are above the rooftop and Metricom's would be below the rooftop and fit into the elevations. He introduced Mr. Mark Newman of Hammett & Edison (470 Third Street West, Sonoma, CA) who prepared the technology report and has done extensive research regarding the cumulative effects. Mr. Newman specifically addressed the issue of human effects at the site. He said he has studied all four of the existing carriers in addition to Metricom. He said analyses were done at several key buildings and areas of interest around the site, including the library building, the local park, the senior center, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, of which most are approximately half a mile away from the Theater Arts Building. He explained how the calculations are done, noting they are worst case calculations in an effort to ensure that the numbers reported cannot be exceeded by anything that would be measured in the field. He said the maximum calculation was way below the standard for public exposure. Responding to a question from Commissioner Page, Mr. Zambetti responded that the antennas being installed would be used for receiving and for sending. Mr. Martel again addressed the Commission, recalling that Commissioner Jackman who was absent tonight, had asked what the total levels were at the Odd Fellows. He quoted from the staff report the companies and their wattage, noting that they add up to what Commissioner Jackman had requested. He said additional work regarding the impacts to the Odd Fellows Home remained to be done, and suggested that the consultant do additional work. He expressed that the numbers he quoted are coming from the Theater Arts Building towards the Odd Fellows Home. He said the consultant report only provides various parts, not 100 percent, and has the software to plot this. Chairwoman Bernald asked Mr. Newman to address Mr. Martel's concern. Mr. Newman responded by explaining that a database which models the roof of the college was built, and the Odd Fellows Home site was inserted in the database to calculate the maximum number at the closest point. He noted that the calculations at the Odd Fellows Home are very much in keeping with the other sites similar in distances. Responding to an inquiry from Commissioner Patrick, Mr. Newman responded that the figure was cumulative of all the antennas at the college. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the antennas would be equally spaced so they appeared as part of the building, and Mr. Zambetti responded that Metricom has taken into consideration the architectural elements and that the distance of each antenna must be kept at a minimum of four feet. He noted that architecturally, elevation changes are every eight to ten feet. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 10:16 P.M.) PASSED 5 -0 (COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT.) Commissioner Page commented that he agreed with staff, specifically with the size of the antennae which are placed on the face of the building versus the roof, and is supporting the project. Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 15 of 18 Commissioner Kurasch concurred. Commissioner Roupe concurred and will be supporting the project. Commissioner Patrick and Chairwoman Bernald concurred. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ROUPE MOVED TO APPROVE UP -99 -017. APPROVED 5 -0 (COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT). DIRECTOR ITEMS DR -99 -020 - STERLING, 18588 ALLENDALE AVENUE Request for modification of approved plans Commissioner Kurasch indicated she would be recusing herself because she resides within 300 feet of the project. Chairwoman Bernald responded that in complying with the clarification of when a Commissioner must recuse him /herself, Commissioner Kurasch would not have to recuse herself. Director Walgren indicated this was a Director's Item, not a Public Hearing, and Commissioner Kurasch would not have to recuse herself. Director Walgren presented the details of the staff report, indicating that this issue goes back to the City's policy regarding when changes are made to public buildings after they have gone through a formal public design review process, and the Planning Commission has approved them, they must come back to the Commission for re- review. Director Walgren described the proposed changes to the design, noting that staff recommends approving the enclosure of the porches and additional 46 square feet of floor areas, and deny the modification of the attached garage. Mr. Dan Shaw, 21613 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, stated he is the new owner of the property. He said he entered into a contract to purchase the property after the builder appeared before the Commission with the design. He conveyed that the reason for connecting the garage to the house is a personal safety and security issue. He said the lot is one acre and sits substantially back from the street, and a significant amount of trees and brush screen it from the street. He noted that in returning home late in the evening, occupants would prefer going into and closing a garage, and entering the house; thus, he asked the architect to redesign the home to enclose the breezeway. Mr. Ron Waer, 7352 Prendivale Drive, San Jose, addressed the Commission as the Westbrook Builders architect. He reported that the biggest issue is the long wall along the west side of the house and described the proposed changes in detail. He said one element omitted in the report is the roof pitch has been lowered slightly and the overall building height has been reduced by 18 inches. He said it is important to note that the house sits back from the street frontage and is well shielded. Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 16 of 18 Chairwoman Bernald noted that the interior plan is far more workable with the new design, but there is a sizable mud room that is incorporated with the plan. She asked whether the applicant had considered knocking some floor area space from the mud room to give better articulation to the wall. Mr. Waer responded he would be willing to make such an adjustment. Chairwoman Bernald suggested installing lights in the specific area. Commissioner Roupe referred to the architectural drawing of the west elevation and asked whether openings had been omitted from the drawing. Mr. Waer replied that the windows toward the south end of the west elevation had been eliminated because that window was looking out toward residences; whereas out the back the windows look into a much deeper setback and back yard of the house. He added that the door and window in the family room had been eliminated for privacy purposes. Commissioner Patrick asked whether anything had been done with the eucalyptus trees in the front that separate the new home from the older house on Allendale, and Mr. Waer responded that no other measures had been taken for the trees. Commissioner Patrick stated she concurred with staff. She did not think it was a terrific idea to attach the garage as proposed by the owner. Chairwoman Bernald asked whether Commissioner Patrick would consider having more of an alcove cutting into the mud rooms that broke it up and ask for the windows to go back. Commissioner Patrick responded she would like to see a drawing because of her past experience with previous proposals making changes to approved projects. Commissioner Page expressed he would prefer to see an exact design of the proposed changes, including the articulation of the building. Commissioner Kurasch had no comment. Commissioner Roupe concurred with Commissioners Patrick and Page, noting that if modifications are to be made in an effort to give greater articulation to the building, the Commission should see it. He suggested that perhaps the applicant could bring the issue back to staff and work with staff or the Commission. Responding to a question from Commissioner Roupe, Director Walgren said that the design would have to come back to staff for a final plan check before it could be submitted for permits, and if the Commission wanted to see it again, the item could be agendized for the next Commission meeting. Mr. Shaw stated this was not an elevation that could be seen from the street nor from the neighboring driveway coming out. It is only visible to the two property owners behind the property. He said he would be willing to approach the two neighbors. Commissioner Page stated that in addition to reviewing the articulation with staff, it be required that the applicant discuss the plan with the neighbors. Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 17 of 18 Chairwoman Bernald expressed concern with the length of the home and would like to see more articulation on the specific elevation Commissioner Roupe commented he would ask staff to work with the architect and applicant, and did not see any need for the proposal to come back to the Commission. Director Walgren agreed with Commissioner's Roupe direction, adding direction that the applicants run the plans by the neighbors. Mr. Shaw verified that the Commission direction was to approve staff's recommendation. Director Walgren distributed information on the League of California Cities annual Planning Commission workshop to be held November 5, 1999, in Grover Beach, California. He stated that the Commission's annual workshop will be held March 1 -3, 1999, in Monterey, California. Director Walgren reported on the City Attorney's memo regarding the Conflict of Interest procedures for Commissioners recusing themselves. Director Walgren indicated he had planned to move up the telecommunications discussion to October 27, 1999, at which time Commissioner Jackman would be present. However, he noted that Commissioner Roupe will not be present at the October 27, 1999 Commission meeting; thus, the issue will remain on the November 10, 1999 agenda. Commissioner Page said he would want to be part of the discussion of the fencing issue scheduled for the October 27, 1999 meeting from which he will be absent. Director Walgren stated that the fencing issue would be delayed to the November 10, 1999 agenda because Commissioners Page and Roupe will not be in attendance. COMMISSION ITEMS Chairwoman Bernald distributed questionnaires to Commissioners which were distributed at the September 23, 1999 meeting of the Circulation Element. Chairwoman Bernald expressed concern regarding canine feces in downtown Saratoga and asked for any information such as City ordinances or policies addressing the issue. Chairwoman Bernald inquired about the Ahmadian property frieze, and Director Walgren noted that the project had been inspected by the, Historical Preservation Commission who was satisfied with the modification. Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 18 of 18 COMMUNICATIONS Written - City Council minutes for special meetings of August 30 and September 9, 1999, adjourned regular meeting of September 7, 1999, and regular meeting of September 15, 1999 - Noted. - Notices for regular Planning Commission meeting of October 27, 1999 - Noted. - Notice of Preparation of Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration for regular meeting of October 27,1999; CITY OF SARATOGA, Citywide - Noted. - Notice of Environmental Negative Declaration for regular meetings of October 27 and November 10, 1999; AZULE CROSSING, INC., 12312 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road - Noted. - Newspaper article addressing studies to examine the health effects of using cell phones - Noted. - Magazine article regarding the 1996 Telecommunications Act covering siting of wireless facilities - Noted. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chairwoman Bemald adjourned the meeting at 10:45 P.M. to Wednesday, October 27, 1999, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Lynda Ramirez Jones Minutes Clerk MINUTES AMENDED AND APPROVED BY: (� mes Walgren Secretary to the Planning ommission CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, September 22, 1999 - 7:30 p.m. Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting Roll Call Present: Commissioners Jackman, Kurasch, Page, Patrick, Roupe and Chairwoman Bernald Absent: None Staff: Community Development Director James Walgren, who welcomed City Attorney Richard Taylor to the meeting Pledge of Allegiance Minutes Minutes of the Planning Commission meetings of September 8 and 22, 1999, will be considered at the meeting of October 13, 1999, due to absence of the Minutes Clerk. Oral Communications - None. Report of Posting Agenda Director Walgren declared that Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 17, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet - None. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. SD -98 -009 & DR -98 -070 (397 -27 -031) - NAVICO, INC., 14230 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road; Request for Tentative Map and Design Review approval for the subdivision of a 24,391 square foot parcel into six parcels ranging in size from 2,300 to 3,370 square feet. The remaining 7,451 square feet will be common area. Six townhomes ranging in size from approximately 2,700 to 2,900 square feet will be constructed on the new lots. The site is located within an R -M -3,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 10/13/99 AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANTS). COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. PASSED 6 -0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. DR -99 -034 (397 -16 -067) - ARCHDEACON, 19628 Kenosha Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to remodel and add a 1,344 square foot one -story addition to an existing 4,472 square foot single story residence. The new roof will be 22 feet, six inches high. The site is 37,069 square feet and is located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 1999 Page 2 Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting that the proposal is a request to partially demolish, renovate, and reconstruct an existing single -story home located in an R- 140,000 zoning district. He said the parcel is just under 40,000 square feet, a resulting parcel size of the planned community zoning designation that was used for this particular site division when it was created some time ago. The offset land was used for frontage improvements which was permitted by the zoning designation. The proposal is to add approximately 1,344 square feet to an existing 4,472 square foot. He said the existing home is approximately 16 feet in height. He stated that the addition meets all minimum zoning ordinance requirements in terms of setbacks and lot coverage and maximum permitted floor area. He said had the new home been limited to no more than 18 feet in height it would have been reviewed administratively and not be before the Commission tonight. He noted that because the applicants chose to go to 22'6" in height, exceeding the 18 -foot threshold, a design review public hearing is necessary. Director Walgren said that staff review found that the project complies with the zoning standards for this district and that the necessary design review findings can be made, specifically the architectural compatibility, preservation of views, protection of privacy, and preservation of solar accessibility. He said staff was recommending approval of the application with the conditions in the resolution. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 7:39 p.m. Mr. Fred Luminoso, 14188 Perata Court, Saratoga, addressed the Commission, stating that 80 percent of the walls will be retained, and that the addition is primarily at the rear of the structure. He referred to a project drawing, noting that the red lines indicate the walls that are to be built and the rest is already existing, with the exception of the corner of the garage. He said the height of the home is necessary to get a good sense of proportion with the house. He submitted two letters from neighbors - one across the street from the project; the other adjacent to the property - both supporting the proposal. Mr. Luminoso conveyed that the color of the house would be gray with a stone facade. He said that the three dormers are for architectural enhancement and would double to bring light into the hallways. Mr. Luminoso responded to a question from Commissioner Page regarding the window treatments in the bathroom /dressing area, noting that a translucent window would be used. Mr. Luminoso, responding to a question from Commissioner Kurasch, explained why the project has two garages - one facing the street; the other on the opposite side. Commissioner Roupe referred to a concern raised in the tour of the project. He asked Mr. Luminoso whether he would be willing to consider, as a condition, relocating the large cobblestone driveway further back from the road and developing a berm to shield the large expansive cobblestone from the street. Mr. Luminoso said he would be willing to accept such a condition. Commissioner Jackman commented that the cobblestone driveway would be offset and the applicant would be taking out 2,800 square feet of cement at the rear garage which is now used for a turnaround. She said that would give more pervious coverage. She said the cobblestone would be well hidden by the berm. Bob Calderoni, 19753 Minacqua Court, addressed the Commission. He said his property is two lots away from the proposed project. He stated he had been through the plans with Mr. Luminoso and is in favor of the project which will be a tasteful addition to the neighborhood. He recommended Commission approval. Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 1999 Page 3 COMMISSIONERS PAGE/ROUPE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 7:45 P.M.) PASSED 6 -0. Commissioner Roupe stated he was in favor of the project, which he opined is well - balanced in the neighborhood. He commended the applicant for working closely with the neighbors. He said he would support the project with the understanding that there will be a relocation of the cobblestone front driveway and a berm that will hide it from the street view. Commissioner Page stated he was in total support of the project as long as the direction of staff is to include the berm and relocate the driveway. Commissioners Patrick and Jackman concurred. Commissioner Kurasch noted that having the neighbors' support is a good sign and the project will be a tasteful addition. Chairwoman Bernald concurred. COMMISSIONERS ROUPE/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE DR -99 -034 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE COBBLESTONE DRIVEWAY BE APPROPRIATELY RELOCATED AND A BERM FOR LANDSCAPING PURPOSES BE PLACED IN THE FRONT SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL. PASSED 6 -0. DR -99 -035 (397 -28 -053) - FORMICO /PARDEN, 20435 Walnut Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 560 square foot single story "cottage" and construct a two - story 2,597 square foot residence with a maximum height of 21 feet. A 726 square foot basement is also proposed. The parcel is 7,650 square feet and is located within an R- 1- 10,000 zoning district. Director Walgren presented the staff report, stating that the proposal is a request to demolish an existing 560 square foot cottage that appears to be an accessory building, at one point, to a larger residence on another parcel. The cottage is now on its own legal lot of record. He said the parcel is substandard in terms of size (7,600 square feet) in a zoning district that would require new lots created to be a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. He said it is also constrained by its configuration of 50 feet in width. Current zoning requirements would require a minimal width of 85 feet. The proposal includes demolishing the structure and constructing a new two -story 2,500 square foot residence in its place with a basement below the building. The building has been designed to meet all minimum setback requirements for the first and second floors based on the increased height of the building. The proposal meets the lot coverage standards. The floor area has been reduced as required by the district based on the building's height. He said the building would be a height of only 21 feet which is physically about as low as one can design two floors and still have a two -story structure. Director Walgren noted that staff review found the proposal to comply with all minimal zoning requirements, and design review findings could be made to recommend approval. He said that window placement has been oriented to minimize impacts to adjacent neighbors' use of their properties. Public notices were mailed to all adjoining property owners within 500 feet, and no objections to the proposal have come forth. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the resolution. Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 1999 Page 4 Elsbeth Newfield, 1119 Byron Street, Palo Alto, introduced herself as the project architect. The owner, Jim Parden, 20434 Walnut Avenue, Saratoga, stated that the proposal is very compatible with the neighborhood and is in compliance with the city's design guide book. Commissioner Patrick stated this was the second house the owner is proposing in the neighborhood and asked whether the Commission could expect any plans for future homes. .Mr. Parden said no future proposals were anticipated. Commissioner Page referred to the east side of the house and asked whether the applicant planned to put in any screening to protect the window in bedroom #3. Mr. Parden responded that screening could be done. Ms. Newfield noted that the one window on the east side was vulnerable to neighborhood concerns. Commissioner Kurasch asked whether consideration had been given to shifting the house so it would not be completely parallel to the adjacent house. Ms. Newfield responded that it is a challenge on a narrow lot to design a house and as a design professional, she opined that she would rather keep the maximum amount of space in the back for private family use. She said another problem with pushing the house back would be more driveway, and that would be objectionable. She said in all cases she would try to keep a house close to the front setback. She noted the front of the house is very sculptured, very uneven and as other houses are built on the other side, this project would be a good neighbor because it is not flat. Commissioner Roupe referred to the fencing and landscape screening, which plan has not been developed. He asked whether such a plan would be developed subject to staff approval. Director Walgren responded that it had not been addressed yet in the conditions of approval, but it could be made a condition. Mr. Parden responded he had no problem in installing a good neighbor fence. Commissioner Jackman asked whether the two exits in the basement were large enough for a person to exit as a safety issue. Ms. Newfield responded that the window on the right side is designed to open fully, with three feet space area and a ladder, and the left side has a regular stairway. She said the exits were designed to be on the opposite side of each other. Responding to a question from Commissioner Kurasch, Director Walgren responded that the 270 cubic yards of excavation for the basement would have to be taken offsite. Robert Wall, 20451 Walnut Avenue, Saratoga, introduced himself as the project's neighbor on the west side. He expressed that his concern was with the screening. He said his side of the house is not separated by a Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 1999 Page 5 driveway and is very close to the proposed building. He noted there is a row of approximately eight fairly mature trees, clearly smaller than trees that would be protected under restrictions, which he would like to have protected during construction, particularly when the basement is going in. He requested that the trees be considered permanent fixtures on the lot. He stated that his bedrooms and bathrooms are on that side of the house. Further, he said a 3 foot fence is on his side of the property and did not know whether it would be impacted. He said that on his side is a small patio that exits in the small space between the two houses. He asked that considering the substandard width of the lots, this would be very close to having a door right outside a very small pathway. Additionally, he requested that construction hours be kept between 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. Responding to questions from Commissioner Page, Mr. Wall confirmed that his house had no side doors. Mr. Wall said that most of the houses on narrow lots in the surrounding area only have front and back entrances. Mr. Wall verified that his house is a tall, one -story house with an accessible attic area which is incomplete and has no dormers. In response to Commissioner Kurasch's questions regarding the space between the door and patio, Director Walgren clarified that the door does not open to the six feet which is the edge of the patio. He said there would not be a landing or a door that would encroach into the six feet. Responding to a question from Chairwoman Bernald, Director Walgren said that the normal hours of construction are 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 -5:00 p.m., seven days a week. Commissioner Roupe asked whether it would be within the Commission's purview to make a determination whether construction hours could be more limiting. Director Walgren responded that this has been done on major scale projects such as major commercial renovations or large subdivision projects. It has never been done on single - family homes in the past, but it could be done if it were consistent. Mr. Parden addressed the Commission, stating that the shrubs Mr. Wall referred to are about 10 feet from the fence feet into the building line, and noted that it would be impossible to construct the building and save the tree. He said the trees were there when he purchased the property, and they have grown wild and not maintained. He said he would have no problem planting some sort of controlled screen. Chairwoman Bernald asked about the laundry room and patio exits, and Mr. Parden said that they are within the guidelines and would not be used for anything other than access. He said that the house has a side entrance on the east side. Commissioner Page inquired about the fence on the east side, and Mr. Parden said the fence is five feet, but he would be willing to install a six foot fence and plant screening along that side. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 8:08 P.M.) PASSED 6 -0. Commissioner Jackman expressed that the plans were fine as submitted, noting that it had been explained that the trees on the left side could not be maintained. Commissioner Patrick concurred. Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 1999 Page 6 Commissioner Page agreed. Commissioner Kurasch concurred, noting that the home was well delineated. Her only concern would be screening that would be adequate to respond to the neighbor's concerns. Commissioner Roupe agreed with Commissioner Kurasch that a condition be that a fencing and screening plan be developed subject to staff approval. He commended the applicant and architect for the use of a basement in the design. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with comments made. She expressed that it was a very well articulated home, and it would be most appropriate for the neighborhood. She agreed that a fence and screening plan should be part of the resolution. COMMISSIONERS JACKMAN/KURASCH MOVED TO ACCEPT DR -99 -035 WITH THE CONDITION THAT A COMPREHENSIVE AND LANDSCAPE PLAN BE SUBMITTED FOR STAFF APPROVAL. PASSED 6 -0. 4. UP -99 -019 (393 -01 -027) - TOGO'S RESTAURANT (ARGONAUT ASSOCIATES, LLC), 12868 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road; Request for Use Permit approval for tenant improvements to operate a sandwich shop with limited outdoor seating. The site is located between Safeway and Longs Drugs in the Argonaut Shopping Center and is within a Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. Director Walgren reported that the request is for a conditional use permit to operate a restaurant in the middle of the Argonaut Shopping Center between Safeway and Long's Drug Store. He said the proposal is consistent with the General Plan designation for the area, the Commercial Neighborhood Zoning, and staff is recommending approval subject to the conditions in the resolution, including hours of operation. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 8:14 p.m. Kevin O'Mara, 1320 Koch Lane, San Jose, addressed the Commission, noting he is the franchisee on record for the location. He said the restaurant would be an enhancement for the community and the center. Commissioner Kurasch asked why the rear of the site was empty or not showing occupancy. Mr. O'Mara responded that the site is 3100 square feet and very deep, and he does not require that much square footage in the footprint. He said the building would be split. He will take the front half and the rear half will be used by the Center for its in -house offices. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 8:15 P.M.) PASSED 6 -0. Commissioners Patrick and Jackman noted they had no opposition to the application. Commissioner Page stated he was in complete agreement with the proposal. Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 1999 Page 7 Commissioner Kurasch concurred, adding that this location was a logical one for food service. Commissioner Roupe concurred. Chairwoman Bernald conveyed that the project was a good location, that it balances the other food service providers, and it is a good neighborhood - friendly activity. She said she would be supporting the project. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE UP -99 -019. PASSED 6 -0. Commissioner Kurasch expressed concern about a perceived traffic or safety problem regarding the roundabout in the middle of the Argonaut Shopping Center. Director Walgren said that staff needs to follow up on the primary exit out of the shopping center which was supposed to be a "right only" turn, prohibiting a left turn. He said there should be some kind of physical relief to the center which would keep cars from crossing the roundabout. A discussion ensued regarding the roundabout. DIRECTOR ITEMS Discussion of attached City Attorney Telecommunications Memo Director Walgren introduced the item. He referred to a transmission antenna hearing before the Commission in August 1999 in which a discussion was held regarding the applicability of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. He said specifically, the Commission was concerned with what local jurisdictions could and could not review regarding public health and safety, aesthetics, and visual impacts. At that time, Director Walgren suggested that the issue be revisited, especially with new Commissioners on board. The Commission agreed to hold scheduling future transmission antenna hearings until discussion regarding this issue was held. He said currently staff has three applications ready to go to hearing, and the applicants have been notified that efforts are being made to get the hearings scheduled. Director Walgren reported that the Telecommunications Act does restrict local jurisdictions from applying health and safety standards relative to radio frequency emissions beyond the thresholds established by the Act. He said the report from City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer ties the federal act to the City's environmental requirements in which the City made the administrative determination many years ago that the antennas would be subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). He said staff does full environmental initial studies on these applications resulting in Negative Declarations. If they do not result in Negative Declarations, the sites are not approved. He said the issue has been raised that the City could, if it chose to, establish their own thresholds of significance, perhaps lower than what has been established by Congress. However, he said a greater process would be created by deleting the initial study out of the Negative Declaration range and into a focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to better document what the alternative studies might conclude for safer thresholds. He noted that the report concluded that the city is still bound ultimately by the thresholds established by the Telecommunications Act. Commissioner Roupe proposed a study session to address this issue. Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 1999 Page 8 Mr. Taylor reported that three areas were considered: 1) What are the requirements of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and how do they apply to the city? 2) How does the City discharge its own obligations under CEQA? And 3) Past litigation - is the City potentially liable for approving facilities that might in the future constitute a health risk? Mr. Taylor conveyed that with respect to issue #1, what Congress determined and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has implemented for them is that there needs to be one standard for what is considered safe in terms of radio frequency emissions. They determined that local governments are free to regulate cellular antennae with respect to aesthetic issues, but not with respect to the health and safety issues associated with the radio frequency emissions. Another important factor is that the Act imposes a slightly greater degree of due process requirements that cellular antenna applicants are entitled to than other applicants would be entitled to. He said the job of the Planning Commission is to be fair and when it is fair, the due process requirement has been satisfied. He said that unreasonable discrimination against providers is not allowed nor are actions that would prohibit services that help PCS services, but deny cellular services. Mr. Taylor noted that the Commission's job under CEQA is to look at significant effects to the environment. He noted that CEQA was enacted to give the city the opportunity to adopt mitigation measures to avoid those significant effects. He continued to describe the CEQA position, and how the evidence that comes before the City plays a role. Mr. Taylor noted that this issue has been raised in several cities, and as a legal matter, he is not aware of any cities having determined that this is a significant impact. Mr. Taylor stated that the City is not liable for the adverse impacts of the projects it approves. The City has statutory immunity for those kinds of issues, and the City is protected by the fact that the FCC does not allow it to deny projects based on any safety conditions connected with the radio frequency emissions. Commissioner Kurasch asked for clarification between a session now and a session later. Director Walgren noted that a study session is a public meeting and is used to develop draft ordinances before they go to hearings. There would be a formal follow -up at the next regular public hearing. Commissioner Jackman asked when the study session would be held as she will be away during October, and she would like to be present. Director Walgren said that if the Commission agreed, he would schedule the three antenna applications for October 13 while the issue is still being discussed. Commissioner Patrick conveyed that the report indicates that there is no change in the City Attorney's advice from the past and that FCC standards rule as far as emissions go. She said the city has the discretion to exercise control over the design and cannot discriminate among providers or types of service provided. She does not see that discussion of this issue would impede her ability to make a decision on the three applications on October 13. However, she proposed setting the study session on a date when Commission Jackman would be available. Commissioner Kurasch stated she was not in favor of deferring this issue. She said this may not be something that is going to change in ten years. She noted that she has received letters from Mr. Bert Martel, Dr. Francis Stutzman and other citizens who are concerned with the levels of emissions and how they are Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 1999 Page 9 measured. She said the report indicates there may be another way of looking at this issue in the future when the evidence is compiled. Commissioner Roupe disagreed, noting that CEQA specifies that the issue has to have a significant effect on the environment and there must be substantial evidence. He did not believe that anybody present tonight is in a position to make observations about significance or substantial evidence and proposed a study session. Commissioner Jackman requested information regarding how many antennas are in the city, their location, how they are spread out, etc. Director Walgren noted that the city has strong regulations which apply to visual and aesthetic impacts which would prevent a site from being over utilized for too many antennae sites. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Taylor to comment on the ruling for public input regarding evidence. Mr. Taylor responded that the issue of significant public controversy is a factor that the city can take into consideration, but it requires evidence supporting that controversy. He said if there is conflicting evidence and significant public controversy, the city would be within its discretion to say there is a significant effect on the environment and require an environmental impact report. He said the nature of what constitutes significant controversy is not a precise term. Following further discussion, consensus was to schedule the three applications for October 13, 1999, using the FCC threshold and schedule a study session to discuss the issue on November 10, 1999, at 5 -5:30 p.m. Discussion of 7:00 p.m. meeting time Director Walgren introduced the item regarding the possibility of changing the meeting to 7:00 p.m. Commissioners Jackman, Patrick, Page, Roupe, and Chairwoman Bernald spoke in favor of a 7:30 p.m. start. Commissioner Kurasch favored 7:00 p.m. Consensus was to continue with the 7:30 p.m. meeting start. COMMISSION ITEMS Director Walgren reported on the Commission vacancy. He said three applications have been submitted, and the City Council plans to interview October 20, 1999, and hopefully a new Commissioner will come on board November 10, 1999. Director Walgren announced that September 23, 1999, is the initial kick -off public meeting for the Circulation Scenic Highway Element Update project in the large multipurpose room of the Senior Center at 7 p.m. In response to a question from Commissioner Kurasch regarding a Commissioner being recused from speaking on an item before the Commission, Mr. Taylor said he looked into the law, and a memo to the City is in the process of being prepared. He said that a Commissioner does not need to remove him/herself from the room; however, in a Council issue, the Council member would need to remove him/herself from the room Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 1999 Page 10 if it were a closed session item. Commissioners can participate in the meeting and must step down from the dais. Mr. Taylor confirmed that if there is a conflict of interest that precludes a Commissioner from participating, the Commissioner can step down from the dais, become a citizen, and may participate as a member of the public. Commissioner Patrick asked Mr. Taylor to also address the issue of undue influence in his memo. COMMUNICATIONS Written The City Council minutes for special meetings of August 13 & 26, 1999, and regular meeting of September 1, 1999, were noted. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING With no further business to conduct, Chairwoman Bernald adjourned the meeting at 8:56 p.m. to Wednesday, October 13, 1999, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Lynda Ramirez Jones Minutes Clerk MINUTES AMENDED AND APPROVED BY: /\I/-\)A I 0�vtyl Jai es algren Sec y to the Panning Commission CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, September 8, 1999 - 7:30 p.m. Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting Roll Call Present: Commissioners Jackman, Kurasch, Page, Patrick, Roupe and Chairwoman Bernald Absent: None Staff. Community Development Director James Walgren, City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - August 11, 1999 COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/JACKMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 11, 1999 WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS. PASSED 3 -3 (BERNALD, KURASCH AND ROUPE ABSTAINED). Page 6, paragraph 1, line 4: "....the 4ding gfigg of the houses so as not to conflict...." Page 5, paragraph 8, line 1: "COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/J � JACKMAN MOVED...." Page 7, paragraph 8, line 2: "....two trees is amplific exemplified by the placement...." Oral Communications There was no one present who wishes to speak on any item not on the agenda. Chairwoman Bernald moved the agenda to the Consent Calendar. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. UP -99 -011 (397 -04 -098) - EVAN, 14594 Sobey Oaks Road; Request for Use Permit approval to construct a 650 square foot pool house in the rear yard. The existing residence with garage is 4,547 square feet. The property is 40,075 square feet and is located in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED INDEFINITELY AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. IF THE PROJECT MOVES FORWARD AS PROPOSED, A NEW HEARING DATE WILL BE ADVERTISED). COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. PASSED 6 -0. Chairwoman Bernald moved the agenda back to Report of Posting Agenda. Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1999 Page 2 Report of Posting Agenda Director Walgren declared that pursuant to Government code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 3, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet - None. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. UP -98 -011.1 (503 -24 -009) - AMALFARD, 14445 Big Basin Way; Request for modification to an approved Use Permit to allow deli and outdoor seating in conjunction with the market use that was previously approved. The building is 2,700 square feet on a 4,375 square foot lot and is located in a CH -1 Commercial Historic zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 8/11/99). Commissioner Jackman recused herself from this item stating that she resides within 300 feet of the project. Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting this was an amendment to a conditional use permit that the Commission issued last October to operate what was then a gourmet market, Caravan Market, in the Village within a commercial historic zoning district. He said that retail and services uses are permitted by right in the Village; however, certain uses such as a restaurant or business engaging in the sale of alcoholic beverages require conditional use permits to allow the Commission an opportunity to review the proposal for any potential impacts to adjacent residences surrounding the Village. At the time the permit was issued, the applicants were asked whether they intended in the future to expand into a restaurant or delicatessen activity, and they stated they had no such plans. He conveyed that it was noted that a restaurant or delicatessen was a different type of activity under the zoning ordinance, and if the project expanded to include food service, it would require an amendment to the conditional use permit. He said that the applicant accepted that condition. Director Walgren continued his report, stating that earlier this summer a restaurant bloomed at the market. The city contacted the owners and reminded them that an amendment to the conditional use permit was required. In the interim, the owners procrastinated in following up and sold the business. The ownership was transferred to the new owners who planned to operate a similar business called the Saratoga Cafe. They were reminded that the restaurant was operating in violation of the city code and that the city had not authorized the new restaurant to move or operate in the location. The new owners accepted the city's regulation and agreed to operate only as a market until the amendment to the permit could be heard by the Commission. They were also notified that a sign permit would be necessary for any new signage on the building. Director Walgren noted that since the last discussion with the applicants, a restaurant business has been operating at the site and signage has gone up. He said that the city sees this business as an appropriate use for the Village as it is pedestrian oriented, consistent with the Village plan, and encouraged by the City. He stated that staff is recommending approval of the modification of the use permit to expand from a market to a restaurant. However, staff is also recommending that the Commission address the issue that the business had been operating in violation of the permit's previous use for some time, and recommend a fine or assessment consistent with the conditions of the original use permit. He said it is important to acknowledge that these regulations are in place for a reason and they need to be followed. Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1999 Page 3 Chairwoman Bernald asked for the dates or amount of time that the owners operated without a permit, and Director Walgren responded he did not have the specific dates, but they could be determined. Chairwoman Bernald inquired whether the violators were the previous owners or new owners or both. Director Walgren replied that the previous owners were involved, and from the article in the Saratoga News and the tour of the site yesterday, it appeared the new owners were also involved. Responding to a question from Commissioner Roupe, Director Walgren confirmed that the current application is in violation of the city ordinance and that staff had notified the new owners that it was not possible to operate as a restaurant or delicatessen. Commissioner Roupe requested clarification regarding whether staff had told the applicants that it was now okay to operate as a restaurant or delicatessen, and Director Walgren confirmed that staff had made it very clear to the applicant that it was not appropriate to proceed with the project from the initial application submittal of the amendment to the use permit. Commissioner Roupe asked how long the applicants had been operating in violation, and Director Walgren replied that he would defer the question to the applicant. Commissioner Kurasch questioned how a fine would be levied on the previous owner and whether the current owner would be liable to a fine once the ownership changed. City Attorney Wittwer responded that the Commission would impose the fine, noting that who would pay is contingent upon the contractual relationship between the previous owner and current owner. Commissioner Roupe asked what other sanctions beyond a fine could be levied on the applicant who knowingly violates the City code. City Attorney Wittwer replied that the Municipal Code includes issues regarding criminal sanctions such as misdemeanors and infractions. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 7:48 p.m. Ali Amalfard addressed the Commission stating he is the owner of Saratoga Cafe, 14445 Big Basin Way, and noting that he took over the business from the previous owner two months ago. He said he visited the business and discussed with the owner the previous setup. He said the very next day, before negotiations for the sale of the business began, he went to the City Planning Department for guidance. He said the City mentioned the outside patio which the previous owner had been operating for awhile. He also said that the previous owner had noted he did not have the appropriate permit. Mr. Amalfard said that he paid the fees to the Planning Department, and a hearing was set for August 11, 1999. However, prior to the hearing date, staff informed him that the issue had been continued to September 8. He alleged that the staff person told him he could proceed with the project because he had not caused the postponement. He said that two weeks later, the staff person called him and informed him that he could not proceed and would have to wait for approval from the Planning Commission. He said that in the meantime, he has learned that the power to the Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1999 Page 4 building has to be upgraded, and he has been operating on temporary power. He said he has not been able to open the business due to lack of power at the location. Continuing his address, he stated that the business opened yesterday and today he was opened for half a day. Commissioner Roupe asked the applicant whether prior to today and independent of the chairs being placed outside, had he operated a delicatessen or restaurant inside the establishment, selling food to the public. Mr. Amalfard responded in the affirmative, noting that he had operated based on the existing business. In response to Commissioner Roupe's question, Mr. Amalfard stated he had been operating for less than 24 hours. Responding to Commissioner Roupe's request for clarification on whether the applicant had been advised that he was not authorized to operate, Mr. Amalfard said the only issue was about placing the chairs outside and that no one had told him anything about not operating a delicatessen. Commissioner Roupe asked the applicant whether he understood that the issue from the previous owner was that he had no authorization for a delicatessen or chairs being placed outside. Mr. Amalfard responded he did not understand. He said he went to the Planning Department from the beginning because he did not want to do anything illegal. He said had he been aware of the circumstances, he would have complied with city requirements. Commissioner Roupe asked Director Walgren to clarify the situation. Director Walgren clarified that he had several conversations with the staff planner, noting that staff was very clear that the former business, Caravan Market, had been approved and no restaurant activity had been approved. He said that was an outstanding violation of the previous business that staff was still in the process of clearing with the previous owner when Mr. Amalfard purchased the business. He said that from his conversations with staff, staff was very clear with Mr. Amalfard. However, Director Walgren stated he understood how there could have been a misunderstanding, especially for an interior type activity inside the market versus actually expanding the business to the exterior. Mr. Amalfard indicated he explained everything to the city when he applied for the business license. He said he had to fill out an additional form regarding the food service. He said the city approved the business license for Saratoga Cafe with a notation stating, "food service and restaurant." He said the business would not be a restaurant because he does not have a kitchen. Commissioner Patrick asked the applicant whether he had read the permit which was supposed to have been heard August 11, and Mr. Amalfard replied that he had read it. Commissioner Patrick quoted from the permit language which states, "The market is currently serving sandwiches, drinks, and salads from a small deli area set up at the rear of the store. This use was not specified in the original use permit application, and therefore, it needs to be approved with this modification. " Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1999 Page 5 Mr. Amalfard replied that the language was correct, however, he maintained that staff approved him proceeding with the project. Commissioner Kurasch inquired about the Health Department inspection, and Mr. Amalfard responded that the Health Department was not related; however, the health Department inspected and gave him a new permit with the new name. Commissioner Kurasch asked Director Walgren whether the Health Department would require a clearance from the Planning Department before issuing a permit. Director Walgren responded that this is not a requirement; however, the city transmits applications to the Health Department for their comments which are placed in the project file for the proposed use. Chairwoman Bemald asked whether the staff planner was authorized to provide the information as stated by Mr. Amalfard. Director Walgren responded that the staff planner did not say it was appropriate to operate the business because the hearing was postponed from August 11 due to lack of a quorum. He said he had a discussion with the staff planner immediately afterwards and it was noted that the applicant was concerned about the delay. Bob Cancellieri addressed the Commission, noting he and his wife own the property at 14445 Big Basin Way. He said he had spoken to both previous and current owners, encouraging them to obtain city approval and proceed with the project. He was not aware that the previous owner had not obtained the proper permit. He spoke in favor of the project. Commissioner Roupe commented that the Commission certainly recognizes that there are a number of delicatessens in the vicinity, and it is not an issue of another delicatessen going in. He said the simple fact is whether or not there was operation without a permit in place. Mr. Amalfard added that what happened was a misunderstanding and that he would be willing to comply with whatever the city requires. Commissioner Page referred to the applicant's earlier comment regarding the power to the building and asked whether the applicant had enough power for the delicatessen cases. Mr. Amalfard responded that he had to shut down immediately due to lack of power. Responding to a question from Commissioner Page regarding when the applicant began to load up the delicatessen cases, Mr. Amalfard stated he started yesterday. He said the business was closed over the weekend. Commissioner Page commented that he had been inside the business over the weekend, the doors were opened, and people were inside the store. Mr. Amalfard remarked that the business was not officially opened over the weekend. Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1999 Page 6 In response to Commissioner Kurasch's question, Mr. Amalfard stated he purchased the business on July 14, 1999. Commissioner Roupe clarified that the issue is not the chairs being outside and that the violation is the operation of a delicatessen/restaurant inside the building. Mr. Amalfard responded that he understood the situation; however, he went to City Hall for the permit because the previous owner had not informed him of the circumstances. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 8:10 PM). PASSED 5 -0 (COMMISSIONER JACKMAN RECUSED). Commissioner Roupe stated that it appeared the applicant had been operating contrary to the statements of the use permit. He said although fines can sometimes be imposed, he saw a problem with someone paying the fine and declaring freedom to do as they please. He noted he did not condone that type of operation. He emphasized that this is a very poor practice and he would vehemently oppose this situation in the future. He stated, however, on the contrary, there could have been a misunderstanding without intent, and he could accept the use permit and plan as proposed. Commissioner Kurasch commented that whether the knowledge was there or not, it seemed straightforward from the city. She said she would like to see conditions on the permit such as a fine or assessment for the violation; a limit on the tables or a definite number given; and a definite detail of the fence including style and materials to fit in with the Village plan with approval from the city or Commission. Commissioner Page agreed that the definition of the fence be approved by staff. He said he was uncertain that the delicatessen portion of the business had been operating since the new owner took over; however, when he was in the premises over the weekend, the business was staffed and it looked open to him. He said he did not see many things in the deli case, which could indicate that that portion of the business was not open. He expressed that it would not be appropriate to fine a new business owner for a former business that failed. He said he would not be in favor of a fine at this time because he did not believe the delicatessen portion was operating. Commissioner Patrick concurred, noting that the fencing referred to the railing as shown on the map. She said she drives past the business at least twice a day and is aware of when the business has been in operation. To her knowledge, she had not seen seating outside; however, she saw that the previous owners did have outside seating, which was in violation. She stated it would not serve a purpose to fine the current owner for the previous owner. She agreed that the railing needs more definition by city staff and that the business is a well - remodeled building by the previous tenants. She expressed displeasure at the signage being installed without approval. She said she could agree with the proposal as long as the applicant continued to work with city staff, pointing out that any further violations would not be graciously considered. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with Commissioner Patrick, except she expressed that a fine should be imposed to send a message that the city is serious about these types of issues. She said some misunderstanding was a convenience for the operation. She noted she would like to see fencing details Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1999 Page 7 approved by staff. She said she would support a fine of a least $250. Although the signage was premature, she said it is a good sign and meets all the criteria. Commissioner Page asked about imposing a fine based upon the number of days the sign was up without a permit. Director Walgren recommended one single fine for the sign and one single fine for the operation of the business without permits. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/ROUPE MOVED TO APPROVE UP -98 -011.1 WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT THE FENCING/RAILING BE APPROVED BY STAFF, AND THAT A ONE -DAY $250 PENALTY FINE EACH FOR THE SIGN AND FOR THE USE OF THE DELI, OR A TOTAL $500, BE IMPOSED. PASSED 5 -0 (COMMISSIONER JACKMAN RECUSED). Commissioner Jackman returned to the meeting. 3. DR -99 -028 (510 -01 -023) - HOWELL & McNEIL DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 15081 Pepper Lane (Parcel B); Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,242 square foot, one - story residence. The site is 22,720 square feet and is located in an R -1- 20,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 8/11/99). Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting this application is to build a new 4,242 square foot, single story residence on an undeveloped 22,720 square foot lot located within an R -1- 20,000 zoning district. He said that the application would be reviewed and approved as an administrative application; however, because the proposal is for a 24 -foot tall building, exceeding the city's 18 -foot high cutoff for administrative reviews, it requires Planning Commission consideration at a regularly noticed public hearing. He noted that all of the adjoining property owners within 500 feet, which is well beyond the state minimum requirement for noticing, have been provided a notice for the project and invited to review and comment on plans. Two letters in support of the project were received from the adjoining property owners. A letter from the immediate adjoining property owners to the south raised concerns about the 24 -foot height of the building; however, as a result of their letter, the poles were constructed on the property so that the neighbors and the Commission on their site tour yesterday could have a chance to better assess the overall profile of the structure. It was noted that the property was subdivided earlier this year. Director Walgren further reported that an existing older building located on the corner was reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commission and Planning Commission at the original tentative lot split stage and their goal was that the existing home be retained, and it is currently being renovated. Another goal was that a new home be consistent architecturally in size and mass with the older home. He said the applicants have noted that 24 feet in height achieves the latter goal. He noted the older building is a two -story structure with a very steep roof pitch and a very tall profile matching the profile and architectural style of the building and other homes within the neighborhood. He stated that staff is recommending approval of the application. Director Walgren reported that the arborist's report lists several tree protection measures, some of which, in Director Walgren's opinion, may not be practical. He cited, as an example, transplanting tree #20 which would not be the best approach to retain the tree. He said transplanting is not always successful for a tree of Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1999 Page 8 this size. He stated that staff is recommending approval with an additional condition allowing the applicant, staff, and arborist to work further on the application to protect and monitor trees #20 and #21 as specified in the report before permits are issued. Commissioner Roupe announced that he lives in the neighborhood, but after consultation with Director Walgren it has been determined that he lives in excess of 300 feet from the furthest property line. He proposed that he not recuse himself from discussion and deferred to the chair. Chairwoman Bernald stated it was noted where he lived and it is appropriate for him to participate in the meeting. Commissioner Patrick asked for clarification regarding deleting all of #2 from the arborist's recommendation or only the portion requiring a revised grading plan. Director Walgren responded it was only the latter portion. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 8:27 PM. Gregory Howell, Howell - McNeil Development, 125 Glenridge Avenue in Los Gatos, and Tim McNeil, 18450 Sobey Road, Saratoga, introduced themselves to the Commission and stated they were here to answer any questions or concerns regarding the project. Mr. Howell said they had worked diligently with staff to design a home which fits in with the neighborhood. Commissioner Kurasch inquired about the neighbor who was concerned with the height of the property and the second letter the neighbor was supposed to submit. Director Walgren responded that the letter had not been received yet. Mr. Howell stated he had the letter in his possession and read into the record a letter from Phil and Tessie Young of 15101 Pepper Lane, stating, `Regarding my objections to the height of your home, we have agreed that you will place trees along the property line to block our views. This is acceptable to me and with this understanding, we withdraw our objections. " Mr. Howell further added that the Youngs had an arborist who drew up ideas which would be competing with the oaks already there. He said that he had a general understanding with Mr. Young to provide screening and has not come up with the specifics as to what to use to screen the Young house from the project. Chairwoman Bernald asked whether the applicants would be willing to submit a landscape plan to staff for approval, and Mr. Howell responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Page asked whether moving the trenching for the utilities was feasible, and Mr. Howell responded that it could be done. Commissioner Jackman referred to tree #20 being very close to the rear of the garage and corner of the house and asked whether any more consideration had been given to redesigning the garage to face the street. Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1999 Page 9 Mr. Howell responded that he had agreed to what was stated earlier, that the tree should not be moved, and that the house was designed so that the tree could be saved. He said he has also worked with the immediate neighbor who had requested that the tree stay for screening. Responding to a question from Commissioner Kurasch regarding tree #20, Director Walgren replied that the arborist report concludes that the combination of improvements around the tree would remove approximately 60 percent of its feeding roots which would virtually destroy the tree. He said the requirement is that prior to going forward on the project, the garage be physically shifted away from the tree. In response to Commissioner Roupe's inquiry regarding staff's recommendation that a private arborist be retained, Director Walgren explained that on certain projects, where there are a large number of trees, the City requires that the applicant retain a private arborist. Commissioner Kurasch expressed concern with the size of the house. Mr. Howell commented that the applicants worked within the city's guidelines Commissioner Kurasch referred to the letters from the two neighbors opposing the height of the building, and Mr. Howell indicated that the Youngs had withdrawn their letter and that the Nelsons would be submitting a letter stating they no longer opposed the project. Commissioner Kurasch expressed concern regarding how the house fit into the neighborhood. Mr. Howell responded that when a house is designed over 18 feet, the square footage needs to be shrunk. He said the applicants have done their best to balance the height and square footage of the house, the lot coverage, and they have met all of the City requirements. Commissioner Jackman recalled that objections were expressed when the lot was divided and complimented the applicants on the fact that the neighbors were not coming in to object to this proposal. She asked how the tree and garage issue would be resolved. Mr. Howell responded that they have agreed to the arborist's recommendation to put in a pervious type of material for tree #20 so water can pass through and the tree is protected. He said that moving tree #20 is not the right answer as the tree would die if it were moved. Director Walgren said the simplest means would be to shift the garage forward or shift it sideways to reduce it in size. He stated that the more involved solution would be to redesign the house to prevent so much massing at that end; however, it could be done relatively simply by just adjusting the garage. A discussion ensued redesigning the garage including sliding it forward. COMMISSIONERS ROUPE/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 8:44 PM). PASSED 6 -0. Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1999 Page 10 Commissioner Jackman commented that the project was very well planned and proposed directing Director Walgren to work on the location of the tree and garage. Commissioner Patrick agreed that staff be directed to work on the garage design. She preferred that the garage doors not face the street. She said the tree should be protected. She concurred with Commissioner Kurasch's earlier comments that the design and guidelines per square feet are up to the maximum, indicating that was the maximum allowable within the discretion. Commissioner Page concurred, especially if staff would be working with the applicants on the garage. He asked that whatever the design changes are regarding the garage, that consideration be given for the shed in the back and that construction equipment not further impede the growth of the trees. A discussion ensued whether the shed would be removed. Commissioner Kurasch stated that other than her reservations about the size of the house, she had no objection. She said she did not like the configuration of the garage and was concerned about the adjacent neighbor. She noted that if the tree issue could be worked out, along with the screening, she would support the project. Commissioner Roupe indicated he supported the project and appreciated that the applicants worked closely with the neighbors. Commissioner Patrick noted that the screening for the neighbors was not mentioned and should be in the recommendation. Chairwoman Bernald concurred and commended the applicants for working with the neighbors. She noted that the proposal had conditions of protecting trees #20 and #21 and re- siting the garage to do so. She acknowledged that the conditions included contracting with a private arborist during construction, a landscape plan subject to staff approval, and the removal of the shed would be determined by staff based on the arborist report. COMMISSIONERS ROUPE/KURASCH MOVED TO ACCEPT DR -99 -028 WITH THE CONDITIONS AS STIPULATED IN THE RESOLUTION. PASSED 6 -0. DIRECTOR ITEMS UP -98 -010 & V -98 -014.1 - AHMADIAN, 14031 Saratoga Avenue; Request to amend a Planning Commission condition of approval Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting this was an application approved by the Planning Commission in October 1998 to build a detached garage within the required rear yard setback, which has been built. The Commission also approved variance for a second story addition into the attic of an existing older home to convert the attic with dormer windows into habitable space. He said that while under construction, the house was entirely demolished, which is not how the project was advertised and approved. Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1999 Page 11 A stop work order was put on the project, and the applicants appeared before the Planning Commission for an amendment to their variance request because the home was entirely removed and was nonconforming to older historic setback requirements. He reported that the Commission heard testimony regarding how the demolition occurred without the city's notification, and the variance was ultimately approved with the requirement that the house be built exactly as it existed and originally documented in October 1998. A requirement was placed that it be built with the same details, including frieze details under the building's roof eaves, and that the ultimate arbitrator of the condition be the Heritage Preservation commission (HPC). He noted that the project has now been completed with minor glitches which have all been resolved, except for one. He said that the HPC and applicant have reached an impasse as to whether the final detailing should be done. Director Walgren recalled that the agreement made in February 1999 when the variances were approved was that the project had to be completed to its original condition and to the Heritage Preservation Commission's satisfaction. The applicants are now requesting an exception to this condition. He said both the applicant and Norm Koepernik, HPC Chair, were present tonight to respond to questions. Mike Pavlin, 13280 Rio Ranchero, addressed the Commission, noting he and Mary Ahmadian, 14031 Saratoga Avenue, are partners in this project. He said that when they first took this project on, the house was not listed as a historic building, and in the process, it became a historic building. He said they were not notified that it was a historic building until a glitch occurred when the contractor went beyond the limitations. He said the issue at hand is the actual frieze moldings. He said the main complaint is with the details that the HPC is requesting and that they do not serve the appearance of the house. He said he is currently adding the frieze to the house and it is creating a mismatch between the garage and house and a mismatch to the current lines of the building. He said the design on the plan did not account for a frieze width of 10 -12 inches, and by adding the width around the roofline and over the windows, the specific frieze is not visible. Director Walgren clarified a question from Commissioner Kurasch regarding the photographs submitted and stated that the porch was approved to be added in October 1998. Norm Koepernik addressed the Commission, confirming the staff report and noting that the only issue was the windows. He said the applicants wanted to put in vinyl windows, and they were told that they would have to install wood windows to match the existing structure. Chairwoman Bernald referred to the applicants' belief that this was not a heritage preserved home and asked how the HPC became involved. Mr. Koepernik explained the process, noting that applications come to the HPC attention after they are reviewed by the Building and Planning Departments. He said prior to any remodeling, the applications have to go through the HPC. He stated that the HPC not only researches new structures throughout the Village, but also those on Heritage Lane. He said the applicants were aware that the HPC had reviewed the application and had indicated that the structure was significant to the ambiance of Heritage Lane, and that this was part of the condition prior to the applicants getting permits and plan approval. Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1999 Page 12 Responding to a question from Chairwoman Bernald, Mr. Koepernik stated that the applicants' representative was informed of this situation at the Planning Department level and that both the representative and applicants were present at the HPC meeting. Commissioner Roupe commented that the HPC has waived certain elements of identical replacements as being acceptable, and asked what the criteria was for requiring the one element be replaced as per the original. Mr. Koepernik responded that the frieze is part of the historical nature of the building and probably the easiest component to reinstall. Responding to a question from Commissioner Roupe regarding why other significant elements were waived, Mr. Korpernik stated that requiring the applicants to remove the rest of the siding and install original siding would be a major undertaking. Commissioner Jackman stated that she passes by this house daily, has seen the construction, and does not see anything at this point that resembles the older house. She said she would be in favor of the HPC recommendation regarding the frieze. Commissioner Kurasch asked how different the house was from the original, and Mr. Koepernik responded that the basic footprint of the house remains the same. He said the applicants did what they were supposed to do initially; however, the building is significant in the size and mass for that period of time. He said the siding is larger than it should have been, the detail around the window is not as it should have been. In response to a question from Chairwoman Bernald, Mr. Koepernik said that he went to the site to help the applicants come up with a logical and easy solution and reduced the frieze to 10 inches. He said typically it is a 1.2 or 16 inch frieze with the extra molding below and above, and adding the extra moldings would not be correct. He noted that the same illusion could be created by doing a simple frieze. Further responding to Chairwoman Bernald's questions, Mr. Koepemik indicated that all of the windows would be able to function once the frieze is attached. Chairwoman Bernald asked Mr. Koepernik if he were designing the structure again, whether he would make the windows or porch any different. Mr. Koepernik responded that the whole house could be easily duplicated, noting he is in the building development business and it would not be any more costly than what was done. He opined that something went wrong in that the applicants took it upon themselves to make decisions after they were aware of the process. Commissioner Kurasch suggested that perhaps more dialogue should have taken place, or maybe the HPC could be more involved in the inspections, or a coordination policy may be necessary. Mr. Koepernik commented that the HPC has tried to have the expertise to handle historical structures, and the HPC might want to be more involved with historical inspections in cooperation with the Building and Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1999 Page 13 Planning Departments. He said the applicants were supposed to have submitted samples of sidings before proceeding to the next step, which they did not do. Director Walgren remarked that this project put the HPC in a difficult situation. He said the siding was a more severe issue than discussed at the site visit yesterday. He said the applicants used entirely different siding which gives the house a more contemporary appearance. He stated that the responsibility was on the applicants who should have had the material approved by the HPC before installing it. He said the applicants agreed as part of their variance application to have those materials reviewed and approved by the HPC before they were installed. The HPC felt that once the siding was put in it would be too much of a hardship to remove it. If the Planning Commission felt that the side should be replaced, that was the same issue that was before the HPC. Commissioner Patrick commented that this is the third time the applicants have come before the Planning Commission. She said the first time they appeared, the Commission gave certain allowances to the building because they were retaining some of the original structure. She stated that when the issue of the structure being demolished came before the Commission, it was a difficult meeting, and the Commission was attempting to give some leeway like the HPC did to the applicants, which, in hindsight, she would not have done. She said that a bond should have been required of the applicants to ensure that the house became what it should have become. She noted that the city does not have the ability to do day -by -day inspections, which this project required. She conveyed that in retrospect, the HPC did what they could, and that the Planning Commission laid a burden on the HPC by telling them that they keep track of this project for the Planning Commission. Regarding the frieze, she indicated she could not imagine why the city would give the applicants anything at this point. She noted that the city imposed its requirements which the applicants did not follow. She added that the appropriate frieze needs to be installed or the project would not be approved. She said if the applicants want to come back to the Commission, perhaps they could also remove the siding. She remarked that the letter from the applicant stated that they tried to keep the historical look as much as possible, yet the Commission asked the applicants to keep the historical look of the house, not to try to retain it as much as possible, and to ensure the consistency of the neighborhood, which they did not do. Commissioner Roupe concurred with Commissioner Patrick. He referred to his earlier comment regarding fines as one buying one's way out of compliance, and stated that the concept of a fine to erase a transgression is the wrong way to go. Commissioner Kurasch asked whether the applicants had been fined. Director Walgren responded that they had not been fined at this state and that the issue of the fine had not been resolved yet. Commissioner Jackman stated that this house is on the market and asked whether anyone could move in before a final inspection. Director Walgren replied that although sales could occur, no one could move in; the house could not be made habitable, nor have utilities hooked up until it was finalized. Commissioner Patrick noted that the applicants were volunteering to pay a $30,000 fine, which she said would not eliminate the frieze in her opinion. Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1999 Page 14 Responding to a question from Commissioner Kurasch, Director Walgren stated that in February the variance that came before the Planning Commission could have been denied, however, as a penalty, the project was shut down for many, many weeks. He said each violation had been caught and resolved in an open, upfront, and proper manner, and this issue is now at the next stage of the project. Commissioner Roupe asked for clarification regarding the only issue being the frieze. Director Walgren responded that the issue is whether the HPC should retain authority regarding whether or not the home is complete to their satisfaction. Mr. Pavlik responded to an earlier question regarding what could have been done better to avoid situations like this. He repeated that the applicants were not aware that the house had a historic designation until it was actually torn down. He suggested one way to avoid a similar occurrence would be to mark every single property in the city to indicate historic significance. He suggested that the city procedure be changed so that the HPC makes recommendations to the Planning Commission instead of two separate entities who give recommendations to each other. Director Walgren clarified that the HPC is advisory to the Planning Commission, and when the application was originally reviewed in October, the HPC's recommendation was that this building be placed on the historic inventory concurrent with the applicant's proposal. He said this procedure was not what led to the issue at hand. He said that when the applicants came before the Planning Commission in February asking for new variances as a result of the house being moved, the agreement was entirely independent of the HPC designation. He noted that the agreement was that the Planning Commission would approve the variances if the home was put back in its original condition, including specifically wood siding, window detailing, trims, frieze detail. Ms. Ahmadian addressed the Commission, stating that she accepted that she (and Mr. Pavlik) had made a mistake. Commissioner Page concurred with Commissioner Patrick's comments, noting that discussion of ancient history was moot. He acknowledged that the Commission delegated the responsibility to the HPC of overseeing this project, and the HPC recommendation should be upheld since the HPC has the experience and ability to do so. He noted that something needed to be done to retain some semblance of what is Heritage Lane and that the friezes needed to be put back in. Commissioner Kurasch agreed with her fellow Commissioners, suggesting that perhaps the HPC could develop a policy of what kind of conditions they would be comfortable with in working with historic homes under construction. Commissioner Roupe concurred, commenting that the delegation to the HPC should be upheld. Commissioner Jackman concurred that the frieze should go back on and that the final inspection not be finalized until both the HPC and Planning Commission are totally satisfied. She said she was uncertain about the appropriateness of fines, but considering the issues with this project, she suggested that Director Walgren consider the possibility of a fine in addition to having the frieze re- installed. Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1999 Page 15 Chairwoman Bernald inquired about the fine, and Director Walgren responded that he would work with the HPC to arrive at an appropriate solution and inform the Planning Commission at its next meeting. He would also allow the project to go forward requiring the frieze be put back on with HPC approval. Responding to a question from Chairwoman Bernald regarding whether the frieze would also be applied to the garage, Director Walgren responded that the frieze would be applied to the house only. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with the other Commissioners. She noted that the applicants have had several opportunities to comply with the requirements which have not been followed. She said she had met with the applicant yesterday and discussed that Heritage Lane is special to Saratoga and the city has an obligation to maintain its history. She stated she would recommend the frieze going in and would also recommend a fine. She said the Commission has given direction, and she hoped this project would be a demonstration of the Commission's determination to protect the city. Planning Commission recruitment Director Walgren reported that the city is recruiting for a new Commissioner to replace Commissioner Waltonsmith who was recently appointed to the City Council and has already served her first Council meeting. Potential candidates must submit an application by September 27. Planning Commission retreat A discussion was held regarding setting a date for a planning Commission retreat. Consensus was to set the date toward the end of January, by which time the new Commissioner would be appointed. Circulation Element update kick -off meeting Director Walgren reported that the Circulation Element Update is the city's long -range traffic plan, and the kick -off meeting has been scheduled for September 23, 7:00 p.m. in the Community Center Multi- purpose Room. COMMISSION ITEMS Chairwoman Bernald requested that the selection of the new Bicycle Committee representative be posted on the agenda. Commissioner Kurasch requested a legal opinion regarding antenna panels. City Attorney Wittwer noted that Director Walgren had already requested legal information regarding the Telecommunications Act. Commissioner Roupe requested that the legal opinion include whether electromagnetic radiation is an appropriate issue for Commission discussion. Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1999 Page 16 Director Walgren reported that staff is holding off on some applications for installing antennae until the Commission has had an opportunity to discuss this issue. A discussion ensued, and Director Walgren noted that the issue is on the September 22 agenda. COMMUNICATIONS Written - City Council Minutes for regular meeting of August 4 and regular adjourned meeting of August 10, 1999 - Noted. Correspondence from Bert Martel, dated August 13, 1999 - Noted. - Notes for regular meeting of September 22, 1999 - Noted. Notice of Preparation of Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration for regular meeting of September 22, 1999; NAVICO, INC., 14230 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road - Noted. - Notice of Environmental Negative Declaration (public hearing date to be detemlined); SPRINT PCS, PG &E tower on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road at the Southern Pacific Railroad crossing - Noted. Notice of Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration (public hearing date to be determined); METRICOM, 14000 Fruitvale Avenue - Noted. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING With no further business to discuss, Chairwoman Bernald adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m., to Wednesday, September 22, 1999, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Lynda Ramirez Jones Minutes Clerk MINUTES AMENDED AND APPROVED BY: J Sry to the anning Commission CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, August 11, 1999 - 7:30 p.m. Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting Commissioner Page, presiding as Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Jackman, Patrick, Waltonsmith, and Chairman Page Absent: Commissioners Kurasch, Roupe, and Chairwoman Bernald Staff: Associate Planner Heather Bradley, Assistant Planner Christina Ratcliffe, and City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer Pledge of Allegiance Chairman Page paused for a moment of silence in memory of Saratoga's late Mayor, Jim Shaw, who passed away last week. Chairman Page described Mr. Shaw as a great man whose civic leadership and visionary attitudes were an example to all. Minutes - July 28, 1999 COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 28, 1999 WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS. PASSED 4 -0 (CHAIRWOMAN BERNALD, COMMISSIONERS KURASCH AND ROUPE ABSENT). Page 10, paragraph 3, line 3: "She expressed concern with the multiple colors which "do not seem to lG We represent the classic Gentemperary Montalvo colors and asked how those ^ ^m° pa# of the, elements would fit in to Montalvo." Page 5, paragraph 1, line 4: "He commented that if the city is over inundated with technology devices such as...." Page 9, paragraph 3, line 1: "Chairwoman Bernald mentioned that one of the members of the architect search 4Rx committee is her neighbor...." Page 9, last paragraph and throughout item: Don Stastnybrun is corrected to read Don Stastny. Oral Communications There was no one present who wished to speak on matters not on the agenda. Report of Posting Agenda Associate Planner Bradley declared that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on August 6, 1999. Planning Commission Agenda August 11, 1999 Technical Corrections to Packet Associate Planner Bradley announced two corrections to the agenda: i. DR -99 -019 on Item #4 of the agenda amended to read DR -99 -030. Page 2 ii. Item #7 was continued to September 7, 1999, because one of the Commissioners present tonight would have to be recused from voting on that item; thus, eliminating a quorum CONSENT CALENDAR 1. DR -99 -028 (510 -01 -023) - HOWELL & McNEIL DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 15081 Pepper Lane (Parcel B); Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,242 sq. ft., one - story residence. The site is 22,720 sq. ft. and is located in an R -1- 20,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 9/8/99 PENDING RECEIPT OF THE ARBORIST'S REPORT). 2. UP -99 -011 (397 -04 -098) - EVAN, 14594 Sobey Oaks Road; Request for Use Permit approval to construct a 650 sq. ft. pool house in the rear yard. The existing residence with garage is 4,547 sq. ft. The property is 40,075 sq. ft. and is located in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 9/8/99 FOR SETBACK REVISIONS). COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. PASSED 4 -0 (CHAIRWOMAN BERNALD, COMMISSIONERS KURASCH AND ROUPE ABSENT). PUBLIC HEARINGS Items 3 and 4 were considered concurrently and voted on separately. DR -99 -029 (397 -28 -047, Lot #2) - BLACKWELL PROPERTIES, 13997 Alta Vista; Request for Design Review approval for a 4,216 sq. ft., two -story residence with a 996 sq. ft. basement. Maximum height of the residence is proposed to be 26 ft. The site is located on a 17,083 (net) sq. ft. vacant parcel in an R -1- 12,500 zoning district. 4. DR -99 -019 (397 -28 -047, Lot #1) - BLACKWELL PROPERTIES, 13995 Alta Vista; Request for Design Review approval for a 3,815 sq. ft., two -story residence with a 989 sq. ft. basement. Maximum height of the residence is proposed to be 26 ft. The site is located on a 14,394 (net) sq. ft. vacant parcel in an R -1- 12,500 zoning district. Assistant Planner Ratcliffe noted that two letters regarding this issue were received late today. One letter was from Joann Martens, 14069 Loma Rio Drive, Saratoga. Ms. Martens requested that on lot 2, the Commission require landscape screening - both trees and shrubs in the rear of the lot (the back yard and riparian corridor along the creek bank). She also requested that the proposed colors of lot 2 be more sensitive to the native environment. Ms. Martens requested that for all lots in the subdivision the Commission consider placing limitations on pools and recreational courts. Further, she requested that no Planning Commission Agenda Page 3 August 11, 1999 construction or grading be done on weekends, and that construction and grading times be limited to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Ms. Ratcliffe reported that the other letter was from Brad and Kathryn Mandell, 14031 Jerries Drive, Saratoga, who requested the same items contained in Ms. Martens' letter. City Attorney Wittwer clarified for the record that one public hearing for Item #3 and #4 would be conducted together. Ms. Ratcliffe reported that Items #3 and #4 are two lots adjacent to each other on a five -lot subdivision that was approved by the Planning Commission late last year. She indicated that staff made one report on the two lots; however, the Commission would be voting separately on the resolution pertaining to each project. Ms. Ratcliffe reported a change to the conditions of approval. She said the Saratoga Fire Department (SFD) was informed that a new water main has been installed in the subdivision. She noted that originally the SFD had required an early warning alarm system and sprinklers throughout both houses. The SFD is no longer requiring an early warning alarm system or sprinklers in the house on lot 1. However, the SFD requires sprinklers in the house on lot 2, and because of the size of the house (over 5,000 square feet), they are requiring an early warning alarm system. Both houses would still require sprinklers in the garages per Saratoga ordinance. Ms. Ratcliffe presented the details of the staff report. She said that in response to the concerns expressed in the two letters received, a replanting plan, which is part of the subdivision approval, includes reseeding and replanting the riparian corridor. She said that the applicant had been working with the Santa Clara Valley Water District to re- vegetate the area. Commissioner Waltonsmith asked whether staff had discussed alternatives with the applicant should the Commission deny the floor area exception request, and Ms. Ratcliffe responded that the applicant is aware of the issue, however, redesigns were not discussed. Chairman Page opened the public hearing at 7:48 p.m. David Britt of Britt -Rowe, 108 North Santa Cruz Avenue, Lot Gatos, addressed the Commission, thanking staff for working closely with him on the project. He said the houses he designed and presented for review tonight are essentially the same as the preliminary designs that were presented to the Commission and vested with the subdivision map. He said considerable time and effort went into the preliminary designs that included working closely with the City Arborist to ensure tree protection; recognizing the concerns of the neighbors to ensure that the house designs were sensitive to their views and privacy; site plans, floor plans, and exterior elevations were developed and reviewed by staff and Commission to ensure the subdivision lots allowed homes compatible with the city's design standards. Mr. Britt noted that the preliminary designs were adopted based on common knowledge that the predominantly two -story adjacent neighborhood could support five additional two -story homes with little or no impact to the surrounding built environment. He commented that the subdivision is unique in that it is set in a private creek ravine. He described the homes bordering the property and noted there was no opposition to the construction of two -story homes on the sites when the surrounding neighbors were noticed regarding the subdivision and homes. Referring to the house lots, he said there was a large impact to the gross lot sizes from emergency access, and those had created significant reductions in the maximum Planning Commission Agenda Page 4 August 11, 1999 allowable square footages for these homes. He stated he is working with relatively small maximum square footages for this size lot. Considering these facts and the applicant's time and effort invested to comply specifically with staff and Commission's request, the applicant feels the Commission should honor the vested tentative map as approved and allow the house footprints and square footages as presented tonight. Mr. Britt said that the applicant is willing to work to provide screening and planting to ensure that the houses as built will be sensitive to the existing neighbors. Commissioner Patrick asked Mr. Britt to comment regarding the concerns of the neighbors pertaining to limiting hours of construction. Mr. Britt referred the question to the property owner who was in the audience and who indicated he would comply with the request. In response to a question from Commission Jackman regarding the color scheme for the roof tile of lot 1, Mr. Britt said that the applicant would work with staff in selecting an appropriate roof color. Responding to a question from Commissioner Waltonsmith regarding the roof color of lot 2, Mr. Britt said that the color tile originally presented for the house was on the light side and indicated the applicant would work with staff to darken the color palette, including the wood trim and roof. Commissioner Waltonsmith conveyed that she drove back through the area and did not see any Spanish style. She said as she looked at the design on lot 2, which did not look very Spanish to her other than the roof, it seemed to her that the roof could be changed considerably without too much architectural stress. Mr. Britt asked whether Commissioner Waltonsmith was referring to the actual concept of the tile roof, and she responded she was referring to the S -tile. In response to a question from Commissioner Waltonsmith regarding when the design was vested, Mr. Britt stated that he did not have the exact date, but the vesting took place late last year. Ms. Ratclife clarified that the plans were vested in August 1998. In response to a question from Chairman Page, Mr. Britt stated that the footprint was defined in the original site, as were the floor plans, elevations, and square footages. He said they were preliminary plans and tonight's plans were enlarged versions of those designs which have changed significantly. Responding to Chairman Page's inquiry regarding the additional square footage, Mr. Britt explained that the maximum allowable square footages even without the second story square footage reduction are relatively low. Chairman Page noted that the design had two chimneys, but only one wood - burning fireplace, and asked whether it was for balance and design. Mr. Britt responded that one of the fireplaces will be an Environmental Protection Agency approved firebox which is a gas - burning log and does not emit any wood - burning type smoke. Ms. Ratcliffe clarified that the Saratoga ordinance states one wood - burning fireplace per structure, and the rest have to be gas. She said there is no other option, and that he been included as a condition of approval. Planning Commission Agenda Page 5 August 11, 1999 Responding to Chairman Page's request, Ms. Ratcliffe noted that the log- burning box was considered at the time the fireplace ordinance was discussed; however, the Commission decided to omit that possibility from the ordinance, and she stated that some designs include chimneys for looks only. Jerry Freeman, 13993 Alta Vista Avenue, Saratoga, addressed the commission, noting his property is adjacent to lot 1. He requested verification that the footprint of the proposed home is as agreed to in the vested tentative map, that it will have a 21' or 22' side yard setback, and that the front of the house is basically where it was on the vested plan. Chairman Page and Commissioner Patrick replied that the intention was as described by Mr. Freeman. David Weatherfault, 14054 Alta Vista Avenue, Saratoga, addressed the Commission, noting he resides at the top of the hill. He noticed that in two previous commission meetings, architects have commented that "this neighborhood is predominantly two- story," which he said is untrue. He noted that on Williams, Walnut, and Alta Vista, most of the houses are Craftsman bungalows, which are one and one -half story houses. He said when considering designs for a house that would fit well with the older neighborhood, one needs to consider that a one and one -half story house looks different than a two -story house. He stated that of 25 houses in the neighborhood, three to four are two -story homes. He noted there is a big difference in the roof line of a bungalow and described the discrepancy. He said he had no objection to the proposed two -story houses because of the two -story nature to the new houses at the bottom of Alta Vista; however, at the top of Alta Vista, Craftsman bungalows can look dwarfed and incongruous when they are surrounded by two -story houses that look like Eastern Colonial houses. He requested that the Commission and staff consider this factor in the early stages of other houses to be designed in the area. Mr. Britt responded to Mr. Freeman's concern and stated that the footprint of the building has not changed since the preliminary design was approved by the Commission. Regarding the issue of second story buildings in the Williams area, he said it is a very unique and beautiful neighborhood with unique buildings, specifically the Craftsman style bungalows. He said his firm has designed homes in the area, is fully aware of the neighborhood, and has been sensitive to the existing architecture when designing at the top of the hill on Williams. He reiterated that the five lots are very different lots than those on Williams. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/JACKMAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:05 P.M. PASSED 4 -0 (CHAIRWOMAN BERNALD, COMMISSIONERS KURASCH AND ROUPE ABSENT). Commissioner Jackman stated she would like to go with the square footage vested and to leave the plans as they are now. Commissioner Patrick did not concur with Commissioner Jackman. She stated she was on the Commission last summer when this issue was considered and recalled that the Commission did not approve the square footage. She said the Commission reviewed the drawings and expressed issues with the siting of the houses so as not to conflict with the neighbors, expressed concerns regarding everybody else's views, keeping the houses out of the creek, saving the trees, and getting the driveways and everything in place. She agreed that the applicant has a right to apply under the old ordinance and request a floor area exception; however, a floor area exception last year was not granted last year. She stated that the Commission is not constrained to grant floor area exception, and she will not approve it as the Commission has been very consistent in this area. She recollected that floor area exceptions are not granted on the basis that the applicant wants additional height. She said the plan has great basements, and she did not see a special need for the extra square feet. She noted the upper area has small lots and small areas that they can place a house in and they Planning Commission Agenda Page 6 August 11, 1999 have had to make do with those areas. She saw no reason why the applicant could not do likewise. She said the applicant has agreed to change the hours of operation to minimize the noise for the sake of the neighbors and requested that that factor be included in the conditions of approval, as well as changing the colors with staff approval, and providing additional screening on the Freeman side subject to staff approval. She said she would not want additional planting on the creek, explaining that the opposing bank was currently over - planted and others were building into and encroaching the creek. She stated she would prefer to maintain what is required within the riparian corridor and keep it natural. She said with the modifications she would recommend approval. Commissioner Waltonsmith concurred with Commissioner Patrick, noting she toured the site and area today to see what is two -story and what is Craftsman. She agreed that they are very different. She said the lots have many mature trees and was concerned about a massive two -story house going in there. Chairman Page stated these were two beautiful homes. He recalled that he was serving on the Commission the first time this plan was presented and recollected the serious discussions held. He said that lot 1 especially is not that expansive a lot and there would be no reason for the floor area exception. He concurred with his fellow Commissioners on lot 2 that there needs to be consistency. He also agreed with conditions as set forth by Commissioner Patrick. COMMISSIONERS WALTONSMITH/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE DR -99 -029 WITH THE MODIFICATIONS REGARDING HOURS OF CONSTRUCTION AND REDUCING THE FLOOR AREA. PASSED 4 -0 (CHAIRWOMAN BERNALD, COMMISSIONERS KURASCH AND ROUPE ABSENT). COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE DR -99 -030 REDUCING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND THE REST OF THE DESIGN PER STAFF'S APPROVAL. PASSED 4 -0 (CHAIRWOMAN BERNALD, COMMISSIONERS KURASCH AND ROUPE ABSENT). 5. DR -99 -026 (517 -22 -096) - WALLIN/HHtTENSTEIN, 15380 Peach Hill Road; Request for Design Review approval for a 4,907 sq. ft., two -story residence with a 664 sq. ft. basement. Maximum height of the residence is proposed to be 25 ft. The site is located on a 39,377 (net) sq. ft. vacant parcel in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. Assistant Planner Ratcliffe noted into the record a letter from the Carey Family, 15320 Peach Hill Road, Saratoga, expressing full support for the project. Ms. Ratcliffe presented the details of the staff report. Chairman Page opened the public hearing at 8:17 p.m. Ray Wallin, 20770 Cuesta Court, Saratoga, addressed the Commission, noting he and his wife are long -time Saratoga residents, are looking forward to building this house, and have been working closely with the neighbors on the design. He commented they are not asking for any variances and would appreciate the Commission approving the project. There was no one present who wished to speak during the public hearing. Planning Commission Agenda Page 7 August 11, 1999 COMMISSIONERS PATRICKIWALTONSMITH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:19 P.M. PASSED 4 -0 (CHAIRWOMAN BERNALD, COMMISSIONERS KURASCH AND ROUPE ABSENT). Commissioner Waltonsmith commented that at the site tour yesterday, the Commissioners were awestruck with the beauty of the trees that have to come down. She recognized that the design of the house was considered several ways to allow the trees to stay, but it was not possible. She said that she would accept the plan; however, she suggested that since the grading plan was not scrutinized it should be left off. 6. DR -99 -027 (397 -04 -103) - SMALL, 14520 Chester Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,767 sq. ft., single -story residence (including a three car garage) on a vacant lot, parcel 15 of the Gypsy Hills subdivision. The property is 53,048 sq. ft. and is located in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. Associate Planner Bradley presented the staff report. Commissioner Waltonsmith asked staff to expound on the filling of the front and grading of the back. Ms. Bradley responded that there were approximately 70 cubic yards of cut proposed to fit the home into the property which also helps to keep the height lower as viewed from the neighboring properties. She said there will be 280 cubic yards of fill for balance and to create an area for the driveway. The grading quantities are within the city's guidelines of 1,000 cubic yards and is not in the hillside where an exception has to be made for grading over 1,000 cubic yards. She said this is a hillside lot in that it does have a slope over ten percent. She commented that this was a reasonable request. Chairman Page noticed that the house steps down a little bit, although nothing significant, and asked whether that factor had been examined. Ms. Bradley replied that the house wraps around to conform to the direction of the contour line. Chairman Page opened the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. Dave Small, applicant, asked the Commission to view the plan favorably. In response to a question from Commissioner Waltonsmith regarding the step -down, Mr. Small said that his family has a strong desire to build a single -story home because of his young children and their senior grandparents. Commissioner Jackman noted that the applicant is waiting for the foundation to be poured before submitting landscape plans and asked whether the applicant would be working very closely with the Planning staff on those plans. Mr. Small responded that he would be working with staff on the landscape plans and responded to additional questions from Commissioner Jackman regarding placement of trees to avoid impacting the view of others while providing privacy. Chris Spaulding, architect, commented on the design, noting the applicants' strong preference for a single - story with minimal steps, and described how he designed the house along the contour. Planning Commission Agenda August 11, 1999 Page 8 COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/JACKMAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:29 P.M. PASSED 4 -0 (CHAIRWOMAN BERNALD, COMMISSIONERS KURASCH AND ROUPE ABSENT). Commissioner Patrick stated she did not oppose the plan. She understands why it is being done, commented that it fit well in the neighborhood and site, and she had no reason to not approve it. Commissioner Jackman commented that it is a good plan and fits the site well. Her only request is that the applicant work with Planning staff on the landscape plans. Commissioner Waltonsmith concurred with the other Commissioners. Chairman Page concurred with fellow Commissioners. COMMISSIONERS JACKMAN/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE DR -99 -027 AND THAT A PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN BE SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR APPROVAL BEFORE ANY PERMITS ARE ISSUED AND THAT A FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN BE COMPLETED BEFORE OCCUPANCY. PASSED 4 -0 (CHAIRWOMAN BERNALD, COMMISSIONERS KURASCH AND ROUPE ABSENT). 7. UP -98 -011.1 (503 -24 -009) - AMALFARD, 14445 Big Basin Way; Request for modification to an approved Use Permit to allow deli and outdoor seating in conjunction with the market use that was previously approved. The market is currently operating a deli and providing outdoor seating without these provisions in their existing Use Permit. The building is 2,700 sq. ft. on a 4,375 sq. ft. lot and is located in a CH -1 commercial historic zoning district. Earlier in the meeting, Item 7 was continued to September 7, 1999. DIRECTOR ITEMS Request for Modification of an Approved Project: DR -98 -051 - WOODS, Peach Hill Road Associate Planner Ratcliffe presented the details of the staff report, noting that the application was approved by the Commission on June 9, 1999, at which time the Commission conditioned the application to delete an emergency generator. Commissioner Waltonsmith stated she had earlier asked about the size of the generator for the record. Ms. Ratcliffe responded that the minutes of the last meeting indicated it was a 30- kilowatt generator. She said she spoke to the applicant and learned it is actually a 50- kilowatt generator. She noted that the applicant stated that the 30 -, 50 -, and 65- kilowatt generators of this make are the same size, and there would be no difference in the proposed size, only in the amount of power generated. Chairman Page opened the public hearing at 8:35 p.m. Murray Woods addressed the commission, noting that from the outside one would not know whether it was a 30 -, 50 -, or 65- kilowatt generator as the physical dimensions are the same, and the specification Planning Commission Agenda August 11, 1999 Page 9 for the noise level at maximum output if also the same for all. He stated that generators are basically like automobile motors, and they are muffled to be quiet. He acknowledged that the noise was the Commission's main concern. He reported that he checked the calculations, agreed with the calculations, and went out and measured the noise level to be absolutely positive they were within the city requirements. He stated that Ken Graven of Charles M. Salter Associates was also present to respond to Commissioners' questions. Responding to a question from Commission Jackman, Mr. Woods described what the decibel level at maximum output would be. In response to Commissioner Jackman's inquiry, Ms. Ratcliffe quoted from the city's noise ordinance that in residential areas (the decibel level) shall not exceed 60 dBA during the day, 50 dBA in the evening, and 45 dBA at night. Chairman Page asked whether the decibel level was measured at the source or at the property line, and Ms. Ratcliffe noted that the ordinance does not specify, except to state "a reasonable distance." Commissioner Jackman shared an experience in which she had a noise problem in her backyard, and the noise level was measured from her property line and compared with the ambient sound. She said that 23 feet away at 67 decibels did not sound excessive to her and this would only be during power o utages. Commissioner Waltonsmith inquired about gas, whether the generator would be attached to a gas line, or would it involve gas storage. Mr. Woods responded that the plan is to use natural gas from the same gas line that goes into the house. He said if an earthquake or emergency sheared the line, containers of propane could be brought in to run the generator. Commissioner Waltonsmith asked what the approximate weight of the machine was. Mr. Woods responded that he was uncertain, but the generator is basically an automobile engine which has all the aspects of a motor with a muffler on it. Commissioner Waltonsmith referred to the concerns of two neighbors and assumed that Mr. Woods would make sure the machine disconnected from the power. Mr. Woods said that a switching matrix goes with the generator and assured that it will have proper detection and isolation from the system. He said this would be part of the basic review. Ken Graven, Charles M. Salter Associates, responded to Commissioners' questions. Chairman Page asked how the measurements were taken, and Mr. Graven explained that a loudspeaker was taken to the site, power with a generator, cranked up to 100 dedibels, and pumped out full spectrum white noise. The white noise was measured at 23 feet at 80 -90 decibels. Mr. Graven noted he then went to the nearest neighboring property line and marked it off with a flat at 123 feet, slightly down an embankment, and the sound level reading was taken to arrive at the noise reduction from 23 feet to 100+ feet to the property line. Planning Commission Agenda Page 10 August 11, 1999 Mr. Graven responded to inquiries from Chairman Page regarding white noise, noting that every frequency that people can hear was accounted for in the noise reduction which is similar to a generator's broadband noise. COMMISSIONERS JACKMAN /PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:45 P.M. PASSED 4 -0 (CHAIRWOMAN BERNALD, COMMISSIONERS KURASCH AND ROUPE ABSENT). Commissioner Jackman asked City Attorney Wittwer for assistance with some of the questions regarding ambient and bouncing sound. Mr. Wittwer explained that the general rule would be to apply the standards at the property line, or boundary line with another party because that is the part which would be impacted. Commissioner Jackman asked if there were any other legal requirements, other than measuring at the property line, that the Commissioners should know about. Mr. Wittwer responded that the staff report indicated that the standards identified in City Ordinance Chapter 7 -30 should be followed. Commissioner Patrick expressed discomfort with the issue. She said she was having a difficult time comprehending that 67 decibels of sound near a house in an area which is not very populated is not going to disturb a neighbor. She referred to the weight of sound, pressure level and decibel chart provided to Commissioners and sound between 60 and 70 decibels is considered the sound of freight cars. She said she could probably hear the freight trains from 100 feet away. She finds it difficult to understand how this would not be very, very noisy and very, very intrusive to the neighbors. She said by its nature when the generator is running, it is going to be running full power. She would have to be persuaded or shown that the volume of sound is what has been presented tonight. Commissioner Waltonsmith indicated she was of the same thoughtfulness as Commissioner Patrick. She has been talking to engineers, colleagues, and neighbors who have generators. She said that in the last three months, two generator issues have come before the Commission. She expressed concern about putting in such a huge generator and the noise pollution in a quiet neighborhood. Chairman Page asked if anyone else in the area had a generator. Ms. Ratcliffe responded that to her knowledge, nothing had been proposed recently. Chairman Page expressed concern that based on the testimony given tonight regarding the decibel levels and considering that they meet the city limits, he would have to support the application because of what the law says. However, he expressed that this is something the Commission should take a hard look at because as more neighbors install generators and they are all cranked up, other issues arise. City Attorney Wittwer referred to Commissioner Jackman's earlier question regarding other legal standards and noted that one of the purposes of City Ordinance Chapter 7 -30 is to establish noise standards that are consistent with the General Plan, and to implement the noise element policy of the General Plan. He said he did not know whether staff had an opportunity to review the General Plan's standard that might apply to this issue. Planning Commission Agenda August 11, 1999 Page 11 Ms. Ratcliffe responded she had not looked at the noise ordinance regarding this particular project. She said staff has been reviewing the General Plan and preparing an executive summary of the plan. She stated that the noise portion of the General Plan does not state specific standards in residential cases. Commissioner Patrick remarked that Mr. Woods has done a good job of getting experts to try to explain to the Commission the various issues regarding this matter. She suggested a demonstration which would be very helpful to her. She said she is not prepared to vote on this matter tonight as she still has too much question in her mind before she can vote yes. She expressed that the tree issue has been resolved by the arborist report; however, a demonstration of the generator before the Commissioners would not delay the construction work. She indicated that a demonstration would show her that the noise at the property line of the neighbors does not carry. Chairman Page noted that consensus shows that a motion for approval would fail; however, if a demonstration could be arranged it would provide the information necessary for the Commission to make a more - educated decision. Mr. Woods and Mr. Graven addressed the Commission and attempted to explain how the generator functions. Commissioner Jackman asked whether the project would be held up by not installing the generator in the next month, and Mr. Woods said the project would not be impacted. Following further discussion, consensus was that a demonstration at the site for Commissioners would be scheduled with staff. City Attorney Wittwer advised that since this item was not advertised as a public hearing, it should remain as a Director's Item and continued to a later date. The item was continued to a later date. COMMISSION ITEMS None. COMMUNICATIONS Written Chairman Page noted the City Council Minutes for Regular adjourned meeting of July 13 and Regular meeting of July 21, 1999. Planning Commission Agenda August 11, 1999 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Page 12 With no further business to conduct, Chairperson Page adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m. to Wednesday, September 8, 1999, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Lynda Ramirez Jones Minutes Clerk MINUTES AMENDED AND APPROVED BY: James Walgren Secretary to the Planning Commission t: CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, July 2'$, 1999 - 7:30 p.m. Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting Chairwoman Bernald called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Kurasch, Page, Patrick, Roupe, Waltonsmith, and Chairwoman Bernald Absent: Commissioner Jackman Staff- Director Walgren Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - July 14, 1999 COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE JULY 14, 1999 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS. PASSED 6 -0 (JACKMAN ABSENT). Page 9, last paragraph, line 1: "Commissioner Patrick expressed she was concerned not by the appearance of with the amount of impervious coverage as proposed but that it was prepose " Page 9, last paragraph, line 6: "...the height of the garage is an inappropriate height. Page 12, paragraph 7, line 2: "...but the plans do not show a the design €er of the house." Page 15, paragraph 2, line 3: "....the road behind the property is impervious and would promote runoff." Page 21, last paragraph: "Commissioner -P-atF" Waltonsmith thanked Commissioner Kurasch..." Page 10, paragraph 2, line 5: "...the three front doors of the garage and that would may be an issue, too." Page 14, paragraph 2 from the bottom, lines 4 and 5: "...behind it could be stfustured replaced with wires to hold the vine..." Line 5 amended to read: "....to eliminate the fence down near Pierce Road." Page 21, paragraph 5, line 5: "He said the pool slope numbers listed in the table it s detefmined that the slope was not 12 nor- i3 pefeent were not noticed at the time. However, upon follow -up by Commissioner Kurasch it was noted clearlv that the slope number was not accurate." Oral Communications There was no one present who wished to speak on matters not on the agenda. Report of Posting Agenda Director Walgren declared that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July 23, 1999. Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1999 Page 2 Technical Corrections to Packet Director Walgren announced two corrections to the agenda packet: 1. Under Public Hearing Item No. 3, the lot size of lot 2 in the agenda and staff report description is noted as 44,552 square feet and should be corrected to read 46,353 square feet; however, the table in the staff report lists the square footage correctly. 2. Under Public Hearing Item No. 4, page 3 of the agenda report referring to the Villa Montalvo parcel, the property is listed as being greater than 136 acres which translates into 450,000 square feet. The 450,00 square feet refers only to the 10 acres of the project site, as the overall site would be much larger. CONSENT CALENDAR None. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. UP -96 -013.1 (503 -24 -054) - SPRINT, 14429 Big Basin Way; Request for Use Permit approval to relocate a single eight foot pole with six antenna panels on the rooftop of the building to the far corners of the rooftop keeping the same height as the existing antennas. Equipment cabinets will remain in an existing garage on the first floor of the building. The parcel is 3,881 sq. ft. and is located in a Commercial Historic zoning district. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project. (CONTINUED FROM 7/14/99). Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting that the applicant has submitted a modified application that would separate the six panel antennas currently on a single pole and place them on the front two corners of the commercial building and one rear corner, providing enough horizontal separation to prevent interference with the existing antennae. Commissioner Waltonsmith asked whether using a different building in the city's historic section had been discussed. Mr. Walgren responded that such discussion had not been held, but would be a valid direction for the Commission to consider. He said that the current conditional use permit approved a five foot tall antenna at the center of the building, and that the application to be considered by the Commission tonight requests a modification of that use permit. He noted that if the modification is denied, the applicant would have to decide whether to find an alternative location or endure the interference and stay at the same location. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 7:50 p.m. Ms. Jennie Kim, representing Sprint PCS, 3875 Hopyard Road, Suite 425, Pleasanton, CA 94588 addressed the Commission. She said Sprint is not trying to add or take away anything, but merely trying to make the design better. Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1999 Page 3 Responding to a question from Commissioner Waltonsmith, Ms. Kim said that the chimney design blended in with the building, making it look less cluttered. She said the original plan considered by the Commission on July 14, 1999 was for a chimney facade in which the antennas are encased and are not visible; whereas the second option being considered tonight is visible. Commissioner Roupe, seeking a cost evaluation benefit from Sprint's point of view, asked what the impact to the transmissions would be if the Commission decided to do nothing. Ms. Kim responded that currently a high potential for interference with the current Pacific Bell antennas exists, and Sprint is attempting to prevent that interference. She conveyed that the problem was both Sprint and Pacific Bell proposed installing their antennas simultaneously unbeknownst to each other. She said Sprint put in their antennas at the location which the city approved. She indicated that had Sprint known Pacific Bell was also installing antennas, Sprint would have developed a different design or worked with Pacific Bell to avoid such interference. Responding to a question from Commissioner Roupe regarding whether Pacific Bell had not placed its antennas in accordance with their use permit, Director Walgren stated that the Pacific Bell antennae actually predated the City's requirement for a conditional use permit. He said they were installed through a simple administrative permit, and they were located exactly where they were approved to be located which is approximately the center of the building. He noted that Pacific Bell was the first antenna installed; the Sprint antenna came along afterwards and was reviewed in conjunction with the Pacific Bell antenna. Commissioner Page asked how much service would be interfered and whether only one or both transmissions would be impacted, and Ms. Kim responded that if there were interference, both would be impacted. Commissioner Patrick queried whether there was a requirement from the Federal Communications Commission or other regulatory agency that the newer installation be located where it does not interfere with the prior installation. Jeff Pellegrim, Radio Frequency Engineer representing Sprint PCS, responded in the affirmative, noting that when the installations were first proposed and first built, both carriers had a minimal number of customers and did not need as many channels transmitting from the site. He said that the customer base has been built up, the usage of the site has increased, and additional channels are necessary to accommodate the new customers. He stated that the additional channels would create interference between the sites; however, at this point the interference has not happened yet, and Sprint is trying to be proactive about modifying the design. He noted that neither he nor Ms. Kim were involved with the initial design and that this matter should have been reviewed and addressed at that point in anticipation of the increased need. Responding to a question from Commissioner Patrick regarding whether it would be reasonable to expect Pacific Bell to make a similar request in the future as a result of expanded need, Mr. Pellegrini said Pacific Bell would probably fall back on the fact that they were there first. He said this is Sprint's problem because they are the second carrier and should have put an installation that would not create this problem. In response to Commissioner Patrick's inquiry, Mr. Pellegrim said there would not be any additional antennas going on the site, and the intent of the application is to get additional isolation or separation from the Pacific Bell antennas so they are not standing toe -to -toe with one another. Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1999 Page 4 ------------------------------- - - - - -- Mr. Pellegrini clarified that Sprint's first proposal (the chimney design) would place Sprint's antennas above Pacific Bell's antennas, and the second design would move them to the same height horizontally away from Pacific Bell's location. Chairwoman Bernald expressed concern whether either option would continue to work for the future. She asked if there was a third option which had not been explored yet. Commissioner Roupe asked whether the applicant had considered moving the antennas a few feet back in so they would not be so visibly obtrusive. Mr. Pellegrini responded that the second design did not meet 100 percent of Sprint guidelines for isolation, and to meet the standards for horizontal location would require an additional five feet off the roof. Responding to a question from Commissioner Kurasch regarding decreasing the number of antennas on top of the building and relocating them elsewhere, Mr. Pellegrim said that Sprint has three antennas on site, which is the minimum number of antennas on any site. Otto Crawford, 12471 Green Meadow Lane, Saratoga, owner of the building on which the antennas are located, said that 72 people were notified of this hearing two weeks ago, and to his knowledge nobody spoke or testified. He was not aware of any letters being written and stated that there was no opposition to the proposal. He said he spoke to nine property owners in the project's immediate vicinity; there was no objection from any of them; and they all accept the chimney or re- arranging the antennas. He conveyed that the rent he collects from Sprint covers his Parking District annual assessment of $16- 17,000, which he would lose if Sprint were to move. This would create a hardship for him. and his family. He expressed he would not want to see Sprint move. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/ROUPE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:08 P.M. PASSED 6 -0 (JACKMAN ABSENT). Commissioner Roupe acknowledged emerging and maturing technology and noted that the Commission tries to preserve the town's historical area. He expressed appreciation for the applicant going back and developing an alternative to the chimney which many Commissioners felt was totally obtrusive. He conveyed that he continued to be concerned with the placement of the new antennas toward the front of the building as they would still be highly visible from a number of locations in town. He said he had reservations about the alternative design and would defer to his fellow Commissioners before making a final judgment. Commissioner Kurasch stated that she had reservations about the application. She said the Commission should try to accommodate reasonable use of property and take care of the community. She felt that this plan is not compatible with the historic district and the very prominent view it gives to the entry to downtown Saratoga. Commissioner Page agreed with what had been said. He said the real impact was not the building itself, but also the overall view from the Village - not only the neighbors, the residents, and the people who own the buildings, but the people who come into the community - and the kind of village feel the city projects and maintains. He commented that if the city is over inundated with technology devices such as satellite dishes or antennas, it would give a less- than -a- village connotation. He noted that the Commission and the City Council are committed to maintaining and preserving the village effect, and he Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1999 Page 5 would not support the antennas toward the front of the building. He indicated he might be able to reassess his previous opinion that the chimney was not effective because he believes there is a significant number of cellular users in the city, and citizens should not be denied the right to use the service that they want. He stated he would be willing to reconsider his previous, negative opinion on the chimney. Commissioner Patrick expressed she was not opposed to the chimney previously, and she was not opposed to the second plan either. She acknowledged that there are new technologies and new requirements. She said as she observed the photos of the antennas, she noted they were different, but looked less obtrusive than what was already there. She indicated she would vote for either proposal. Commissioner Waltonsmith commented that she was in agreement with her fellow commissioners. She stated that she was concerned with how the antennae would look in the historic area. She noted it was not clear whether the Commission had heard the last of this issue; however, she expressed that as the industries expand, the Commission will be hearing that the providers cannot fit under one roof. She said she could not support having the antennas in the front. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with Commissioner Waltonsmith. She expressed concern about the historic nature of the building, noting that the building has a distinct architectural look to it. She said she could not support either of the applications because they would be too distracting to the architectural and historical nature of the downtown area. COMMISSIONERS KURASCH/PAGE MOVED TO DENY UP- 96- 013.1. APPROVED 4 -2 (PATRICK, ROUPE OPPOSED; JACKMAN ABSENT). Commissioner Page asked whether it was appropriate to make a motion on the application previously considered by the Commission on July 14, 1999. Director Walgren responded that the application was for Exhibits A and B; that the application was to amend the original conditional use permit; and that the Commission voted to deny the amendment. Responding to a question from Commissioner Page, Director Walgren stated that if there was interest, there was a means to support Alternative A (considered July 14, 1999), and perhaps a straw vote should be taken to determine whether there was support to approve the original application before going through all the procedural motions. Chairwoman Bernald called for a straw vote. Commissioner Waltonsmith noted she could not support the chimney. Commissioner Patrick stated she could vote in favor of Alternative A. Chairwoman Bernald indicated she could not support the chimney. Commissioner Page conveyed he could support the chimney. Commissioner Kurasch indicated she could not support Alternative A. Commissioner Roupe stated he could support Alternative A. Director Walgren acknowledged that the action would be a failed motion. Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1999 Page 6 Chairwoman Bernald informed the applicant that the motion had failed, and the applicant could either submit a new application or appeal to the City Council. 2. DR -99 -020 (397 -02 -002, Lot #1) - WESTBROOK BUILDERS, 18588 Allendale Avenue; Request for Design Review approval for a 4,499 sq. ft. single story residence with an 848 sq. ft. detached garage. Total floor area proposed is 5,347 sq. ft. Maximum height of the residence is proposed to be 20 ft., maximum height of the garage is proposed to be 15 ft. The site is located on a 43,800 (net) sq. ft. vacant parcel in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 7/14/99). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner Kurasch recused herself from Items No. 2 and No. 3 because she is an adjacent homeowner. Director Walgren provided the staff report for both Items No. 2 and No. 3 in one single presentation; however, he noted that they should be considered separately. He reported that staff was recommending approval of both applications with conditions in the resolutions. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 8:23 p.m. John Voisinet, 1408 Petal Way, Saratoga, addressed the Commission, noting that he purchased and split the property. He said he met with all the neighbors, and none had a concern with the project. He stated that modifications for the neighbors include a view corridor down the creek and keeping a two -story house on the site. He noted that he preferred not to grade the natural hillside too much. Responding to a question from Commissioner Waltonsmith regarding the big spruce tree in the center, Mr. Voisinet stated that the requirement of a minimum clearance of 15 feet has been met. In response to Commissioner Page's inquiry regarding using wood instead of wrought iron for the balconies on the two -story house, Mr. Voisinet noted that wood was being used as facades on the popouts and he chose wrought iron because the balconies do not have coverings. He said he was concerned with the wood eventually rotting and the danger associated with rotting wood. Ron Ware, 7352 Prendivale Drive, San Jose, designer of the house, stated he had concerns in trying to maintain a look consistent to the area and avoiding obtrusive issues. He said that on lot #l, the design focus was to create a Spanish/ranch style house which embraced many courtyards wrapped around existing trees. With low slope roofs, he introduced the use of rock into the building to give it more of an anchor into the environment. He described the house on lot# 2 as a little more eclectic, geared towards similar houses in southern France, giving more character to the house. Mr. Ware commented that his first concern with lot #2 was the challenge of a grove of trees in an area that was the most desirable location to build on with the least amount of grading and as little impact on the creek as possible. He said to address the grading constraints, the top floor is basically a half floor in that all the perimeter walls are low walls with dormers popping out to limit the impact of vertical surfaces on the surrounding neighbors. He stated that areas with vertical faces or large wall faces were softened with trellises. He said the house steps have a total of about 3 feet of elevation change from a rear corner of the house up towards the front corner of the house to mitigate any kind of appearance of a big house sitting there. He said most of the neighbors have been in favor of the project because the applicant is maintaining the view corridor down the creek which is a natural feature. Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1999 Page 7 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner Waltonsmith referred to the Allendale thoroughfare being two -story houses, and Ravenwood, of which the project is a part, being single - family homes. She asked whether a single -story for lot #2 had been considered. Mr. Ware responded that a single -story house would require an immense amount of grading, pushing it into a flood bank along the creek. Responding to Commissioner Patrick's question regarding staff's recommendation to change the roofing, Mr. Ware said the neighboring properties are predominantly woodshake. He said for the design of the house, an S -tile is more appropriate for the look of the house. Chairwoman Bernald referred to lot #2, noted the driveway filled up the front house, and asked if any softening elements such as planters would be going in the very front of the house. Mr. Ware responded that certain areas had been left open for plantings as well as along the front of the living room facing the creek. Commissioner Waltonsmith noted that the ivy near the big trees was growing wild and that the redwood tree was yellowing. Mr. Voisinet responded that the trees have been watered and that the ivy will be trimmed off the trees soon. He said that the redwood tree had not been watered by the previous owner; however, he was told it was natural for the tree to yellow during certain times of the year. He said he would call and ask the arborist. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/ROUPE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:34 P.M. PASSED 5 -0 (JACKMAN ABSENT; KURASCH RECUSED). Commissioner Waltoonmith expressed concern with the roof. She said that to be consistent with the neighborhood, she would recommend the shingle roof which would be more appropriate for the area. She was also concerned about the separate garage. Commissioner Patrick concurred with Commissioner Waltonsmith regarding the roof. She felt that the red roof was fairly obtrusive in the area. She would suggest a shingle -type roof as required by code in a color approved by staff. Commissioner Page agreed with comments stated. Commissioner Roupe clarified with Director Walgren the conditions regarding the roof requirement. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with earlier comments, noting that this is an appropriate building for the site. COMMISSIONERS WALTONSMITH /PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE DR -99 -020 (FOR THE PROPERTY AT 18588 ALLENDALE AVENUE). PASSED 5 -0 (JACKMAN ABSENT; KURASCH RECUSED). Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1999 Page 8 3. DR -99 -019 (397 -02 -002, Lot #2) - WESTBROOK BUILDERS, 18600 Allendale Avenue; Request for Design Review approval for a 4,812 sq. ft. two -story residence with a maximum height of 25 ft. The site is located on a 44,552 (net) sq. ft. vacant parcel in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 7/14/99). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- (Commissioner Kurasch recused herself earlier for Items No. 2 and No. 3.) (Director Walgren earlier presented the staff report under Item No. 2.) Commissioner Page noted this was a great design. He said he appreciated the explanation of the wrought iron for the balconies, and noted that the applicant has done a great job of not impacting the creek. He originally thought it was a bit bulky but with the explanation of the plantings to soften the area, it is an appropriate house for the lot, and he will support it. Commissioners Patrick and Roupe concurred with Commissioner Page. Commissioner Waltonsmith concurred with other Commissioners, stating that at first she was not in favor of the two -story building but now understands why it was designed that way. Chairwoman Bernald stated she would support the application. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE DR -99 -019 (FOR THE PROPERTY AT 18600 ALLENDALE AVENUE.) PASSED 5 -0 (JACKMAN ABSENT; KURASCH RECUSED.) Chairwoman Bernald commended the applicant noting that the Commission received many laudatory letters from the site neighbors. 4. UP -99 -002 & DR -99 -003 (517 -15 -012 & 517 -15 -013) - MONTALVO ASSOCIATES, 15400 Montalvo Road; Request for Use Permit and Design Review approval to construct ten new "Artists in Residency" cottages ranging in size from 492 sq. ft. to 957 sq. ft. and a 2,478 sq. ft. common building on the hill above parking Lot 1 at Villa Montalvo. The property is located in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. The Villa Montalvo property is over 136 acres and the proposed project area is approximately ten acres. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Commissioner Kurasch returned to the meeting. Director Walgren presented the details of the staff report, noting that the City's use permit does not cover the overall facility and is very specific to the expansion that took place many years ago. He provided a brief history indicating that there had been extensive debate in the community over the years, particularly about the summer concert series at Villa Montalvo. After attempting to negotiate a use permit or a letter of understanding several years ago, a court- ordered settlement governing the concerts was issued. He stated that this evening the Commission is considering an application only for the expansion of the Artist in Residency component. He conveyed that the applicants have worked with staff to develop the project and with a diverse group of architects and artists who developed the individual cottage plans. He said the common building at the base of the property would require the removal of a large and significant Coast Live Oak tree. He noted that the buildings are very contemporary and unique with custom architecture not consistent with the historic Villa Montalvo building; however, the City's Historical Preservation Commission has reviewed the application and, considering that these Artist in Residency cottages are not directly adjacent to the historical Villa building, has accepted that they would be appropriate for the Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1999 Page 9 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- particular site. He said the prominence of the common building echoes the detail building of the Villa and would be the only building one would see from a public view if one were driving to the facility or in the parking lot. Responding to a question from Chairwoman Bernald regarding whether Commissioners who are contributors to Villa Montalvo would have to recuse themselves from this item, Director Walgren stated that staff has consulted with the City Attorney regarding this matter, and contributing to a nonprofit organization such as Montalvo should not constitute a conflict of interest. Chairwoman Bernald mentioned that one of the members of the architect search committee is her neighbor and she has spoken to him about this subject. She said their latest communication was her suggesting that the Commission see color renderings to get a better idea of the proposal. Director Walgren responded to questions from Commissioner Waltonsmith regarding the reason for the small buildings being very close together and whether the Negative Declaration was done by an outside firm or by the city. Commissioner Page asked whether a site survey had been done to determine if the California red - legged frog is nesting and breeding, and Director Walgren stated he would take a moment to read the materials as there might be something in the file to answer the question. Commissioner Kurasch clarified that the California red - legged frog is listed as a threatened (not "threaten" as listed in the report) species. She asked what would be the outcome if a survey revealed that the frog was nearby and whether this would result in a mitigated Negative Declaration. Director Walgren stated he would review the materials for a response. Commissioner Roupe asked about the use permit in existence which addresses the Artist in Residency program. Director Walgren responded that there was no overall use permit for the entire Villa Montalvo site, noting that was one of the issues that the City Council was negotiating several years ago which ultimately resulted in litigation. He said the court order is not a blanket use permit as the City would have issued. In response to Commissioner Kurasch's question regarding the amount of grading, Director Walgren referred her to the preliminary engineer plan in the staff report. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 8:55 p.m. Don Stastny, Stastnybrun Architects, stated he is the coordinating architect of the architect/artist teams. He distributed a diagram outlining the various activities of the design. He described the Artist in Residency program as the oldest such program in the western United States. He said when the overall project began, the team went through an extensive program of what the residences should be and the following criteria was developed: That the cottages be functional, that each studio have a place to sleep, a small kitchen, a bathroom, and kept as small as possible. He said the cottages should be inspirational, and give artists a place to practice their art. He stated that within the design of these various cottages careful review would be given to environmental types of design in the materials. He noted that another characteristic was costs, stating that the project is limited, budgeted by donations and paid by donations. Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1999 Page 10 Mr. Stastny conveyed that once the criteria had been established, an invitational process was coordinated to select five architects and artists to work on designing the cottages. He said that five teams, consisting of an architect and an artist, were assigned to design two cottages each. He explained that a sixth team, composed of himself as the coordinating architect and an artist teamed up to design the common building. He noted that a landscape architect came in and worked with all six teams to create a cohesive and coherent site plan. He said when the concept designs for the buildings and site plan were completed, the team went through another series of studies and evaluations which became the planning proposal in the application submitted to the city. He said the teams worked with staff for over a year on this process, and Director Walgren and his staff have been most extraordinary in helping through the issues. Commissioner Waltsonsmith noted that the common building is an introduction and transition point to focus on the historic continuity and the contemporary. She conveyed that she did not see too much of the historic in that component. She expressed concern with the multiple colors which do not seem to represent the classic Montalvo colors and asked how those elements would fit in to Montalvo. Mr. Stastny, illustrating a project model, responded that the common building is a two -sided building, and the side that faces into the parking lot is inclusive with the trellis, the columns, and the stucco front in the facade and other elements throughout the Villa and old mansion. He said the backside is a much more contemporary interpretation which relates more to creating a village. He explained that the front side is only a single color and the multiple colors are in the back. Responding to a question from Commissioner Waltonsmith regarding how the five different units would connect, Mr. Stastny stated that each unit shares commonalities associated with the use of each cottage. Each cottage is distinctly different, creating varied space for either writers, performance artists, or visual artists. He noted each set of cottages has a certain aesthetic and theme to it. Responding to a question from Commissioner Page regarding the front of the building, Mr. Stastny said the color of the stucco would be the same as that of the Villa. Commissioner Kurasch expressed concern with the reflective quality of galvanized sidings on some of the buildings, and asked where they would be located and if there was a finish or similar material that would not reflect too severely. Mr. Stastny responded that the accents occur on two of the cottages. The galvanized material which would be used is not the shiny galvanized type. He said it is a kind of galvanization that tends to go into a much more weathered approach and after a year of wear and sun, it tones down dramatically. Commissioner Kurasch asked whether consideration was given to any other materials, textures, or unifying theme related to anything else on the property other than the columns. Mr. Stastny responded that each cottage is very much tailored to the particular piece of land on which it is located. He said when the cottages are built, it will appear that each cottage is growing out of the particular piece of land. He described the cottages as small, between 500 to 800 square feet. In response to Commissioner Kurasch's inquiry regarding solar materials, Mr. Stastny stated that solar is currently being explored. He said that Villa Montalvo has retained another architect to help with the construction document process to define and finalize the list of materials, and they will be looking for commonalities. He conveyed that currently solar is proposed for two of the cottages which have south - facing skylights. Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1999 Page 11 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner Kurasch expressed concern that some of the trees overlap the oaks or existing native trees to be retained, particularly in the visual artist and the writer cottages in the center by the geological setback and also over a little bit closer to the music cottages. She asked Mr. Stastny for an explanation. Mr. Stastny responded that the applicants are working with H.T. Harvey who will continue to work with the biotic part of the project. He said the trees shown look like they impinge on the oaks and that needs to be corrected. Responding to a question from Commissioner Roupe regarding what appeared to be a gallery or amphitheater between the two buildings, Mr. Stastny replied that the landscape steps address the grade difference from the top to the bottom which is probably about 12 feet in the specific area. Commissioner Roupe referred to the proposed copper roof on the common building and reiterated the Commission's concern that the copper be properly sealed to prevent leaching into the soil. Mr. Stastny referred to an earlier question regarding the California red - legged frog, and stated that the original recommendation to do the study was accepted by Villa Montalvo who has funded the study. He said four examinations were done on the site during the day, evening, and during the nesting or egg - laying period, and no evidence was found. He said it has been recommended that another survey be done a week before construction begins, and if anything is identified at that time, mitigation would be done before construction starts. Commissioner Waltonsmith expressed she was worried about the riparian corridor, and Mr. Stastny responded that the applicants are complying with criteria for the roadway set by the Fire Chief which had to do with a certain amount of grade for a certain amount of curvature and radius limitations. Responding to Commissioner Kurasch's question regarding handicap accessibility, Mr. Stastny responded that the ruling from the Building Department was that the common building was a public building and should be handicap accessible. He said the other buildings are seen as private residences which do not require handicap accessibility. Regardless, Villa Montalvo, as part of their program, made a policy decision that they wanted to make the site as accessible as possible within the limitations of the grades on the property. He said consequently one writer cottage, one visual artist cottage, and two composer cottages are handicap accessible by a policy decision of Villa Montalvo. Beverly Phipps, 15270 Norton Road, stated he resides two houses away from the site. He said he has attended a number of meetings regarding this project and he has been excited by the idea. He noted the project is an imaginative concept, the constraints are well conceived, the committee responsive and responsible, and feels it is intended to be of high quality. However, he stated he still has concerns. Using an overhead projector, he described his concerns. He referred to a survey conducted by the City in which the natural scenic backdrop of the hillsides was identified as the single highest priority by a large margin of the citizens of Saratoga. He referred to the old ordinance from which he cited that the natural visual character of the westside hillsides is to be preserved. He said this proposal will add 10 residences and a common building which combined with the development of the novitiate property will more than double the number of residences on this hillside. He said the development will have to be done with extra care to avoid loss of the visual character of the hillside. He said that the added upkeep expense will require more outdoor concerts to generate more money to pay for the upkeep. He commented that these are handsome buildings, well- conceived, but ten is too many for this site, specially considering other developments which are pending. Mr. Phipps responded to questions from Commissioners. Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1999 Page 12 Sally Lucas, Saratoga resident for over 40 years, stated she has supported Villa Montalvo with time and money the last 13 years. She said this was a wonderful opportunity for this land in Saratoga, and expressed her support. Elisbeth Challener, Executive Director of Villa Montalvo, stated that in the ten years she has been Executive Director, Villa Montalvo has tried to meet the needs of the growing community through children's performing arts camps, education outreach programs for students, a diverse array of concerts, and public access to the villa and grounds. She said it is now time to focus on the soul of what Villa Montalvo stands for - its artist residency program, one of the oldest such programs in the United States. She provided a background of Villa Montalvo's history and Senator Phelan's legacy. She commented that the Montalvo Board, staff, and community volunteers, many of whom were present in the audience and stood to show their support, looked forward to the realization of the dream of building a new complex for resident artists, a dream that was actually first expressed back in 1940 by Montalvo's first Executive Director. Chairperson Bernald referred to Mr. Phipps' concern about supporting the maintenance, and asked Ms. Challener to address the issue. Ms. Challener responded that she understood Mr. Phipps' concern about concerts and pointed out that Montalvo is under a court regulation which specifies how many outdoor concerts can be held there; therefore, there is no plan to increase outdoor concerts. Additionally, she said Mr. Phipps is correct that it will take additional funding to support the new complex, and as a nonprofit organization, fund - raising is a major activity. Responding to Chairperson Bernald's inquiry regarding raising funds and the length of time it will take to complete the project, Ms. Challener said that the project is expected to cost approximately $4 million; to date $2.5 million has been raised. It is anticipated fund - raising will be completed during the next year. Ms. Challener said that Mr. Stastny would respond to the length of the construction period. E.J. Tim Harris, property owner of 20560 Montalvo Lane, adjacent to Montalvo, addressed the Council stating he is familiar with the proposed project and is in full support. Mr. Stastny stated that the contractor is projecting a construction period of ten to twelve months, depending on weather conditions. He said construction could have commenced this fall, but due to unpredictable winter rains, the work is planned to begin next spring. He said in meeting with the neighbors, one of their concerns is the amount of traffic both from the artist residences and from the construction and after discussions, the whole construction program has been geared to entering and exiting through the exit road for Villa Montalvo, which seemed to be the preference of the neighbors. Responding to questions from Chairperson Bernald, Mr. Stastny stated that no soil would be taken off the site. He also said that the construction would be staged in such a way that minimizes disruption as much as possible. Commissioner Kurasch noted that the Parks and Recreation Commission was asked to review the proposal and asked what their view was regarding trails. Philip Boyce, Chairman of the Building & Grounds Committee for Villa Montalvo, said that only the trails would be relocated and is listed in the conditions to relocate to the north from the south. Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1999 Page 13 COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:43 P.M. PASSED 6 -0 (JACKMAN ABSENT). Commissioner Patrick stated she was impressed with the thought and care that has gone into the whole project. She said Montalvo is a very important part of Saratoga. She said the program and housing proposed is an important part of, and will continue to be an important part of, Saratoga. She indicated she had no objection to anything the applicant is proposing. She said the design is exciting. She commented that she listened to Mr. Phipps and the issues he presented; however, she is not convinced by his presentation that this project would visually impact anyone to an extent that an accommodation separate from the plan would be proposed, and she intends to support the project in its totality. Commissioner Page concurred and conveyed that he was totally impressed with the uniqueness and the excitement that each individual cottage presents. He said this is going to be a stellar and significant project in the city. He stated he walked the entire height of the site and could not see any element of the valley floor and is in total support of the project. Commissioner Waltonsmith agreed with earlier comments. She considers the project an art piece and likes it. She said she would vote to approve the project. Commissioner Kurasch commented she was impressed with the amount of effort and care which went into the design and placement. She stated she was concerned about the common building and transition element. She noted that Frank Lloyd Wright developed a sense of place in every project he designed; every project had a reflection of its integration into its environment and context; and his projects had a richness of materials to be utilized. She said he used a plethora of modern techniques and machine -made products in a way that had the flavor of the natural environment of the stone, the brick, the textures, light and air in windows, which she would like to see in this project. She commented that because this is a public space, she would want respect for handicap use, for established trails, and for riparian corridors. Additionally, she said she still had a concern with the riparian loss. Commissioner Roupe stated he was fully supportive of the project. He said it was a wonderful application and use of an orchard. He said the thoughtfulness and skill of the architects and artists will add a jewel to a crown in the community. Chairperson Bernald concurred with fellow Commissioners. Additionally, she commended the applicants for the amount of work put into the project. She said that this project has dealt with so many issues from the biology to trees, to parks, to trails, to the geologic, and other concerns with great depth and detail. She noted that it makes the task easier when the Commission gets a project that is complete. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE UP -99 -002. PASSED 6 -0 (JACKMAN ABSENT). COMMISSIONERS PAGE /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE DR -99 -003. PASSED 6 -0 (JACKMAN ABSENT). COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION. PASSED 6 -0 (JACKMAN ABSENT). Commissioner Roupe noted that a diversity of activity takes place at Montalvo without any existing permit and asked Director Walgren whether anything could be done under the city's current system to Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1999 Page 14 bring Montalvo into conformance with a grandfather use permit or something of that nature. Director Walgren responded that the City Council had attempted to achieve exactly that several years ago, resulting in a court-order that governs the concert series. With the Commission's action tonight a conditional use permit now regulates the Artist in Residency program. The City Council undertook the subject of an overall use permit years ago through meetings, studies, and community input. It took over a year to develop the use permits which evolved into a Memorandum Of Understanding and resulted in litigation. He said that as long as the court order is valid, it would be used to regulate the property. Chairperson Bernald declared a recess at 9:55 p.m. Upon reconvening at 10:00 p.m. the same Commissioners and staff were present. 5. DR -99 -025 (397 -24 -010 & 397 -24 -073) - PINN BROTHERS, 20026 Spaich Court (Lot #3 of the Hayfield Estates subdivision); Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,909 sq. ft., one -story residence. The site is 55,834 sq. ft. and is located within an R -1- 20,000 zoning district. Commissioner Kurasch recused herself because she has a financial contractual agreement with an adjacent property owner. Director Walgren presented the staff report. Chuck Bommarito, representing Pinn Brothers Construction, stated he had read the staff report and concurred with it. He noted that the neighbors had been apprised of the tentative map before submitting for city review. Mr. Bommarito responded to a question from Commissioner Page, noting that the rear of the house is all stucco. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:04 P.M. PASSED 5 -0 (JACKMAN ABSENT; KURASCH RECUSED). Commissioner Roupe commented that the project was in accordance with the subdivision and zoning requirements, and he would vote to support it. Commissioner Page stated that the project was well - designed, meets all the standards, and he would vote to support it. Commissioner Patrick noted that the project is compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Waltonsmith said that the house is compatible with the other houses and likes the project. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with other Commissioners. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE DR -99 -025. PASSED 5 -0 (JACKMAN ABSENT; KURASCH RECUSED). Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1999 Page 15 --------------------------- DIRECTOR ITEMS Appeal of Administrative Accessory Structure Approval: WRIGHT, 15142 Sobey Road Commissioner Kurasch returned to the meeting. Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting this is an appeal of an administrative decision which is being conducted similar to a public hearing to allow everyone, including the applicants, appellants, and neighbors to speak. Jim Grellas and Carol Lynn Grellas, 15160 Sobey Road, addressed the Commission, expressing reasons why they object to the batting cage. Mr. Grellas said he did not want to be unreasonable; however, the number one factor is noise which is difficult to tolerate. He said although there had been no batting activity, the loud music created a lot of noise. He stated that the cage is close to his property and in a bad spot from the Grellases' point of view. He noted that the hitting area and home plate are directly in line with the Grellas kitchen, master bedroom and living room. He said because of the location of the cage the hillside view from his home is gone. Additionally, he said the redwoods installed by the applicant to protect the structure will eventually grow and block out sunlight into the Grellas property. He acknowledged that the safety issue was addressed in the staff report; however, there could be minimal risks with balls going through the netting. He commented he was not against his neighbor's children playing baseball, and noted they could play elsewhere, but his family could not move elsewhere. He requested that the Commission vote to remove the batting cage and that the redwood trees be replanted elsewhere on the Wright property. Commissioner Patrick noted that the structure appeared to be about three feet higher than it should be and asked Mr. Grellas if it would make any difference to him were it to be reduced three feet. Mr. Grellas responded that the reduction in height would make no difference as the main factor is the noise which is very disruptive. Responding to a question from Commissioner Patrick regarding comparing noise levels of a batting cage with a tennis court, Mr. Grellas stated there was probably no comparison and indicated that aluminum bats are very loud. Commissioner Patrick asked what the difference was between a tennis machine and a batting cage, and Mr. Grellas responded that the batting cage is a louder sound, especially when a hard ball is hit by an aluminum bat, than a ping off of a tennis racket. Commissioner Patrick asked Mr. Grellas whether his safety concerns would be alleviated if the batting cage was surrounded by wire screening materials as seen on tennis courts. Mr. Grellas responded that his concerns would probably be alleviated, but that would be getting into another set of problems. Commissioner Roupe shared that he is a tennis player and noted that tennis is not as disruptive and is much different from an aluminum bat connecting with a hard ball. Commissioner Roupe noted that if the site were approved, it would require substantial alteration either in the natural grade for a 10 -foot high structure or would require reducing the structure to 5 -7 feet, which he Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1999 Page 16 believes would impair its usefulness as a batting cage. Cindy Wright addressed the Commission, noting she resides at 15142 Sobey Road with her three boys, ages 14, 11, and 7. She stated she has a teaching background and feels that academics are important as are physical and athletic activities. She explained why the cage was not located in another area previously discussed. She said that particular area is wet during certain seasons and the property could not be disked because tractors have been stuck in that area. She stated that another cause is that the area is too far from her home and she would not be able to see her boys. Other reasons included the high traffic in the area, problems with vandalism, and attractive nuisance. She addressed the noise issue, commenting that noise travels two ways, and with children playing, there is normal neighborhood noise. She said her two oldest boys would be using the cage 50 percent of the time for catching balls and not batting. She said she has put in thousands of dollars to make the area appropriate and aesthetically pleasing. She noted that the redwood trees were planted ten years ago. She said she thought the idea was to put some kind of sound barrier there, or even a visual barrier so that the Grellases would not have to look at the project, and she thought she had complied with the code. In response to Chairwoman Bernald's question regarding the redwood trees, Ms. Wright said that the double layered trees were planted in 1992. In response to a question from Commissioner Roupe, Ms. Wright said that the cage could be lowered, explaining it was put at 12 feet because it was purchased as such. She said it would not bother her if the cage were 7 feet tall and it would not impair its usefulness. Responding to a question from Commissioner Waltonsmith, Ms. Wright said that the lower area is very wet during the wet season; and the reason it is dry now is because a significant amount of soil was brought in from the batting cage area. Commissioner Kurasch asked whether the drainage was primarily from the rain, and Ms. Wright responded that the drainage was runoff from a culvert higher up the hill coming down Sobey. David N.K. Wanh, 15230 Sobey Road, addressed the Commission. He resides in the eastern side of the Wright property. He spoke of the batting cage, evening lights, noise, batting, yelling, which is very disruptive. He said these activities are only 35 feet from his living room and master bedroom, and the noise is intolerable. He stated that recently he applied for a permit to build a meditation pavilion in his home 30 feet from the structure, and said he would not be able to meditate with the noise. He asked the Commission to seriously consider making a wise decision regarding this matter. Jolie Houston, 10 Almaden Boulevard, San Jose, addressed the Commission, noting she was representing the Grellases and identified herself as the person who drafted the appeal letter in the agenda packet. She quoted from the Saratoga code defining a recreational court. She pointed out that a professional batting cage is not recreational use, is not similar to tennis nor basketball, and has high intense use that is not fit for a recreational area. She noted that recreational courts shall not be illuminated by exterior lighting. She stated that the structure has a direct impact on the neighbors and it is affecting their use of their property. She said Ms. Wright has expended a lot of time and energy on this, but she does not have a valid permit. She requested that the alternative location be explored and perhaps a cement pad or similar material be installed if the area is still wet. David Ezgar, 5119 Eppling Lane, San Jose, identified himself as Carol Lynn Grellas' brother, discussed how the structure and noise has affected the Grellases and how it could destroy lifestyles of other neighbors. Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1999 Page 17 Mr. Grellas addressed the Commission and stated he wanted to clarify that the redwood trees were not there previously and that the alternative location area is dry. Commissioner Page noted that the boys had played basketball and T -ball in the subject location and asked Mr. Grellas whether that had ever bothered him in the past. Mr. Grellas said that the basketball hoop is farther away, and he did not remember anybody playing T- ball. Commissioner Roupe stated that the structure is nonconforming and substantial modifications would have to be made which would raise the question of earth removal and other issues to make this a conforming structure. He said if it were a conforming structure, it would impose on the neighbors and the use of their property, their peace and quiet that they deserve. He would encourage an alternative location which with proper drainage could make it acceptable. He said he opposes the structure and its location and would ask the applicant to seek an alternative. Commissioner Kurasch concurred, noting that from the configuration of the lot, these are huge properties, and the structure is right next to someone's private area which makes it impossible to escape noise. She said this is a compatibility issue with the neighborhood. She would urge an alternative plan as everyone needs to enjoy their property. She would vote to deny approval of the structure. Commissioner Page noted that although he believes one should be able to do what one wants to with their property, he would want to subscribe to what the City Council has stated. He said the Council would not approve a tennis court that was 30' -40' away from another property because of the noise they make. He expressed that in this matter the noise is a significant impact and he would uphold the appeal. Commissioner Patrick conveyed that if this structure were conforming to the correct height she would not disapprove it. She said she heard the neighbors complaining about lights which are not allowed. She said she heard them say that the height was obtrusive, and that would have to be reduced. She suggested another option could be to restrict the hours of use. She noted she would not oppose a restriction of use to sunlight hours, afternoon hours, or something that seems to be an appropriate length of time. She said she is not objecting to kids having to play. Commissioner Waltonsmith stated she believes this goes beyond recreational noise, and she will be voting to deny the cage. Chairperson Bernald stated that if this issue had come before the Commission, the Commission probably would not have approved the project. She said the City gave the applicant fair warning not to proceed with the cage. She noted that the applicant did a good job with the landscaping except for the redwood trees which are planted too closely together and will not thrive. She said if this had been an empty lot in the specific area and the project had come before the Commission, she would not have voted to support its location. She commented that she agreed with Commissioners Roupe and Waltonsmith that there are drainage options. She said the appropriate siting for this project would be down off of Sobey Road in the lower area. She noted that the lights should not be used, the City should not have to monitor illegal uses of illegal structures, and she cannot support the project. COMMISSIONERS ROUPE/KURASCH MOVED TO UPHOLD AS -99 -001 APPEAL AND DENY THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BATTING CAGE AT ITS CURRENT LOCATION. PASSED 6 -0 (JACKMAN ABSENT). Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 1999 Page 18 COMMISSION ITEMS Chairperson Bernald announced that she received a call from Councilmember Stan Bogosian inviting Commissioners to a water walk tour along the creek with him and Councilmember Evan Baker on August 4, 1999. ii. It was noted that two Commissioners would be out of town on September 24, the proposed date for a Commission retreat. Consensus was that each Commissioner would contact Director Walgren with dates they would be available for a retreat. COMMUNICATIONS Written The following written communications were noted: - City Council Minutes for Regular Meeting of July 7, 1999 Planning Commission Notices for Regular Meeting of August 11, 1999 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING With no further business to conduct, Chairperson Bernald adjourned the meeting at 11:05 p.m. to Wednesday, August 11, 1999, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Lynda Ramirez Jones Minutes Clerk MINUTES AMENDED AND APPROVED BY: bam elary Walgnen to the anning Commission CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 1999 Civic Center, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting Chairperson Bernald called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Jackman, Kurasch, Page, Patrick, Roupe, Waltonsmith and Chairwoman Bernald Absent: None Staff: Director Walgren Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - June 23, 1999 COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE JUNE 23, 1999 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Page 4, paragraph 3, last sentence: "Director Walgren agreed that the Commission could ire require a statement as to the nature of the business." Page 11, paragraph 2, line 7: "....including Mr. Hawks' and Ms. Traxler's Domes home. He said that the Commission has seen seve l of these only a few residents at each of the meetings." Page 6, paragraph 3, line 1: "She said that she did not fnind appreciated hearing and accepting information...." Page 7, paragraph 6, line 2: "....the size of the shops between Long's and Safeway buildings...." Page 13, paragraph 2, line 3: "...spaces or legislate that a decision is be held off...." Page 18, paragraph 7, line 1: ".....of the dead deer carcass which was seen on the ;j�e t. ^ °r-'s f*en yefd t,r noted by the owner in her (owner's) backyard." THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSTAINING. Oral Communications There was no one present who wished to speak on matters not on the agenda. Report of Posting Agenda Director Walgren declared that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July 9, 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1999 Page 2 Technical Corrections to Packet Director Walgren stated there were no technical corrections to the packet. However, he read into the record that letters were received from the following regarding Item No. 3 on the Consent Calendar: 1. Jamba Juice representatives describing their processes for maintaining their facilities and squeezing their juices on site in response to the concern regarding bacteria levels that could possibly be contained in unpasteurized bottled juices. 2. Maria Lenquist, resident of Lika Court, expressing support for the Jamba Juice permit. 3. Resident of 19301 Portos Court, Saratoga, expressing support for the Jamba Juice permit. 4. Melissa Barcelo, Saratoga resident, expressing support for the Jamba Juice permit, noting both indoor and outdoor seating. 5. Ann Swain, Saratoga resident, expressing support for the Jamba Juice permit. 6. Terry Murray, expressing support for the Jamba Juice permit. 7. Ben Yuri, Saratoga resident, expressing support for the Jamba Juice permit. 8. Barbara Dutra, Saratoga resident, expressing support for the Jamba Juice permit. Director Walgren reported that the public hearing for this application was closed at the June 23, 1999 Commission meeting wherein the Commission deadlocked on a 3 -3 vote regarding the conditional use permit. He said tonight's agenda was to re -vote on the item and that no public hearing would be re- opened. CONSENT CALENDAR COMMISSIONERS WALTONSMITH/KURASCH MOVED TO REMOVE ITEM NO. 3 FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR TO BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. PASSED 7 -0. 1. DR -99 -020 (397 -02 -002, Lot #1) - WESTBROOK BUILDERS, 18588 Allendale Avenue; Request for Design Review approval for a 4,499 sq. ft. single story residence with an 848 sq. ft. detached garage. Total floor area proposed is 5,347 sq. ft. Maximum height of the residence is proposed to be 19 ft., maximum height of the garage is proposed to be 15 ft. The site is located on a 43,801 (net) sq. ft. vacant parcel in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 7/28/99 AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 2. DR -99 -019 (397 -02 -002, Lot #2) - WESTBROOK BUILDERS, 18600 Allendale Avenue; Request for Design Review approval for a 4,812 sq. ft. two -story residence with a maximum height of 25 ft. The site is located on a 44,552 (net) sq. ft. vacant parcel in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 7/28/99 AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- COMMISSIONERS PAGE/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS NO. 1 AND 2. PASSED 7 -0. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1999 Page 3 3. UP -99 -008 (393 -01 -041) - JAMBA JUICE, 12868 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road; Request for Use Permit approval for a 1,228 sq. ft. juice bar with both indoor and outdoor seating in the Argonaut Shopping Center. No new construction or expansion is proposed. The property is located within a Commercial - Neighborhood zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 6/23/99 FOR A RE -VOTE AFTER MOTION FOR APPROVAL FAILED ON VOTE OF 3 -3). Responding to Director Walgren's question, Commissioner Roupe stated he had read the minutes and viewed the videotape of the last Commission meeting and was prepared to vote on this item tonight. Commissioner Waltonsmith stated she was glad to hear from the people around the proposed site and how they feel about Jamba Juice. She continues not to like the business in that particular position and would like to hear Commissioner Roupe's comments. Commissioner Roupe concluded that this is a neighborhood - friendly type of store and the kind of business to encourage in that type of location. He said he would not support adding signage or similar elements which he feels go beyond the requirements of the existing law. Commissioner Kurasch, noting that the Commission was considering the compatibility of the facility within the neighborhood area, asked whether the letters of support submitted were from neighbors in the surrounding area of the proposed business. Director Walgren responded that not all of the letters had addresses, but those which did were close to the proposed location, though not in the immediate vicinity. Commissioner Kurasch conveyed that although the Commission could not specify what exact businesses go in any one location, it could encourage a mixed use if too many related businesses are in any one location. She asked if it was possible to continue this issue to another meeting to allow for input from the Council and project developer. Director Walgren responded that at this point the initial vote would have to be resolved. The Zoning Ordinance specifies that a tie vote needs to go to the next available meeting and needs to be resolved. The tie vote cannot be postponed from today's meeting. He noted that a second tie vote would result in a failed motion and denied project. Chairperson Bernald named the families who were on record as opposing the project and noted that no other letters of objection had been received from anyone in the neighborhood. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE UP -99 -008. PASSED 5 -2 (KURASCH AND WALTONSMITH VOTED NO). PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairwoman Bernald noted that last night the Council reiterated that they support an interactive conversation with the public and the Commission wholeheartedly supports that practice. However, because of the number of speakers present tonight, she asked Commissioners to decide the amount of time a speaker may speak. Consensus was three minutes. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1999 Page 4 4. UP -99 -009 (517 -10 -036) - SARATOGA TENNIS CLUB, 20571 Komina Avenue; Request for Use Permit approval to permit three legal non - conforming tennis courts and increase the amount of paved surface in order to provide a larger space between the three courts. The property is approximately one acre and is located in an R -1- 10,000 residential zoning district. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Commissioner Roupe recused himself from the discussion as he is a member of the Saratoga Tennis Club. Director Walgren presented the staff report noting that the application is being made by the Saratoga Tennis Club. The club has been in existence at this location, in the middle of a residential zoning district, for approximately 70 years. The club currently has three tennis courts, a small drive to the left side of the tennis courts which accesses a small clubhouse built many years ago. The property backs up to Saratoga Elementary School to the north. One half of the property on the north side adjacent to the elementary school is undeveloped. He said the applicant came to staff to inquire what would be involved to reconstruct and rehabilitate their existing tennis courts. He stated that this case is considered a nonconforming facility in that there never was a conditional use permit approved for a tennis club that was constructed and operated prior to the City's incorporation. The use permit would be two -fold to allow an expansion and also to legalize or to record the restrictions under which the club would be required to operate. Using visual aids, Director Walgren displayed the project, describing it as 1.09 acres. He reported that the proposed expansion was to reconstruct the tennis courts and extend them to approximately 35 feet to the north to provide netting and distance to prevent balls from bouncing from one court to another. The site has approximately three to six parking spaces within the driveway and another two to three parking spaces which City staff is aware has been adequate to date. Staff has not received a large number of complaints regarding traffic or parking related to the club although it is adjacent to Saratoga Elementary School which has severe traffic and circulation parking problems, particularly in the morning and afternoon peak hours. Director Walgren said that since the application was advertised, staff has received considerable and unique correspondence regarding the proposal, including a petition signed by a majority of the club members indicating that they are not in support of the proposed expansion. He said this is an internal matter and is not subject to the land use consideration of the Commission. He noted for the record that the Commission is considering an application that may not have internal support of its membership. The bylaws indicate that there needs to be a two - thirds majority support to increase the indebtedness of the club. Director Walgren conveyed that staff recommendation is to approve the largely renovation work and allow the expansion of the club which allows the City to memorialize the 100 - membership limit, prohibits the lighting of tennis courts for evening play, and bars external club play at the private club that would bring in a large number of cars. Commissioner Patrick stated it appears as if the lot coverage would be maxed out if this proposal is accepted which means there would be no additional parking. She said that the applicants cannot sell any of the remaining unused property because this would put them over the impervious coverage limit. She asked Director Walgren for verification. Director Walgren said that one of the suggestions recommended is that the clubhouse be eliminated and access be made available on that property for parking. If that parking was done in a turf block, it would not count against their lot coverage. Another possibility is that the property is over an acre in size, and any hard surface would be limited to its own 60 percent lot coverage. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1999 Page 5 Responding to Commissioner Waltonsmith's inquiry regarding dividing the application, Director Walgren stated that the Commission could continue the conditional use permit to develop greater onsite parking by moving the tennis courts back or using some of the back property. Another alternative if internal opposition to the expansion is given during tonight's public testimony would be that the Commission approve the use permit to legalize and recognize the existing tennis club, deny the component that expands the tennis courts, and require that a new application be made in the future to address the parking needs and obtain verification that the club membership is complying with their own bylaws. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. Nancy Layendecker, President of the Saratoga Tennis Club, stated she has been a member for many years, and noted that the City requested that membership be limited to 100 members. She said that the club's intent is a complete renovation of its tennis courts after 70 years. The courts were originally built with peat gravel, burlap, and sand with a topping. The renovation would bring the 52'x 120' courts up to 60' x 120' standard size for the safety of club members. She said usually six cars are parked in their driveway and a couple on the street, depending on how many members are using the club. The club has retained Joseph Smith, a consultant who helped with the design and plan. She said the club has never had a use permit to conform to City rules. She feels conforming is not a problem for club members. Referring to the club bylaws, she stated they are not asking for indebtedness. She does not know why the indebtedness issue was raised as it is an internal problem and a non -issue as far as the Commission is concerned. She conveyed that the courts are painted every two to three years, and with the proposed renovation of expanding courts, rock base would be put in to last 10 years. In response to Commissioner Patrick's inquiry, Ms. Layendecker indicated the new surface would not affect sound or vibration. Responding to Commissioner Jackman's questions regarding whether the club planned to replace the fence, Ms. Layendecker said there would be new fence along the backside, and the front side would probably remain the same. Commissioner Waltonsmith asked whether the membership was behind the project, and Ms. Layendecker responded that a survey had been sent out with votes just coming in showing more ayes than nays in support of the project and expansion. In response to Commissioner Page's question, Ms. Layendecker responded that hours of operation are 8 a.m. to dark. Commissioner Page referred to the petition and asked if a certain number of yes votes were needed to obtain enough money to pay for the entire project. Ms. Layendecker responded that the bylaws permit the Board of Directors to make an assessment. Commissioner Page referred to a letter from Mr. Jacobson which states that with the $70,000 in the bank and $475 member assessment, the project would be completed. He expressed concern that if only one -third of the membership accepts the assessment, would the project stop halfway. Ms. Layendecker responded that the project would be completed as there are other people who will cover the costs. Dr. Arthur Anderson, 20574 Komina, resides immediately across the street from the club, and represents the neighborhood in requesting that the club be required to provide its own onsite parking. The parking presents PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1999 Page 6 a problem for the school. Neighbors are concerned about the aesthetics and cosmetic effect of the club in the neighborhood. Although he is a member of the club and likes the club, he described it as a rundown, dilapidated eyesore in the neighborhood. He suggested that the clubhouse which is a ramshackle be moved back or modified. He described the front fence as rotten, reinforced by steel pipes, and rusted so badly that windscreen cannot be attached to it. He said he is also a member of a neighborhood task force called Kids Safety First Committee, which works very actively with the City's Safety Commission and Board of Trustees of the Saratoga Union School District on safety problems for the children. Based on the neighbors' concern for the safety of the children, they are requesting that the club reduce onstreet parking to the extent of providing offstreet parking for their membership. He said it would be easy for the club to move the clubhouse back 100 feet and open a driveway. There is a 100' x 100' area that would create an adequate non - impervious parking lot for club members, and could also be used by school employees and school visitors. Dr. Roger Goodfriend, Monte Sereno resident, has been a club member for 35 years and stated he represented the club's petition committee. He indicated he had submitted a petition with 48 signatures and explained that two were in error. He said that the 46 signatures out of 90 members represents a majority against the proposed extension. He said he had been told that the new petition the club sent out has received 20 -25 responses to date with a 50 -50 vote. He stated there was only one bid for the job with increased costs of $36,000 for the extension after members were told there would not be any extra costs. He said there are 120 playing members although only 90 proprietary members. He asked the Commission to consider the club's internal matters when making a decision. Evelyn Oliver, 20589 Komina Avenue, adjacent land owner between the school and tennis club and a member of the club, stated she opposes the expansion because of the internal issues and the consensus of club members. She expressed concern with the fencing and proposals for flag lots or parking lots. She said she and her husband also have their own expansion in mind and they would certainly like to know what the tennis club had in mind. Joseph Smith, consultant, stated he was retained by the club's Board to submit the application. He described the composition of the courts, noting that the original base was simply layered dirt, oil, and peat gravel. He said the applicants got three bids but nobody understood what had been previously done. Instead of obtaining more bids, the applicants decided to go to an engineering firm and ask them what to do. In the process of working with the engineering firm, it was discovered that if there was no base rock under the courts, it would be necessary to dig down and remove almost a foot of soil in order to bring in base rock. He stated that the engineering firm said it would be more simple to take the dirt and move it to create a 34' extension with the existing soil on site rather than truck it off and dump it elsewhere. He said the extension thus became feasible and it was felt that the extension would not cost anymore. Commissioner Kurasch asked how much it cost to maintain the courts, and Mr. Smith responded that three years ago the cost was $22,000. Commissioner Patrick recalled the school having drainage problems, expressed concern that the drainage could be impacted, and asked whether a drainage plan existed. Mr. Smith responded that the drainage was addressed and that it would go into an energy dissipater on the club's property. Commissioner Jackman noted that directly behind the property is Saratoga School which is going through great expense to drain their area directly out to Forest Hills and are putting in pumps to do so. She said she PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1999 Page 7 hoped that there were not any plans to send any moisture in the school's direction. Henry Yamate, Saratoga resident and club member for over 50 years, stated that the Board polled its membership regarding whether they are for or against the expansion. He said 50 responses have come in and the results to date are close. He indicated this would be an official poll. He noted that the cracks are one -half inch wide and there is no way of fixing them in their present state. The club currently has a $70,000 funds for this work and a bid of $114,000. The Board is attempting to assess each member with the difference totaling $475. Ted McKibben, 14463 Oak Street, expressed concern that not many people use the courts, and the fees of $200 per year are low. He said when the membership was polled, half of them said they do not use the courts, but they pay because it is inexpensive. He noted that if the assessment is increased, some members would drop out; they would be replaced by more active members which would increase the traffic and parking problem. He said there are not enough bids for the project, and there is no buy -in from the membership. He expressed that the project was not properly planned. He suggested the applicants come back with a proposal where they have the buy -in from the neighbors, a majority of the club that agrees with an assessment, and a plan with the financial numbers that everybody can buy into. Phil Holmes, San Jose resident, member of the club, stated that the proposed assessment is based on a maintenance clause in the bylaws, and the project is not maintenance, but a full -blown renovation. If more members were brought in to replace those who would leave because of increased assessments, they would be using courts more often and add more traffic. Bob Shepherd, 20491 Forrest Hills Drive, addressed the parking issue. He said if newer players joined the club, traffic would increase. He requested that the Commission delay a vote on the use permit and also delay a vote on the expansion because the membership needs to support this project. Bill Jacboson, 17470 High Street, Los Gatos, stated he has been a club member for 30 years. He is also the developer of the Decathlon Club in Santa Clara. He views the project not as an expansion but as finally getting the courts to the right size. He has not seen an increase in parking since he has been there. He said this project would not go forward if the majority of the club is not in favor of it. He said the financing should not be the Commission's concern; the decision should be whether or not this project can go forward and perhaps the project could be approved with the condition that it be approved by the members. David Urshan, San Jose resident and club member for over 30 years, addressed the issues of noise, traffic, and membership. Ms. Layendecker provided additional comments and requested that the Commission grant the use permit. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KURASCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:06 P.M. PASSED 7 -0. Commissioner Waltonsmith stated she was not in favor of going forward with the agreement or looking at the design tonight. Not having any parking or adding to the parking is a major issue to her and she would urge the applicants to come back at a later date to address parking. She would like to move on the use permit, but feels the project needs more refinement. Commissioner Jackman expressed that it is necessary to proceed with the use permit but she has many questions and does not want to approve anything until she has more complete plans. She asked the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1999 Page 8 Chairman of the Board about whether the chicken wire fence would be replaced, and it was uncertain whether or not it would be replaced. She said traffic on Komina is heavy and the parking is bad. There are no sidewalks in the area and she would not want to see children walking home where there are no sidewalks. She said the plans are totally inadequate to consider any type of drainage problem. She said she was against approving any types of plans at this point. Commissioner Patrick concurred with Commissioner Jackman, stating that it would be appropriate to expand the courts to regulation size but she is concerned with the drainage. She is concerned about the parking. She said the neighbors need some input as to whether they prefer parking on the property in the front in the back or wherever. She is concerned about the fences, neighbors and look of the club. She said neighbors take good care of the neighborhood, and the club has an obligation to do the same for its neighbors. She thinks proper planning is the key, and she does not see proper planning here. She said her inclination is to deny it or continue it for a period of time to figure out what the club's plans are. She is concerned with drains, parking, fence, and upkeep. Commissioner Page said he would be in support of continuing this to another meeting to give the applicant an opportunity to redo the plan; however, the use permit should be approved to make it a legal conforming club. He said some of the things related to the construction which ought to be taken into consideration are sensitivity to neighbors, fencing in front, and what membership will be like after construction is done. Commissioner Kurasch stated that this plan would not add traffic, it would simply be doing what is already existent. She said the Commission should look to see how a non - conforming use can conform to current standards. She would not advocate that a clubhouse building be changed or that a parking drive be put in as it would change the whole ambiance of the club. She said the plan is addressing an overall problem with maintenance. She would approve the use permit and is in favor of the improvements. Responding to a question from Chairwoman Bernald, Director Walgren recommended that if there is an affirmative vote on the application as submitted, the resolution could be modified to not require additional parking, but conditions do require that they submit to staff a fencing detail. He said new fencing is restricted to certain types and subject to approval. He noted the drainage plan shows the drainage to the back half of the property and that could be verified to be adequate to keep the drainage from going onto the school district's property. He said if there was no support, he would recommend approving the use permit and denying the improvements and require that an amendment to the application be resubmitted. A discussion ensued regarding possible scenarios based on Commission decision and Director Walgren responded to Commissioners' questions. Chairwoman Bemald stated it would not be appropriate to consider an application for expansion that has not received the required attention of the club membership. To vote one way or the other on the expansion would be to taint the application and give the club Board an unfair advantage in their argument. She would support adopting the use permit to give the club legal conforming status with the conditions limiting the membership to 100, restricting the club from holding tournaments or events, and denying evening lights. She stated she did not want her vote to be construed to reflect any opinions on the conditions of the club or the proposed changes to the club. She feels strongly that the issues of parking, drainage, and fencing are issues that should be looked to for the future. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/JACKMAN MOVED TO APPROVE UP -99 -009, THE USE PERMIT PORTION ONLY, AND THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY: ANY MODIFICATIONS TO THE EXISTING CLUB SITE OR PROPERTY SITE ARE NOT APPROVED AND WOULD REQUIRE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1999 Page 9 FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION; AND IF THAT DOES OCCUR, A PARKING ANALYSIS WOULD BE DONE AND APPROPRIATE PARKING WOULD BE PROPOSED OR AN EXPLANATION FOR WHY IT IS NOT POSSIBLE OR NOT NEEDED; AND EVIDENCE THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERSHIP IS IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT GOING FORWARD. PASSED 7 -0. Chairwoman Bernald declared a recess at 9:30 p.m. Upon reconvening at 9:40 p.m., the same Commissioners, including Commissioner Roupe, and staff were present. 5. UP -99 -013 (397 -02 -093) - MILLS, 14118 Sobey Meadows Court; Request for Use Permit approval to allow a 15 foot tall detached garage to be built within a required rear yard setback. The site is 40,206 sq. ft. and is located in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. Director Walgren presented the details of the staff report. Responding to a question from Commissioner Roupe, Director Walgren explained the variation on placement of a structure within a setback. Dennis Burrow, project architect, addressed the Commission and offered to answer questions. Fred Mills, 14118 Sobey Meadows Court, described the proposed expansion, noting that the garage was designed to go in back of the property for most efficient use of the land. He visited his neighbors for any objections, and there were none. Commissioner Patrick asked why the garage was not located at a right angle to the house, and Mr. Mills responded the extensive landscape there would prevent infringement and would prevent access to the back of the property. He liked the idea that the garage doors are not seen in front of the house. He said the garage was staked out at a couple of locations and the best location was in the back. Mr. Mills and Mr. Burrow responded to Commissioners' questions. Nick Streit, 14076 Sobey Meadows Court, stated his property is adjacent to the north of the Mills property. He spoke in support of the project, noting that he and the Millses worked together on the plan, including a landscape design, which was satisfactory to both parties. Mr. Streit responded to questions from Commissioners. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/JACKMAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:54 P.M. PASSED 7 -0. Commissioner Patrick expressed she was concerned with the amount of impervious coverage proposed. She said it is within the standards, and the percentage of coverage was over 16,000 square feet, which is a lot of impervious coverage. She said she appreciates that the neighbors jointly worked out the location and landscaping, but her concern is too much pavement. She said too much coverage causes many problems to the environment including runoff and impacts the streams, creeks, and various things. She said the height of the garage is an appropriate height, and if it were closer to the house it would be better. She said she would be voting against the project based on the amount of pavement. She said she would be in favor of the project if the pavement were decreased so that the current plan adding the large garage does not increase the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1999 Page 10 coverage. Responding to a question from Chairwoman Bernald regarding pervious pavers, Commissioner Patrick said she would consider any solution that would make it pervious rather than impervious. Commissioner Page stated that the amount of impervious coverage was his issue, too. He said if the plan could decrease to a single lane moving towards the back, it would lessen a certain amount. He noted he was not a fan of garage doors in front of the house but in this case adding this garage right on to the new structure seemed more appropriate. He said that Mr. Streit would then be looking at the side of the garage versus the three front doors of the garage and that may be an issue, too. He said he could support this plan but he would like to see either grass pavers for a large portion of the front part of the driveway, especially where it widens next to the main structure or just cutting it down altogether to one lane going to the back to allow the parking prescribed by ordinance. Responding to Commissioner Jackman's question regarding limits of impervious cover or driveway, Director Walgren stated that the maximum limit in this zoning district is 35 percent of the total net site area of lot coverage, and the number for this project is 27 percent. Commissioner Jackman stated that she would vote to approve since the impervious coverage is within the law. Commissioner Kurasch expressed concern with the impervious coverage and she would rather see one access as a simple driveway to the back. She said her concern is the front of the house and how it looks in the overall scheme, especially compatibility with others in the neighborhood. She said she does not like the amount of coverage. Commissioner Waltonsmith stated that there was too much paving. Commissioner Roupe shared the concerns already expressed, especially the large amount of coverage; however, he noted that the coverage is within the limits as set forth by ordinance. Thus, he would be willing to support the project as proposed. Chairwoman Bemald concurred with her fellow Commissioners regarding the amount of coverage. She stated she was impressed that there were no complaints from the neighbors. She would have no problem with the size of the garage, considering the size of the lot and the homes in the area. She would also consider cutting back the amount of paving and asking staff to determine something that would be more appropriate to the site. IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER ROUPE TO ACCEPT THIS PROPOSAL AS SHOWN, EXCEPT REFER IT TO STAFF TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO DETERMINE WHAT CAN BE DONE TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE EITHER THROUGH PERVIOUS BLOCKS OR POSSIBLY THE APPLICATION OF TURF BLOCKS IN CERTAIN DROP -OFF AREAS OR OTHER AREAS. Commissioner Kurasch expressed that she would also want to add to the motion to actually reduce the amount of pervious or impervious coverage. A discussion ensued regarding turf blocks. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1999 Page 11 Commissioner Patrick conveyed that staff needed more direction on this issue from the Commission. Director Walgren suggested that either the hard surface be reduced by limiting the apron area in front of the existing garage to make it a single width driveway going to the back to the new garage or that there be a truly pervious material introduced into this design to achieve an equal reduction in hard surface. Commissioner Kurasch preferred to redesign the driveway to eliminate the apron in front of the existing driveway. She suggested making it a standard driveway width and allow the rest of the driveway to exist in paved areas with the choice up to the applicant so they are not obligated for one type of material that they may not want at all. Commissioner Jackman stated that the owner, the architect, and the neighbor have worked hard to develop a plan that meets the code requirements, and she did not feel comfortable trying to outguess what the Commission should do with their property. FAILING A SECOND TO COMMISSIONER ROUPE'S MOTION, THE MOTION FAILED. COMMISSIONERS KURASCH/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE UP -99 -013 AS PRESENTED WITH THE CONDITION TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE BY THE CHOICE OF STAFF AND APPLICANT AND TO ELIMINATE THE PARKING AREA IN FRONT OF THE FORMER GARAGE TO DRIVEWAY WIDTH. PASSED 6 -1 (JACKMAN OPPOSED.) 6. DR -99 -018 (397 -18 -048) - BRAMLETT, 14920 Farwell Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to demolish the existing residence and construct a new 5,132 square foot, single story residence. The maximum height of the residence will be 23 feet. The site is 28,229 square feet and is located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. Director Walgren presented the staff report. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 10:14 p.m. Gary Schloh, project architect, described the project, noting that the compatibility of the house is similar to, what already exists there. Responding to a request from Commissioner Kurasch, Director Walgren distributed a material and colors board. Mr. Schloh responded to Commissioners' questions regarding areas where stone veneer materials would be used. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/ROUPE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:17 P.M. PASSED 7 -0. Commissioner Kurasch encouraged sustainable building practices and expressed her interest in salvaging materials from demolished homes from going to landfills. She feels that this application is a good use of the property. She recommended that a condition of approval include xeriscape around the landscape and around the front oak trees as prescribed by the arborist. She said that if it is not included in the arborist report, that appropriate landscaping for the preservation of the two front trees be added as a condition which would PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1999 Page 12 preclude irrigation at least ten feet from the trunks and eliminate lawn in an environment that will help correct some of the problems in the growing conditions. Director Walgren indicated that Commissioner's Kurasch concern was covered in the report. Commissioner Jackman noted that she likes the plan which meets the code requirements. She sees nothing to change. Commissioner Waltonsmith said she likes the design which stayed within the framework of the present house. She expressed concern about the two oaks in front and wants to make sure they stay in there. Commissioner Roupe stated he likes the project the way it is designed. Commissioner Page noted he is in support of the project as is. Commissioner Patrick referred to the project's copper gutters and requested a condition that the copper is sealed so it does not leach into the soil. She said the design is fine but the plans do not show the design of the house. A more complete drawing would have been more helpful to her. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with her fellow Commissioners' comments and stated she would like to see copper gutters sealed. She suggested that the architect's future drawings include more detail. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/ROUPE MOVED TO APPROVE DR -99 -018 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE COPPER BE SEALED TO AVOID LEACHING INTO THE SOIL. PASSED 7 -0. 7. F -99 -003 (503 -30 -019) - HUANG, 13870 Pike Road; Request for Fence Exception permit to enclose more than 4,000 square feet of a parcel located within the Hillside Residential zoning district. The entire 2.96 acre property has been fenced and the applicant is seeking to legalize the zoning violation. Director Walgren presented the staff report. Commissioner Waltonsmith referred to the subject of the fence being installed to keep erosion down and asked whether any alternatives for erosion control were considered. Director Walgren said that was one of the questions raised and in staff review it was not taken into consideration. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 10:26 p.m. Richard Abdallah, applicant's representative, addressed the Commission, noted that he had asked Mrs. Huang to tour her neighborhood and photograph other properties with similar fences. She found 60 properties within the area that have similar wrought -iron fences. He distributed the photographs to Commissioners. He said one of the properties has a similar sloped property along a busy street. He stated that the safety issue was not just the dogs, but included the extremely steep property with up to 10 or 12 feet high steep. The issue of the stability, to be addressed later by the landscape architect, is a combination of the fence, the foliage, a couple of small retaining walls below the fence, and trellis area with wood in the ground. Because of the steep slope, the soil and the rocks have gradually worked their way down, especially in the rainy season. The gullies have washed into the modest drainage area which fills up quite easily and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1999 Page 13 the applicants clean it every winter. He said considerations for drainage and erosion have been addressed. Mr. Abdallah described problems with the dogs who have killed livestock, attacked children, and attached other dogs. He said that Animal Control has been out several times, but nothing can be done about vicious dogs without having to file a lawsuit and obtaining a court order. Mr. Abdallah requested that the Commission make findings on two grounds: not only that the visibility from the public street (Pike Street) is modest, but also that the fence is necessary for safety reasons for people on the property. Paul Reed, landscape architect, discussed the color of the fence and erosion issue. He said that the applicants have already started landscaping on both sides of the fence. Eventually there will be a solid green wall on both sides and the fence in the future will not be visible. He distributed photos of landscaping. He said that one of the conditions raised was to possibly change the color of the fence to black or dark green. Currently, the color is tan and was chosen to try to blend with the hillside when the grass is dry. Commissioner Kurasch asked how fence openings that are four inches apart can be considered erosion control. Mr. Reed responded that it was not an erosion control device, but it stops deer, dogs, and other animals from going up and down the slope. He said there is a lot of loose rock and soil on the slope which is almost vertical in some areas of the gutters right below. He said any kind of traffic on that slope immediately causes debris to go into the gutter area. Commissioner Kurasch asked for clarification regarding how the extensive landscaping will significantly improve the stability of the hillside along with the fence. Mr. Reed responded that the landscaping will act as a barrier for traffic, give the opportunity for the plants to take hold, and the roots will do more for erosion control than the fence itself. Commissioner Roupe commented that the fence did not look like much of a deer fence as it was only three feet high, and most deer fences are probably six feet or higher. Mr. Reed responded that if one is standing on the road, the bottom of the fence does not even start until about 8 -10 and sometimes 12 feet above one's head, but the deer can still climb the slope. He said the fence is right at the edge of the slope so there is no place for the deer to stand once they get to the top. Commissioner Page said that because the fence is right at the edge, some parts look like it is eroding away. He asked Mr. Reed to estimate five years from now how much of that fence would still be there versus some of it falling into the street. Mr. Reed responded that he did not see that as being a problem. He said there are no footings exposed currently, and he would not anticipate any in the future; however, were that to happen, the fence could be adjusted and set back. He said it is easy to modify those types of fences. Responding to a question from Commissioner Kurasch, Mr. Reed said he had not installed the fence. Responding to a question from Commissioner Roupe, Director Walgren said that the ordinance only applies to the hillside residential zoning district which is everything west of Pierce Road, and the ordinance was PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1999 Page 14 only adopted in the late 1980's. He said many of the more substantial brick column wrought iron fences in the photographs could have been built prior to 1987. He said a drive up Pike Road revealed that the fences sighted had fencing exemptions. He said that staff does not only follow up on complaints received from neighbors, but also follow up whenever a fence in progress comes to the City's attention, whether via an inspector out in the field or a call from a neighbor. Responding to Commissioners' questions, Mr. Reed stated that the back property fences are shared with the neighbors and the maintenance done on them was done with the neighbors. Director Walgren announced he had received two letters this evening from neighbors on Pike Road expressing support for the Huangs' application. Jim Horner, 13857 Pike Road, lives directly across from the Huangs and his 2 -acre property fronts approximately 60 percent of the frontage of the road. He expressed support for the applicants' exemption. Kathleen Horner, 13857 Pike Road, urged the Commission to approve the request. John Zavoshy, 14081 Pike Road, stated he had no problems with fencing the entire property; however, his objection was with the architectural appearance, how it looks from the road, and the color of the fence. He said to maintain soil erosion, one cannot put in roses, camellias, and flowering shrubs at the end of the road as they are going to require water to sustain and then they die. He requested that the fence be painted with a color that is aesthetically pleasing, that the redwood behind it be removed, and that the third tier, which he finds unsightly, also be removed. Mr. Reed addressed the landscaping issue, noting that the Huangs have planted camellias and roses in the interior of the fence, and on the exterior fence he has worked with them on planting natural, drought - resistant, deer - resistant plants. He said there is a second trellis on the inside of the fence and grapes have been planted on it. He noted this is not a continuous fence, and it has two foot gaps between every couple of sections to support the grapevines. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KURASCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:50 P.M. PASSED 7 -0. Responding to a question from Commissioner Roupe, Director Walgren described the distinction between what is public road and what is not in accordance with the City's ordinance. Commissioner Roupe expressed concern that this fence went forward in the relatively recent past without some effort to approach the City beforehand when the City clearly had an ordinance in place. Commissioner Page stated he would like to see the fence painted a different color. He expressed concern with what could be erosion at the bottom of the fence. He said it was not laid out in perpendicular lines and it looks like it was piece - mealed in. He could support the entire fence as it is and suggested that maybe the lattice work behind it could be replaced with wires to hold the vine. If he were to cut it anywhere, he would cut it around the north side of the shed so as to eliminate the fence down near Pierce Road. Commissioner Kurasch conveyed that it looked like the fence is in different angles, and she was concerned about the construction of the fence. She also noticed from Pierce walking up Pike Road there is another fence of a different style in back of the property. She has a problem with the extent of the fence on the whole side of Pike especially near Pierce Road, which she felt is a public area and public view, and she has PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1999 Page 15 a problem with having the fence located in the whole expanse. She said the alternative for the erosion would be to leave it allowing native vegetation and perhaps netting the area. She would advocate cutting back the area that is fenced. She stated that she recognized the safety concerns. Commissioner Waltonsmith stated that she cannot agree with enclosing the whole property and would be in favor of going back to 4,000 feet with a different color. She said there are better ways to prevent erosion than what is there now. She noted the road behind the property is impervious and would promote runoff. She feels the fence should be taken down and put back up in an appropriate way within the framework of the property. Commissioner Jackman noted this was a very unusual shaped lot with a big dropoff and the fence is needed; however, she does not like the color of the fence. It should be a dark green or black and blend in quite a bit more. Her biggest concern is the color of the fence and erosion below the fence. She feels the fence should be allowed to stay. She wants to send a strong message that if any other property owners install fences without City review, there will be fines in the future. Commissioner Patrick explained why she would be in favor of taking down the existing fence to the extent that it exceeds the 4,000 square feet enclosure. She requested that any fencing installed not be a peach color. Commissioner Roupe commented that the lattice work behind the fence looks rather massive. He expressed concern with the color. He referred to a plan for a future home on this property and raised the question of how to accommodate the change in fencing as the new home goes in place. Responding to a question from Commissioner Roupe, Director Walgren stated he had not seen the plan for a new home, but that he understood the new home would not go in the same location as the existing home, and the configuration for fencing would change. Commissioner Jackman supplemented her previous comments by stating that she would like to see the enclosure go closer to the 4,000 square feet, leave the fence along Pike Road, and wait until the house is in to do anything else definitive to get it down to 4,000 square feet. A discussion ensued regarding the fence and plans for a new house, wherein Director Walgren responded to questions from Commissioners. Chairwoman Bernald conveyed that she cannot make findings for putting beige or peach wrought iron fencing on this property. She could make findings for putting other kinds of fencing on this property and it could be one row of fencing which would support the vines that have been planted. She expressed concern that plants have been put in under oak trees which are not compatible with the trees. She suggested that the applicants confer with experts on this type of property for the erosion control, for protecting the property, and for planting under the existing trees. She said that the fence should be left in for the protection of the occupants at this time, and the fencing should be incorporated into the design review for the Commission's consideration. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ROUPE MOVED TO DENY F -99 -003 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: THAT THE FENCING BE REMOVED IN ITS ENTIRETY WITHIN 12 MONTHS OR APPLICANT OBTAIN APPROVED PLANS WITH FENCING ATTACHED, WHICHEVER IS SOONER, PROVIDED THAT THEY ALSO MOVE THE PIERCE ROAD FENCE BACK PER STAFF'S APPROVAL SO IT IS NOT VISIBLE FROM PIERCE ROAD. PASSED 7 -0. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1999 Page 16 Commissioner Patrick noted that the time was almost 11:30 p.m., and two public hearings remained on the agenda. She referred to the Commission's practice to cut off opening new items at 11:30 p.m. Following discussion, consensus was to continue with the two items. 8. UP -99 -010 (397 -15 -018) - WEST VALLEY COLLEGE (NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS), 14000 Fruitvale Avenue; Request for Use Permit approval to install 12 panel antennas, two global positioning system antennas, and one four foot microwave dish on the roof of the Theater Arts Building at West Valley College. A 10 foot by 20 foot by 10 foot equipment shelter will be placed on the ground behind the building. The site is located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Director Walgren presented the details of the staff report and responded to questions from Commissioners. Director Walgren stated he received a letter from Mr. Bert Martel citing several points which Mr. Martel will be delivering to the Commission tonight. Commissioner Kurasch questioned why two Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) were used, and Director Walgren responded to her inquiry. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 11:35 p.m. Peter Hilliard, Project Manager, Nextel Communications, appeared before the Commission and described the project. Mr. Hilliard responded to questions from Commissioners regarding interference and testing. He said that in compliance with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations, if Nextel were incompatible it would have to stop operations until it came into compatibility from an interference standpoint. In response to Commissioner Jackman's inquiry regarding the amount of weight on the rooftop, Mr. Hilliard stated he was uncertain of the poundage, but structurally the rooftop can handle it. He said Nextel would not be able to go forward without a structural engineer's evaluation of the roof and the building permit would address that issue. Melody Blaisdell, Construction Manager, Nextel Communications, responded that the structural engineer has evaluated the rooftop and she would estimate that probably each of the antenna support structures weighs between 500 -700 pounds per sector. The project proposes four antennas per sector, three sectors in total. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Hilliard to describe the "creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard" in the Environmental Initial Study (EIS) which indicates a "less than significant impact" ruling. Mr. Hilliard responded that a significant impact would be something for which the FCC has standards and typically the determination of the radio frequency report is less than three percent of the FCC standard for an impact. He said this was very low and is at ground level. He noted that it increases as it gets to the roof immediately in front of the antennas but those mitigation efforts are also addressed in the EIS. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1999 Page 17 Chairwoman Bernald asked what kind of protective measures were available and if a universal symbol for "Danger or Keep Out" had been considered. Mr. Hilliard responded that the unique site is very limited to public access via a ladder from the theater to the locked roof hatch. He said that signs and demarcation would be clearly installed in compliance with guidelines and permit conditions. He said that the industry did not utilize a universal sign for hazard. Commissioner Jackman said that in health care there is a standard sign for radiation and asked whether this would be visible in the door leading to the roof. Mr. Hilliard responded that she raised a good point and that could be part of the sign, but he did not know whether it was universal for this type of radio frequency. Mr. Hilliard noted that the report mentions that a color symbol and content conventions would be included in warning signs. Dr. F. L. Stutzman, 15195 Park Drive, addressed the Commission regarding health issues for Items #8 and #9 on the agenda. He referred to 1993 when this issue came before the Planning Commission and City Council, and an application was submitted by GTE Mobilnet and Bay Area Cellular to place these transmission towers on top of a coffee house in Saratoga. He said he was very concerned at that time as were others who were interested in electromagnetic emissions because there is so much that is not understood. He noted that federal standards are not applicable because the federal government does not understand it either. He stated that it is unknown what is considered a safe level. He said it would be a big mistake to gamble on the fact that these may be safe and put them in areas where there is a large number of students as they would be susceptible to this undue risk until it can be definitely proven that they are safe. He said a significant amount of papers and documents have been published regarding this issue, and he would be willing to share his materials with Commissioners for review. He said the documents show there is a definite risk that is proven but is not 100 percent definite. Commissioner Kurasch asked whether the distance from a tower or transmitter had an effect on the amount of emissions and the amount of time that someone spends around these. Dr. Stutzman responded that they predict the effect varies according to the distance from the particular emitting point, but what is not taken into account is the cumulative effect. He said it would usually take a matter of years probably of exposure, and it may be a low level before there is enough cumulative effect to alter the genetic structure of human cells to produce a malignant cell. He requested that the Commission require a very strict review from an environmental health point of view before approving this permit and before putting it right in the center of a campus. In response to a question from Commissioner Kurasch regarding the day care center on campus north of the proposed site, Dr. Stutzman stated that the younger the age group, the more susceptible they are to this form of radiation. Commissioner Roupe stated he had read in the paper that in 1996 there was a federal telecommunications act passed which precludes the City from considering the health effects of electromagnetic radiations as long as they are built in accordance with the FCC standards. Director Walgren responded that federal laws state as such. He said when these transmissions were first PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1999 Page 18 coming before the Commission and Council in the early 1990s, each of these applications were reviewed case by case, and debated over whether enough information was available to make technical decisions. He said since the federal act was enacted in 1996, these antennas have been going much less contentiously. He said the City is prohibited by federal law to deny these permits if they are within the federal standards, and these antennas are well below those standards. Mr. Bert Martel, 14420 Fruitvale, addressed the Commission noting his residence borders the college property. He expressed concern that the property owners around the college were not notified of this issue. He read about the issue in the newspaper last month, obtained information from City Hall, and submitted a letter with his concerns to the Commission. He said instead of calculating levels of radiation around the platform of installation, he asked if it was possible to list the levels on swimming pools where people are swimming, outdoor child care area, library, theater, and the southwest comer of the property. Responding to a question from Chairwoman Bernald regarding noticing, Director Walgren described the site in proximity to Mr. Martel's property. The site is comprised of three parcels ( #18, #22, #30) and the Theater Arts Building is in parcel #18. Notices were sent out to parcel owners within a 500' radius on parcel #18, and Mr. Martel's home is over 2,000 feet from the building; therefore, he was not noticed. It is staff's practice to prepare notice based on all APNs on multi - parcel sites for a true notice. This was not done in this case because of a new staff person who noticed only from parcel 18. He said the noticing was done correctly in compliance with the requirement that parcel owners within 300 feet be noticed, and Mr. Martel's property is located almost 3,000 feet away. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/ROUPE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 12:05 A.M. PASSED 7 -0. Commissioner Page stated that since this meets the federal requirements he would vote to approve. Commissioner Patrick concurred with Commissioner Page. Commissioner Jackman expressed concern with the day care center and pregnant women on campus because the long -term effects are unknown and there is no way to find out what they are; however, she feels the Commission is forced to approve because of the Federal Communications Act of 1996. Commissioner Kurasch referred to the Town of Los Gatos challenging findings from an EIR because the town refused to installed a transmitter in a school. She felt that she would like to be familiar with the language with what local municipalities are able to question and review these applications and also obtain from Dr. Stutzman basic information on health issues. She said she but will not be voting for this application until she understands all of the issues, and the findings for her denial are land use issues in that the towers are very much higher than the allowable height limit for Saratoga. She said the number of towers should be part of the variance application, and they are not. Director Walgren pointed out that antennas are exempt from the height restriction. He said that numerous studies have been made and discussions held regarding this subject to arrive at this ordinance and these policies. Commissioner Roupe said he would be voting in favor of the application on the grounds that it is compliant with the FCC and by federal law the City is obligated to not consider the health hazards beyond that. Commissioner Waltonsmith stated she would personally not want herself, her children, her grandchildren to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1999 Page 19 live under one of these antennas. She is in a position in which she needs to protect the community and she intends to vote no. Commissioner Patrick stated she has no objections to the application. Chairwoman Bernald felt it was beyond the Commission's purview at this point to address the health implications although she agreed completely with Commissioner Waltonsmith's comments. She indicated that even with the concerns expressed it would be the Council's place to make a policy to address the health issue. She indicated she would be voting to approve. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/ROUPE MOVED TO APPROVE UP -99 -010. PASSED 5 -2 (KURASCH AND WALTONSMITH OPPOSED.) Commissioner Kurasch requested that staff check with the City Attorney regarding what would be required in future applications. Commissioner Jackman would like to see more study on this issue, regardless of federal law. 9. UP -96 -013.1 (503 -24 -054) - SPRINT, 14429 Big Basin Way; Request for Use Permit approval to relocate a single eight foot pole with six antenna panels from the rooftop of the building to the right side of the building into a "chimney" enclosure extending 15 feet above the rooftop. Equipment cabinets will remain in an existing garage on the first floor of the building. The parcel is 3,881 sq. ft. and is located in a Commercial Historic zoning district. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Commissioner Jackman recused herself from the item because she resides in the neighborhood of the proposed site. Director Walgren presented the staff report and responded to questions from Commissioner Roupe. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 12:18 a.m. Ann Welch, Sprint PCS representative, described the project and offered to answer any questions. Commissioner Page asked whether different antennas were going inside than those currently on the roof. Don Pierce, project engineer representing Sprint PCS, responded that the same antennas are going inside as those on the roof. Commissioner Roupe said he had heard from the previous applicant that they achieved avoidance of interference by moving the antennas laterally away from the other antennas on top of the building, and asked whether that alternative had been evaluated as opposed to raising it vertically. Mr. Pierce responded by providing a history of the site. He said when the site was originally designed, Pacific Bell's antennas were out at the edges of the roofs. It was decided that Sprint could go up e and either separate horizontally or go on a pole off to one side allowing enough separation to get the isolation needed to avoid interference. When the site was actually built, Pacific Bell's antennas had all been pushed back basically into a triangle on the roof and Sprint's antennas now were right in front of Pacific Bell's. Sprint had to go back and ask for an adjustment to its permit just to move its pole. He said he talked to the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1999 Page 20 Pacific Bell engineer and it was agreed that as long as both entities were only broadcasting off one carrier, if Sprint put its pole inside Pacific Bell's antennas, it would minimize chances for interference. He said the problem is when all the antennas are together, to place them elsewhere creates antennas pointing right at each other. He said for horizontal separation with Pacific Bell's current antenna configuration, he assumed that since Pacific Bell was pushed back from the edges of the roof that Sprint would not be able to go there. He said with the small size of the roof the only thing left was to go for height. Commissioner Roupe asked if Pacific Bell somehow violated its use permit in moving the antennas from where they were originally intended. Director Walgren said that the antennas must have been built as they were approved; else there would have been a requirement to come back and modify the application. Commissioner Roupe expressed that Commissioners were concerned with the sight of the antenna chimney effect. Mr. Pierce said that the Pacific Bell engineer told him there was great public outcry and they were coerced to moving their antennas back. Chairwoman Bernald noted that the information presented was grapevine information and could not qualify as evidence at this point. She stated that it appeared there were other options which should be explored and asked Director Walgren about the possibility of continuing the application. Director Walgren responded that to continue the item to get information jointly from the operators and Pacific Bell would be difficult; however, the item could be continued if other alternatives that should weigh in the Commission's decision regarding the visual impacts of the tower need to be considered. Mr. Pierce conveyed that Sprint would be willing to accept a condition to move the antennas to the same height as Pacific Bell's and position them on the roof to meet interference requirements. A discussion ensued regarding continuing the item to the next meeting. COMMISSIONERS WALTONSMITH/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 12:30 A.M. PASSED 7 -0. Commissioner Roupe indicated he would encourage a continuance for a configuration of the two sets of antennas to be compatible with a lower profile and looking back at the edges of the roof. He would rather see them on the edges than to see a 15 foot tower. Commissioner Page stated he would deny this application because of its appearance, would deny moving the antennas to the edges because of the visibility, and would approve only if it could be done within the existing site. Commissioner Patrick stated she was not in opposition to the application. Commissioner Waltonsmith conveyed she did not like the project and the idea of having a tower there, and she would deny it on those grounds. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with majority of Commissioners and would like to see it continued for PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1999 Page 21 further studies to take place. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/PATRICK MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 6 -0 -1 (JACKMAN ABSENT.) By consensus, the public hearing was continued to the July 28, 1999 Commission meeting. DIRECTOR ITEMS DR -98 -051, UP -98 -018 & V -98 -017 (517 -23 -036 & 037) - WOODS, 15595 Peach Hill Road; Correspondence from applicant regarding correction of slope calculations for project approved by the Planning Commission on June 9, 1999. Commissioner Jackman returned to the meeting. Director Walgren provided the details and background of the project, noting that it was approved by the Commission on July 9, 1999. Following the public hearing, Commissioner Kurasch discussed with him the calculations in one of the plans. The plans showed a slope at the building site of approximately 12 percent, an average site slope of approximately 38 percent was referenced repeatedly during the hearing, and the slope calculation given for the pool area was 13 percent. He said the pool slope numbers listed in the table were not noticed at the time. However, upon follow -up by Commissioner Kurasch, it was noted clearly that the slope number was not accurate. Staff notified the applicant of the discrepancy and they readily admitted it was a mistake on their part. The applicants have submitted documentation contained in the agenda packet which breaks out the pool area from the house area and provides an average slope on their calculations of under the 30 percent requirement. Upon double- checking the calculations further, Director Walgren found that the numbers are not correct. He referred to page 2 of the agenda report which indicates area A and area B, and explained that the corrected slope number, specifically for the improvements to the terrace, is 30 percent. Commissioner Kurasch expressed that she had several issues on this. She commented that if this application had been correct from the beginning, and it is incumbent upon the applicant to submit accurate information, she would have had a different analysis of the application. Director Walgren apologized to the Commissioners, Mr. Woods and his representatives for having to wait so late this morning to discuss a fairly complex issue. He said the site was visited and opportunities were available for others to see where the pool was going to go physically. He said the Commission can consider the inaccurate information a substantive issue relative to the pool condition and require that perhaps the pool be reconsidered. Commissioner Kurasch stated that this issue was raised in two public meetings. In the future she would ask for a clear policy statement on how those slopes are broken out, especially if there is a separate pool and/or a separate terrace. Murray Woods, 15595 Peach Hill Road, addressed the Commission and apologized for the error. Consensus was to do nothing more with this item. Commissioner Waltonsmith thanked Commissioner Kurasch for her work on this subject. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1999 Page 22 COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioners evaluated and commented on tonight's meeting. COMMUNICATIONS Commissioners acknowledged the following communications. Communications were acknowledged earlier in the agenda. Written City Council Minutes for Adjourned and Special Meetings of June 8, 18, 19 and 21, 1999, and Regular Meeting of June 16, 1999 - Planning Commission Notices for Regular Meeting of July 28, 1999 Communication to Planning Commission from Saratoga Woods Homeowners Association, dated June 24, 1999 Communication to Planning Commission from Laurie Girand, dated June 29, 1999 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING There being no further business, Chairwoman Bernald adjourned the meeting at 1:00 a.m. to Wednesday, July 28, 1999, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Lynda Ramirez Jones Minutes Clerk Ml►ORMW; &1M►[jaOXON17.3' 9M611F/ 02"Al d Oames Walgren Secretary to the Planning Commission • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 1999 Civic Center, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairwoman Bernald called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. r.Mrra-n re Present: Commissioners Jackman, Kurasch, Page, Patrick, Waltonsmith and Chairwoman Bernald Absent: Commissioner Roupe Staff: Director Walgren Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - June 9, 1999 COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE JUNE 9, 1999 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Page 3, last paragraph, correct the name of Jeffry Heid. - Page 4, paragraph 2, line 6, replace the word Aslie with fissure. Page 7, replace the word envelep with envelope (replacing this word as used throughout the document). - Page 8, paragraph 1, sentence 9, replace the word a1 with into. Page 10, paragraph 1, line 1, replace the word w4at with how; and line 8, replace the word of with off. - Page 11, paragraph 3, line 2 amended to read: "The motion failed 3 -3 as follows: AYES: Bernald, Roupe, Page;..." Page 12, first paragraph, line 4 amended to read: "...would not automatically be granted..." Page 18, paragraph three, line 2, replace the word a",er- with major. Page 19, last paragraph, last sentence, replace the word amended with amendment. Page 21, last paragraph, line 1, replace the word eeeser-ned with concurred. PLANNING COMMISSION. MINUTES JUNE 23, 1999 PAGE - 2 - THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSTAINING AND COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSENT. Oral Communications Chris Hawks, 20390 Blauer Drive, stated that at a City Council hearing, individuals were cautioned to separate the issues of individual tenants versus the problems with the Argonaut Shopping Center as a whole. He addressed the problems associated with the shopping center as they relate to the uses. He said that the neighbors have no idea what shops are going into the shopping center. He said that in the original proposal, there were uses assigned to all of the individual shop areas. History has shown that the developer has no intention of pursuing the particular uses for these particular spaces. While the neighbors support the needs of a commercial developer to arrange the shops as he sees fit, there is concern when uses change from a relatively benign neighborhood use (i.e., barbershop, travel agency, Chinese Restaurant) to high intensity uses. He did not know how the Commission could make decisions on individual conditional use permits when it has no idea what the surrounding uses are going to be. He felt that the developer was coming before the city and requesting all high intensity, non - neighborhood friendly uses, one at a time. He requested that the city approach the developer and let him know that conditional use permits for high intensity uses will be held up until he provides the city with an overall plan for the type of uses that are to go into the various spaces and further recommended that the developer be held to the identified and approved uses. Mark Kocir, 12855 South Highway 9, said that it was his understanding that in the commercial - residential zoning district, the maximum building height is 20 feet, noting that the Safeway building is at 30 feet with the towers in the front at 35 feet. He requested copies of the meeting minutes that granted a variance to the building height. He said that the neighbors have not felt that frill impact of the lighting structure from the Argonaut Shopping Center. He noted that his residence is directly across the street. He said that other neighbors have had bright lights blaring into their yards. He asked if the lighting proposed would also blare lights into his residence? Also, the illumination of the signage is of concern. He asked if the lighting from the sign is going to be turned down or toned down after some of the stores are closed? Director Walgren said that in 1996 when the Planning Commission reviewed the renovation plans for the Argonaut Shopping Center several public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council were held where the details, including the building height, were discussed. The additional height over 20 feet was not a variance but was approved as part of the conditional use permit. The height was approved in order to match the existing Safeway and Longs buildings that were already over 30 feet in height. He indicated that the city has a complete record, including the initial staff report analysis of the conditional use permit, and that they are available to the public. At that time, the applicant was asked specifically as to the future tenants of the center. The developer responded that other than Longs and Safeway, they could not commit how many of their existing tenants would retain their leases or how many uses would turn over in the future. Regarding the types of uses that the Planning Commission can expect to see in the shopping center, he noted that the zoning is commercial- neighborhood that encourages neighborhood serving businesses such as a PLANNING COMMISSION, MINUTES JUNE 23, 1999 PAGE - 3 - coffee shop versus a furniture store that draws individuals outside of the area. He said that juice bars would be consistent with the existing zoning. Professional offices are permitted but are discouraged in the commercial - neighborhood zoning district because it encourages retail and service type uses versus less pedestrian oriented type office uses. The zoning district would not allow large box, retail regional serving use. Regarding the exterior lighting, he said that the lighting that was referred to just canine to his attention last week. He said that the lighting was meant to be an architectural detail lighting on the south end of the building. Following the City Council meeting, he discussed the lighting with the project manager /architect. The architect stated that the intensity of the lighting was a surprise to him as well and indicated that he plans to replace the light bulbs with a less intensive light bulb. He informed the Commission that at the City Council meeting held last week, two council members requested a meeting with the property owner to discuss other broader issues surrounding the Argonaut Shopping Center. He informed the Commission that the sign program allows for the illumination of all signs. However, a condition of the Starbucks' use permit was that the signs not be illuminated. He said that this condition would apply to other uses as they apply for their sign permits at the south end of the building so that they are not illuminating. No other comments were offered. Report of Posting Agenda Director Walgren stated that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 18, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet Director Walgren indicated that there were no technical corrections to the packet. CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. UP -99 -008 (393 -01 -041) - JAMBA JUICE, 12868 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road; Request for Use Permit approval for a 1,228 sq. ft. juice bar with both indoor and outdoor seating in the Argonaut Shopping Center. No new construction or expansion is proposed. The property is located within a Commercial- Neighborhood zoning district. Director Walgren presented the staff report and informed the Commission that this request is similar, in a smaller scale, to the Starbucks Coffee Shop on the adjoining site. The Commission found that the Starbucks Coffee Shop met the objectives of the commercial - neighborhood zoning district and that it was a local neighborhood /retail serving business, consistent with the zoning. The Commission also felt that the outdoor seating was an attractive amenity to the center that would encourage pedestrian usage, vitality and interest to the shopping center and should not result in additional traffic or noise impacts. He recommended approval of the conditional use permit request as a result of the City Council's deliberation on the Starbucks' conditional use permit. Staff felt that PLANNING COMMISSIOi-i MINUTES JUNE 23, 1999 PAGE - 4 - it was reasonable to include the range of requirements on this business consistent with the Starbucks' application that includes restricted hours of operation as noted on page 4 of the staff report, with the requirement that the outdoor seating be brought in at dusk, year round. Staff also required that a maintenance plan be developed and reviewed by planning staff before permits are issued to snake sure that litter and debris are not accumulating and that the site be kept in a reasonable condition. He said that a master sign program was approved by the Planning Commission for the site. Sign details for Jamba Juice were not submitted as part of this application. Once the sign proposal is submitted, it can be approved administratively if it is consistent with the overall sign program for the center. He stated staffs support of the approval of the conditional use permit with the conditions contained in the resolution of approval. Commissioner Waltonsmith requested that staff address the City Attorney's memorandum distributed to the Commission this evening. Director Walgren said that concerns were raised at the site visit whether or not Jamba Juice, as a business, serves unpasteurized juices and the health impacts that might be relevant to the application. He said that the zoning ordinance for this district establishes permitted and prohibited uses. Restaurants or food service businesses similar to this use require the approval of a conditional use permit so that the hours of operation and deliveries can be reviewed as well as other activities that might generate more impacts than a strictly retail use. He said that his first reaction was that the type of food product was beyond the scope of a conditional use permit where the Commission would be reviewing traffic, light, noise, and similar impacts. He requested that the City Attorney consider the request and the impacts of serving unpasteurized juices. It was also the City Attorney's recommendation that the Commission focus its review on the land use issues as the issue of serving pasteurized /unpasteurized juices was beyond the scope of the Planning Commission's authority. The City Attorney makes the point that if the city wants to regulate this type of food service beyond what the County Enviromnental Health Department is already regulating, the city would need to develop the studies and adopt an ordinance prior to an application similar to this being submitted (i.e., adopting of an ordinance that would dictate what kind of food service could occur and what types could not occur). Commissioner Waltonsmith said that it was her interpretation that the City Attorney is stating that the Commission cannot deny a use permit to a company because of the sale of unpasteurized juice but that the memo does not state that the Commission could not ask the applicant to make a statement as to the nature of the business. Director Walgren agreed that the Commission could require a statement as to the nature of the business. Commissioner Kurasch inquired as to the differences between neighborhood- commercial and the general commercial zoning district. Director Walgren said that the general plan language is brief on the matter, noting that so little of Saratoga's land is zoned commercial. He identified the various types of commercial zoning districts (i.e., commercial visitor, commercial neighborhood, commercial historic). He said that this particular center is zoned commercial - neighborhood, encouraging neighborhood serving commercial uses. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSIG,. MINUTES JUNE 23, 1999 PAGE - 5 - Susan Sablan, construction manager for Jamba Juice, informed the Commission that Jamba Juice is a San Francisco -based company started in 1991. The focus of the company is to provide a healthy alternative to fast foods. All products are pasteurized except for the orange juice which is made fresh as ordered. She stated that she concurred with the conditions of approval, including the hours of operation. She said that the use may not be open to 10:00 p.m. on the weekends but that Jamba Juice representatives did not want to come back to reapply for additional hours. She did not have a problem with the delivery schedule. She said that an issue raised by one of the neighbors at an open forum was the concern of trash and litter. She provided the Commission with an exhibit from the landlord that depicts where the trash receptacles are to be placed, noting that two trash receptacles are located within five feet of Jainba Juice's front door. She felt that the use would be supported by the community and that it was important to have the support of the neighbors as well. Commissioner Waltonsmith requested additional information regarding the unpasteurized juices. Ms. Sablan informed the Commission that all concentrated juices are pasteurized. She said that the Food and Drug Administration does not require that fresh orange juice, wheat grass or carrot juices be pasteurized as it is made fresh and is not allowed to sit to give bacteria the opportunity to grow. She informed the Commission that she is working with Santa Clara County Health Department staff to exceed their standards. Commissioner Patrick said that the two trash receptacles located in the front of the business is not her concern. She asked how often the trash containers are emptied so that the trash cans are not overflowing? Ms. Sablan stated that it would be a poor business practice to allow trash to overflowing or be thrown on the ground. She said that it would be the intent to keep the front of the store clean and the trash receptacles emptied on a regular basis. Commissioner Kurasch asked how this store front was selected? Ms. Sablan informed the Commission that the site was picked prior to her coming on board nine months ago. She said that it was her understanding that this was a site that was offered by the landlord. Laurie Girand, 21421 Saratoga Hills Road, informed the Commission that she is the mother of a child who was poisoned by drinking unpasteurized Odwalla brand apple juice in the fall of 1996. She requested that the Commission give Saratoga consumers a fair chance in evaluating the risk from Jamba Juice's products. She requested that the city require that Jamba Juice post the FDA's warning in their store that children, elderly, and individuals with weakened immune systems should not drink unpasteurized juices should a use permit be granted. She felt that Jamba Juice was marketing their healthy portable meals, expanding to over 100 stores in four states, locating adjacent to Starbucks. She said that with unpasteurized juice, bigger is not always better because the volume of fruit going into a machine increases the risk of contamination. As a juice producer increases the amount of juice that it produces, it has to get more fruit. When businesses are expanded so quickly so that all the decent juice grade fruits are taken, you have to find other sources of fruit, sometimes lowering the quality of fruit. Because Jamba Juice and its insurers know that there is a danger, they have begun pasteurizing all of their concentrates, including apple juice. However, they are still selling unpasteurized wheat grass, carrot and orange juices. The people most at risk from this type of illnesses are children, seniors, and pregnant women. She felt that the members of Saratoga's PLANNING COMMISSIO,-, MINUTES JUNE 23, 1999 PAGE - 6 - community deserve to know the FDA's advice, yet the FDA has not been able to find a way to label juices sold by the glass. If Jamba Juice were completely honest with its customers, she would have no reason to be here tonight. They are not informing the elderly that unpasteurized juices can kill them. Instead, they are promoting their product as healthful. Prior to granting a use permit, she urged the Commission to visit another Jamba Juice site to see the quality of fruit that is being used and how none of the workers use gloves when handling produce going into a drink. If the Commission is unable to require that Jamba Juice post signage with the FDA warning, she said that she would personally picket outside the latest expansion to ensure that everyone patronizing the business knows that her family was affected by unpasteurized juice and the fact that it can maim and kill. She distributed copies of the FDA's warning label press kit and requested that they be entered into the record. Commissioner Waltonsmith requested clarification of the chart displayed entitled "Identified Unpasteurized Juice Outbreaks /Recalls." Ms. Girand indicated that the chart represents only United States outbreaks in the last 10 years. She said that the chart excludes outbreaks from unpasteurized apple juice. She said that orange juice is more often associated with salmonella outbreaks. The two unknown outbreaks typically represent viruses that are transmitted by workers handling the products as opposed to bacteria coming from the fruit. Botulism is the problem associated with carrot juice. She distributed the FDA's standard warning about raw juices. She said that FDA requires that warning labels be carried on unpasteurized packaged bottled juice. It is not believed that juice bars are big business and that a specific outbreak has not been traced to a juice bar to date. Chairwoman Bernald noted that the issue before the Planning Commission is that of land use. She said that she appreciated hearing and accepting information relating to unpasteurized juices. However, the city attorney has advised the Commission that it has to deal with land use issues. Chris Hawks, 20390 Blauer Drive, stated that he attended the meeting hosted by Jamba Juice representatives on Monday. He said that he viewed Jamba Juice as a neighborhood - oriented store. He said that he has difficulty in anyone presuming that Starbucks was looking for neighborhood traffic as they are looking for traffic from Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and to some extent, Jamba Juice is looking for the same clientele to share. He felt that the shopping center is changing from a neighborhood shopping center to a high intensity commercial use. He stated that in the parking and circulation report, it states that a mix is anticipated and asked where the mix is coming into play? He noted that Jamba Juice has known for nine months of this site. He requested that the city ask what other future uses are proposed as it is the neighbors' belief that the developer knows what uses will be going into the shopping center in the future. He noted that Starbucks came in later to intensify the use by requesting and receiving approval of an outdoor seating area. He requested that no additional use permits be granted until the facts are known. He said that under staff s recommendation, it states that you can call up a use permit at any time. He did not believe that this was the case. He said that at the time that the shopping center was a "dump" the use permit was not called up. He said that the neighbors no longer trust that there is anyone in the city that is looking out for the neighbors. PLANNING COMMISSIO.,, MINUTES JUNE 23, 1999 PAGE - 7 - Commissioner Waltonsmith asked if Mr. Hawks has tried to find out what other future users would locate in the shopping center? Mr. Hawks responded that the neighbors have continually inquired as to the proposed uses that could locate at the shopping center and said that no one has been able to answer this question. Director Walgren informed the Commission and the public that the City Council will be speaking directly to the property owners. He said that in 1996, when the property owners were asked directly who the future tenants would be, they stated that they could only commit to Safeway and Longs but that they could not commit to any other tenants as they were going to negotiate leases with tenants in the upcoming years. He said that staff became aware of Jamba Juice and Starbucks when these businesses called city hall to find out what permits were required by the city. He said that he has heard a rumor that a video store is considering locating in the center. However, no one has contacted the city regarding this use. Should the City Council be able to obtain additional information from the property owner, he was sure that the City Council would make this information public. He stated that the city recently called up a conditional use permit for a coffee shop that was roasting coffee in unauthorized times. He clarified that there was no pre existing conditional use permit for the Argonaut Shopping Center. Therefore, successful outlets such as a Gap clothing store would not require a public hearing. He noted that the shopping center is an existing center and that the city is considering tenants for the individual spaces. This is a different consideration than if this was a vacant piece of property and the city was considering a shopping center for the first time. As the center exists and is zoned commercial, retail uses can locate in the shopping center without a conditional use permit. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Hawks if he had a sense as to what the neighbors' objections are regarding this particular application. She asked if the concern was the location or would another location in the shopping center make a difference? Mr. Hawks responded that the neighbors have had several discussions on this issue. He said that the neighbors are torn on this use in particular because the use seems to be a neighborhood friendly store. The neighbors have learned one thing over the series of hearings, that is that they cannot trust anyone to look out for their interests and that they have to look out for their own interests. The neighbors believe that this is another foot in the door similar to that of the Starbucks initial shop, later to be followed by the approval of outdoor seating. The neighbors believe that Jamba Juice will return to claim that Starbucks has outdoor seating and that they should also be entitled to outdoor seating, even though neighbors have already been disturbed. The neighbors believe that they have to fundamentally oppose the use. The neighbors also believe that this use belongs in the middle of the shopping center, between Longs and Safeway where the traffic and noise exist, including late hours of operation. Chairwoman Bernald asked if Mr. Hawks looked at the size of the space located between Longs and Safeway? Mr. Hawks responded that he has looked at the plans but that the plans change daily. Chairwoman Bernald stated that at the site visit conducted by the Planning Commission yesterday, the size of the shops between Long's and Safeway buildings were tremendous. She stated that she PLANNING COMMISSIG,, MINUTES JUNE 23, 1999 PAGE - 8 - did not believe that Jamba Juice or Starbucks would be willing to rent space in the middle of the shopping center. Mr. Hawks felt that a Gap clothing store can go into the middle of the shopping center with a narrow front and take over the back part of a smaller restaurant. Jamba Juice could use the first 40 feet of the center with an expansion of a retail store behind it. He felt that there were several alternatives. Mark Kocir, 12855 South Highway 9, stated that his only objection to Jamba Juice as well as Starbucks is the outdoor seating. He said that he understands from the Jamba Juice representative that they do not expect a lot of traffic in the late evening or early morning hours. He felt that if the seating for both Jamba Juice and Starbucks are pulled in early, it would mitigate the neighbors' concerns. He did not believe that a Gap clothing store would be a neighborhood - commercial type business. He said that the original Argonaut Shopping Center was 260 feet long when it first went in. Now it is 750+ feet long, not including the parking. He felt that the city needs to look at what is going to happen with all of the uses and the store fronts. He asked if a Burger King is going to be allowed? If so, the center would look like Camden Avenue, Stevens Creek or Lawrence Expressway. He expressed concern that other uses coming into the center would request outdoor seating as other uses have been approved with outdoor seating. He requested that outdoor seating be regulated. He informed the Commission that his parents bought their property and built their home prior to the construction of the shopping center, noting that the area was an orchard when his parents moved into the area. He felt that the City needs to study what is to be done with the rest of the development, and identifying the acceptable uses in order to mitigate the concerns of the residents. Lisa Traxler, 20390 Blauer Drive, stated that she appreciated the opportunity of speaking with Jamba Juice representatives on Monday night. However, she stated her opposition to the location of the use as proposed which includes the request for outdoor seating. She did not believe that four parking spaces would be sufficient for the proposed use. She felt that individuals patronizing the use would park on the street in front of residential homes. She felt that the use would be better suited at the other end of the shopping center. She stated that she was concerned with the other uses that the city would allow to go into the shopping center. She stated that area residents would oppose a McDonald's or Burger King restaurant. Ms. Sablan stated that the concerns expressed about Odwalla are also a major concern for Jamba Juice. She assured the Commission and the public that Jamba Juice has very strict codes and welcomed anyone to visit the corporate center or to speak directly to Steve Marco who spends all of his day ensuring that the products (fruits) received by Jamba Juice are picked fresh and packaged properly, including proper handling. She said that it would not behoove Jamba Juice to have a product that is not of a high quality standard as the entire business is based on fresh fruit, including carrots, oranges and wheat grass. She indicated that only one trucking company is allowed to carry products to their store. Regarding the issue of outdoor seating, she said that she would comply with city requirements. She said that there is no need to try to extend the outdoor seating past 10:00 p.m. She stated that Jamba Juice will be cognizant of this in order to make sure that the neighbors are PLANNING COMMISSICn, MINUTES JUNE 23, 1999 PAGE - 9 - happy. Regarding the concern about parking, she indicated that this is an issue with the landowner of the center. She said that Jamba Juice staff will do their best to keep the area clean, to provide good customer service, and to create a sense of community within the company. Commissioner Patrick asked if Ms. Sablan would be opposed to posting a warning sign that reads: "Some of the products have not been pasteurized and therefore may contain harmful bacteria that can cause serious illness in children, elderly and persons with weakened immune systems." Ms. Sablan stated that she could not, on a personal level, see the posting of a warning sign as a problem. She apologized if the Commission and the public felt that Jamba Juice representatives had known about this site for nine months. She clarified that she has been with Jamba Juice for nine months. She indicated that she contacted city staff less than three months ago asking questions relating to a conditional use permit. Therefore, she did not know of the site nine months ago and apologized for the misrepresentation of knowing about the site for nine months when in fact, it had only been approximately two and a half to three months since the site was considered as a site for Jamba Juice. She requested approval of all of the outdoor seating being requested (i.e., three tables, six chairs and one umbrella) for marketing purposes. She said that the bottom of the canopy of the umbrella is seven feet and that it is five feet in diameter. Commissioner Kurasch indicated that it was her understanding that the FDA passed regulations requiring warning signs to be displayed on unpasteurized juices. She asked Ms. Sablan if her products contain this signage? Ms. Sablan responded that Jamba Juice products do not contain the warning sign due to the fact that the juices are served in a cup. FDA does not require the posting of the sign because they consider Jamba Juice as a restaurant and the consumption of juice is immediate. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/JACKMAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:35 P.M. Director Walgren said that in 1996, staff made extensive efforts to notify the neighborhood groups and the immediate neighbors to get them involved with the several hearings held. He said that very little neighborhood input was received. He stated that staff is not a proponent of the applicants nor their adversaries. Staff is not encouraging the success of the shopping center to the detriment of the neighbors. He said that staff suggested, against the developer's wishes, that there be an eight -foot sound wall constructed along the entire east property line of the shopping center. The developer was not happy about having to build the sound wall but that it became a condition of approval. Later, as neighbors who did not participate in the public hearings became aware of the requirement, they came down and petitioned the city to eliminate the sound wall requirement. Staff facilitated this request and rescinded the condition at the neighbors' request. The neighbors were concerned about having a sound wall along the back of their property. If there had been consideration or a desire for a sound wall on Blauer Drive, this could have been considered. He stated that staff made an outreach effort at this stage. This would have been the appropriate time to consider the types of improvements to be required (i.e., eliminating the parking on the south side, construction of a sound wall). When staff reviews these projects, staff is not reviewing the projects as a Starbucks or a Gap but that staff is reviewing these uses as a coffee shop or a clothing store. He said that the PLANNING COMMISSIOi MINUTES JUNE 23, 1999 PAGE - 10 - Commission cannot consider who owns the business when it is considering a business. Staff evaluates all uses for consistency with city zoning. He said that the city does not have the leeway of stating that it should be one business owner versus a mom and pop type of a business. Commissioner Jackman stated that she has never visited a Jamba Juice business establishment and decided to visit the Jamba Juice located on Campbell Avenue. She expressed concern that this is a high turnover restaurant use right next door to another high turnover business. She said that when she looked at the age group who patronized the Jamba Juice on Campbell Avenue, they appear to be of high school age. She expressed concern that a lot of the students from Saratoga High School would come down Sunnyvale - Saratoga Road onto Blauer Drive to patronize Jamba Juice. She felt that it would be nice to have Jamba Juice located some place else in the center but not in the proposed location. She said that the staff analysis points out the requirement of one space per 200 square feet of building for retail use and 1 space for 75 square feet for restaurant type uses. This tells her that there is a faster turnover or higher intensity associated with Jamba Juice. She said that she too looked at the spaces between Longs and Safeway. She agreed that the areas may be larger than what is needed by Jamba Juice. She did not believe that this is the right place in the center for the use. Commissioner Waltonsmith concurred with Commissioner Jackman's comments. She felt that the city would be concentrating high turnovers, a lot of the same type of uses, and the same age group coming into the area with the proposed use. Therefore, she did not believe that this was a good place for the use. She recommended that the application be tabled until the city finds a way to pressure the owner of the Argonaut Shopping Center to come up with a plan. She recommended that the procedure be stopped and that the city not continue to piecemeal and await an answer from the owner of the Argonaut Shopping Center. Should the Commission wish to move forward with the use permit this evening, she recommended that the use permit be conditioned to require that the FDA warning be permanently displayed. Commissioner Patrick expressed concern that Jamba Juice is being seen as something different from what she considers an ice cream/soda shop business and that she did not see a difference between the uses. She did not believe that individuals in Saratoga do much walking and that individuals travel by car. Therefore, anyone that is to going to go to the neighborhood soda shop /fountain, Jamba Juice or any other business will be driving. She felt that the only individuals who would walk to the site are the real neighbors to the area. She said that the neighbors continue to surprise the Commission as the Commission felt that the installation of a sound wall was a good idea, only to be told later by the neighbors that they did not want sound wall installed. She felt that if the city directed Jamba Juice to locate to the other end of the shopping center, the other neighbors will be complaining that they do not want Jamba Juice at their end. She did not believe that there would be a win -win situation of where the Jamba Juice is to be placed. She said that the Planning Commission is not in the real estate business and that it is not in a position to have the tenants come before the Commission and decide who is to be a tenant of a shopping center. The Commission nor the landlord has control over the businesses that want to locate in a particular area. She did not believe that the Gap would want to locate at this shopping center because it would not have the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 23, 1999 PAGE - 11 - traffic to support the market. She said that she did not oppose Jamba Juice locating at the site because she sees the shopping center as a neighborhood center. She did not see the use being any different from the Chinese restaurant or previous food service uses as high school students will patronize the area for lunch as well. She said that she was uncomfortable with requiring FDA standards which are not state, county or city standards to be posted. She did not believe that the Planning Commission was in a position to impose legal requirements. If the City Council chooses to enact an ordinance requiring that Saratoga be a more health - conscious city, she would feel comfortable with the City Council doing so. However, she was not comfortable with having the Planning Commission legislate as this is not the Commission's role. She felt that the warning sign was a good idea. However, the sign is not the issue. She noted that the Planning Commission has called up use permits in the past. She recalled that in 1996, the city could not impose standards to the center because it was in operation before the City of Saratoga became a city. Therefore, the shopping center was grandfathered and the city could not impose conditions on them other than general health issues. As the shopping center remodeled, it gave the city the opportunity to impose additional standards. She stated that she would vote in support of Jamba Juice because it is an appropriate use. Should problems be identified, the Commission can call up the use permit as it did with Blue Rock Shoot and seek to shorten their hours of operation, restrict vehicles, or whatever is appropriate to mitigate the issues that the neighbors bring to the Commission. Commissioner Page agreed with the comments as expressed by Commissioner Patrick. He said that it would be ideal to know all the details about the use. Unfortunately, the city, state, and county have rules that builders, contractors, and landlords need to follow. As a businessman, he would not commit to anyone who would be in a retail establishment that he owns until the lease was signed and all the paper work was finalized. Therefore, he did not believe that the Commission had a lot of leeway. He said that he counted approximately ten houses immediately adjacent to the rear of the shopping center, including Mr. Hawks' and Ms. Traxler's home. He said that the Commission has seen only a few residents at each of the meetings. He stated that the Commission empathizes with any possible impacts. He said that the Commission has never seen the majority of residents in attendance at public hearings, noting that only 10% of the residents have voiced an opinion. This does not mean that the other residents are in favor of the use /shopping center. The Commission has to consider that it has not heard the whole picture. He said that he lives approximately a mile away from the center and that he walks to the shopping center. He said that many of his neighbors have expressed an interest in starting to walk to the center, especially with the coffee shop and juice bar locating in the shopping center. He felt that the Commission has to deal with what is before it, at the time it is presented. He stated that he would support the project. If it is legally required to post the FDA warning sign, he would support its posting. However, he would not want to post a sign just for the sake of doing so. He suggested that in the maintenance plan that it encompass more than just the sidewalk. He said that he was confident that Jamba Juice employees would make sure that the area is maintained as it is a good business practice. Commissioner Patrick stated that the neighbors are reflecting back on the shopping center's initial plans labeled their "dream" tenants. These tenants are not showing up before the City. She felt that the city was getting into trouble by speculating in the uses, and that when the uses do not come PLANNING COMMISSIOiv MINUTES JUNE 23, 1999 PAGE - 12 - forward, individuals believe that they have been misled. Therefore, she felt that it would be unwise for a developer to speculate. Commissioner Kurasch stated that she understood some of the frustrations of the neighbors in not knowing what the overall plan is to be. She said that the developer of the shopping center cannot be more definitive until more businesses come forward. She recommended that the neighbors talk to the City Council to express that it was their belief that a change in the city code may specify appropriate uses for the shopping center or to make the mix more user friendly. She felt that the neighbors should be counted as it was her belief that there was ill will with the shopping center. She felt that there has been a great improvement to the shopping center. However, it is the Commission's role to achieve the best solution and to try to look through all of the difficult questions raised by the neighbors. She said that the Commission is looking at one application that it can address. She said that she would support a friendly amendment to the use permit, should it be approved, that a sign, if required by FDA or other bodies, be posted on the counter or somewhere prominent. She recormriended that staff look into compliance with any regulations. If there is no requirement for posting the FDA warning, she would be hard pressed to require this as a condition unless the applicant agreed to voluntarily to post the FDA warning sign. She stated that she would appreciate the applicant's willingness to post the warning sign. It was her belief that most of the spaces between Safeway and Longs were already occupied. She asked if any spaces with store frontages were available? Director Walgren said that staff did not know if the spaces between Longs and Safeway were available. He said that it is likely that some of the existing tenants may leave once construction is completed. He felt that the City Council would be able to get answers to questions similar to this one as the landlord would have a good understanding of who has long term leases and who does not. He recommended that the Commission be careful about tying this application to the overall center's conditional use permit as this is a decision that is better left to the City Council. He said that the city has a blanket conditional use permit for the entire center. If the City Council does not feel that the landlord is communicating adequately with them over the next couple of weeks, the City Council has the authority to call up the conditional use permit. This would put a halt to everything in the shopping center. He noted that the City has a means to control the mix of businesses. Staff anticipated a minor percentage mix that consists of what is being seen going into the shopping center when the city reviewed the renovation work in 1996. The city required that a traffic, parking and circulation analysis be completed. If the city sees a third or fourth food service type business being proposed at a public hearing, he felt that there would be a concern that the shopping center is exceeding the threshold of what would be a reasonable mix of retail to food service type business. On the other hand, if this is the last food service type of business and uses such a bank, toys, clothing stores, dry cleaners, office uses, etc., wish to locate in the center, these uses would not be coming before the Planning Commission as they are permitted by right without a conditional use permit. These uses would be moving in with just a business license and the city would not have control of what type of business go in. Commissioner Kurasch stated that the Commission would only see those uses that require a PLANNING COMMISSIOiv MINUTES JUNE 23, 1999 PAGE - 13 - conditional use permit. Therefore, the Commission does not have control over other businesses if the use is permitted. She expressed concern with another food service locating next to the Starbucks because of the outdoor seating and the fact that it is the same kind of business. She asked whether it made sense to cluster the uses all on one side. She said that the lovely arbor will more than likely be used for outdoor food seating. She stated that she was split on this issue. Chairwoman Bernald stated that she concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioners Patrick and Page. She did not believe that the Commission can legislate what can locate in the other spaces or legislate that a decision be held off until the center is filled. She said that there is no guarantee that the shopping center would be filled. She felt that the City Council came to a wise decision in limiting the hours of outdoor seating. Given the fact that the trellis is located on the corner and the fact that Jamba Juice is in one area, she felt that noise should be protected. She felt that it is important for the Commission to look to the city's future. She felt that area residents would like to know that their teenage children would have a place to go and meet with friends in a few years. She said that she does not know what uses are being proposed for units A, B, C, D and E. She felt that if the Commission was to require that Jamba Juice relocate to the other end of the shopping center, the Commission would hear from those neighbors. She also did not believe that this use was any different from the previous Chinese restaurant use. She said that she patronizes the businesses in the shopping center even though she does not live in the neighborhood. She understood the neighbors' concerns for traffic and felt that the Commission could mitigate this concern by adjusting the signals. The Commission is also trying to address the neighbors' concern with limiting the hours of operation, dimming the lights, and restricting the illumination of signage. She noted that this is a shopping center and that in order for it to be a viable shopping center, a mix of uses is needed. She said that she did not see anything that would keep her from voting against Jamba Juice. She also agreed that the Commission is not in the business of legislating what signs are to go up if federal, state and local laws are not already in place. She would call upon the City Council to consider this issue if it has a concern that they would like to address. She stated that she would support the approval of a conditional use permit for Jamba Juice and not necessarily considering a friendly amendment to post signs. Commissioner Jackman stated that she would support Jamba Juice going into the shopping center if it was located toward the center and not at either end of the shopping center. She did not believe that it was the Commission's role to impose any regulations relating to signage as food safety falls under the Public Health Department's jurisdiction. Commissioner Kurasch asked staff if the Commission could consider a motion to table this item to receive additional input or to give the city council the opportunity to meet with the developers? Director Walgren informed the Commission that the city has to act on applications within a certain period of time. Should the Commission not want to approve the use permit this evening, he stated that it would be preferable to deny the application versus leaving the application open. Commissioner Page said that at a previous meeting, discussion ensued from one of the neighbors PLANNING COMMISSION, MINUTES JUNE 23, 1999 PAGE - 14 - that the door to Starbucks on the Blauer side was perceived as the main entrance. He said that Jamba Juice at the proposed location, would encourage individuals to park on the Saratoga - Sunnyvale side, noting that there were not many parking spaces on the Blauer side. This would encourage traffic to the front of the store at the Saratoga - Sunnyvale side. He said that the number of tables is acceptable. However, his only concern is if the five -foot umbrella brought the table(s) too far away from the store front that would encumber the passage way. Commissioner Waltonsmith felt that should the Commission feel strongly about the health and safety of children and senior citizens, that the Commission could approve a motion that would include a condition contingent upon a legal ruling. She did not believe that the Commission was over stepping its boundary, it is just making a statement about health and safety. Director Walgren said that a condition could be included that stipulates that proper signage be posted consistent with federal, state and local requirements subject to the city attorney's concurrence. As an alternative, a condition could be added that would state that the signs shall be posted per the exhibit that was reviewed by the planning commission this evening and agreed to, in concept, by the applicant, subject to the city attorney's review. Commissioner Page noted that the applicant has not had the opportunity to review the sign and felt that the applicant should be able to take back the signage to the corporate office for their review. Commissioner Patrick stated her opposition of including a condition that would require the posting of a sign. Commissioner Kurasch felt that an educational brochure may be more effective as an alternative. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. UP -99 -008. THE MOTION FAILED 3 -3 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: BERNALD, PAGE, PATRICK; NOES: JACKMAN, KURASCH, WALTONSMITH; ABSTAIN: NONE; ABSENT: ROUPE. Director Walgren informed the Commission that the motion resulted in a tie vote. Therefore, the item would be automatically continued to the Planning Commission's July 14, 1999 public hearing for a revote. 2. UP -99 -012 (389 -12 -019) - CARSON ESTATE COMPANY (Gene's Fine Foods), 18850 Cox Avenue; Request for Use Permit approval to add approximately 1,600 sq. ft. of retail floor area to the existing 25,847 sq. ft. market. The expansion will occupy an area previously a bakery - no changes to the building's exterior are proposed. The site is part of the Quito Shopping Center and is located within a Commercial- Neighborhood zoning district. Director Walgren presented the staff report and recommended approval of the use permit. He said that only interior modifications to the building are proposed and that no exterior modifications are proposed. PLANNING COMMISSIOi-, MINUTES JUNE 23, 1999 PAGE - 15 - Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 9:14 p.m. Dick Giomi, 13684 Ronnie Way, president of Gene's Fine Foods, stated that the existing door would be closed to the public and that it may be used as an emergency exit. Chuck Marsh, manager of the shopping center, said that the center has several neighborhood uses, including a shoe repair store. He stated his concurrence with staffs report and the conditions of approval. COMMISSIONERS PAGE /PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:15 P.M. Commissioner Kurasch stated that she is familiar with the store and that she was glad to see that the store was expanding. She said that she could support the request. Commissioners Page, Patrick, Jackman, Waltonsmith, and Chairwoman Bernald stated their support of the request. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. UP -99 -012. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSENT. 3. UP -99 -006 - PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS, Highway 9 & Austin Way; Request for Use Permit approval for the installation of two cellular antennas and transmitter equipment on an existing utility pole located within the Highway 9 right -of -way. The utility pole is located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report and informed the Commission that when the installation of the antenna occurred, staff notified the applicant that a conditional use permit was required. The use is being reviewed based on two issues: health impacts of the radio frequency emission and aesthetic impacts. He noted that the industry has greatly improved the ability to conceal the antennas. He said that local jurisdictions are limited by the Federal Communication Act of 1996 in that they cannot deny the installation of wireless antennas if they exceed the minimum standards set by the federal agency. He said that the documentation submitted by the applicant shows that the antenna standards are well below the standards outlined by the federal government. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit. Commissioner Jackman asked if noticing was sent to individuals who reside in the neighborhood? Director Walgren responded that two notices were published: one for the environmental initial study and a second notice mailed to property owners within 500 feet notifying them of the public hearing for the conditional use permit. He informed the Commission that staff received a brief note from the neighbor directly to the east stating their support of the project. PLANNING COMMISSI0i,4 MINUTES JUNE 23, 1999 PAGE - 16 - Commissioner Waltonsmith requested that staff explain the penalties that can be imposed when an individual installs something and goes beyond what is allowed without benefit of city approval. Director Walgren informed the Commission that an administerial permit would result in doubling the permit fee. If it is a discretionary permit, city code allows a $250 penalty assigned through the Community Development Department and that the penalty can be assessed per day or event. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 9:24 p.m. Heather Angelica, representing Pacific Bell Mobile Services, apologized for the manner in which this project was processed. In 1997, Pacific Bell became a member of the Joint Pole Association (JPA) of Northern California which allows Pacific Bell to co- locate equipment, including antennas and transmitters on PG &E and telephone poles. At the end of 1998, Pacific Bell began building pilot sites. She said that unfortunately, there was miscommunication and the construction team was told that they had their JPA approval but that no one inquired about planning approvals. She said that she received a message from staff requesting examples of the signage to be placed on the site. She distributed copies of the signage that has been approved by the FCC and PG &E. She said that the antenna area is not accessible to anyone from the ground as the antenna is located 30 feet above the ground. If anyone has a need to access the pole, the sign has an 800 - number to contact so that the site can be shut down. She said that PG &E and other members of the Joint Pole Association will have a key to a shut off switch located at the base of the pole. She said that health effects will be taken into full consideration. Conunissioner Waltonsmith asked if the sign submitted is similar to the statement found on the site visit. Ms. Angelica stated that the sign indicates deactivation of the site before performance work commences and an 800 - number to contact. She said that a sign could be posted on the antenna (two signs on the pole). Director Walgren clarified that the use has been conditioned to require that signs be posted at the base of the pole and at the top of the utility pole. Commissioner Kurasch stated that it was her belief that there is a general order that the PUC provides that spells out permit requirements. Ms. Angelica said that Pacific Bell is required to obtain local permits and that each local jurisdiction dictates what permits will be required, if any. Director Walgren said that the PUC requires that the operators notify them with a copy to the local jurisdictions. Staff noted that the city's copy of the PUC notice stated that the company received city approval when in fact, it had not. This notice raised a flag with the city. Chairwoman Bernald said that it appeared that the technician was hooking up the antennae without use permit approval. She requested that no fiirther actions be taken until after the 15 -day appeal period has expired, if the conditional use permit is approved this evening. Commissioner Page asked if Ms. Angelica would object to moving the antenna boxes to the other side of the pole? Ms. Angelica responded that the Joint Pole Association determines the placement of the antennas and poles. She said that she would investigate to see if it is possible to relocate the PLANNING COMMISSIOi-4 MINUTES JUNE 23, 1999 PAGE - 17 - boxes to the other side of the pole. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:31 P.M. Commissioner Page stated his support of the facility as submitted with the recommendation that the colors are changed to match the dark color of the pole. He stated that he would prefer that the equipment be relocated to other side of the pole, if possible, as Highway 9 is a scenic road. Commissioner Kurasch said that she understood that the city's authority is limited to certain issues and that it is spelled out under PUC Order 159. She requested that she be provided with these procedures as she was concerned with future applications. She stated that she did not object to this application. Commissioners Patrick and Jackman stated their support of the request. Commissioner Waltonsmith stated her support of the request and concurred with Commissioner Page's recommendation of darkening the color and moving the boxes to the other side of the pole. Chairwoman Bernald also stated her support of the application and the change in color, if possible. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/JACKMAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. UP -99- 006 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF (NO ADDED CONDITIONS). THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -2 WITH COMMISSIONERS WALTONSMITH AND PAGE VOTING NO. DIRECTOR ITEMS V -98 -011 (503 -19 -157) - LOH, 20651 Leonard Road; Request to relocate a storage shed to meet setback and height requirements as required by the Planning Commission. Plans to correct the deck and gazebo zoning violations have also been submitted for review by the Commission. Director Walgren presented the staff report and said that this is a code enforcement file that has been opened with the city for several years. He said that three accessory structures were constructed without benefit of permits. After much correspondence and deliberation by the Planning Conunission in January 1999, the variance requests were denied. The denials were appealed to the City Council. He indicated that the City Council upheld the denial and the applicant was requested to modify the two accessory buildings (gazebo and deck structures) and to relocate the 260 square foot accessory storage building out of the front yard setback of the property or that it be removed. He informed the Commission that the applicant has submitted exhibits that show the building(s) being brought down to 12 feet in height and moved interior to the property at a location that should minimize its impacts on this portion of the property. The neighbors were notified and have PLANNING COMMISSIOi-q MINUTES JUNE 23, 1999 PAGE - 18 - indicated that they have had a chance to review the plans. The immediate neighbors most directly affected by having to see the structure submitted a letter that has been attached to the packet expressing concern that the building would be visible from their property. The neighbors request that the property be landscaped with screen planting and be painted a dark earthtone color to better blend in. Their first preference would be that the building be relocated to the other side of the property by the existing structures so that it would not be in their line of sight. Since the packet went out, two additional letters have been received and distributed to the Planning Commission. One letter is from the property owner located directly to the west, Starr Davis, objecting to the gazebo remaining in its location. Director Walgren indicated that the gazebo can remain in its current location if it is brought down in height. If the gazebo is allowed to remain, it is being requested that the Monterey Pine tree that was cut back to provide room for the structure be properly pruned and looked at by a licensed arborist and that the building be painted a dark color. It is also recommended that landscape screening be provided. A second letter was received from the neighbor located to the northeast who has also expressed concern with the appearance of another structure that was built at another time that may not be a zoning violation and is located at the top of the property. It is being requested that the building be painted an earthtone color. He felt that the requested conditions were reasonable ones. He recommended approval of the proposed location with the requirements that landscaping of the three identified structures be provided and that the three structures, including the deck be painted an earthtone color to blend in with the landscape. Commissioner Patrick recommended that staff work with the applicant to select the earthtone color. At the request of Commissioner Page, Director Walgren clarified that it was his belief that the shed structure would be cut into the uphill so that it does not exceed 12 feet. Commissioner Kurasch requested clarification of the front gate /fence and asked if it has been resolved? Director Walgren said that staff will be investigating the height of the gate as front yard gates are limited to a maximum height of five feet, noting that the gate is over five feet. Chairwoman Bernald opened the floor to public comment at 9:42 p.m. James M. Barrett, 444 Castro Street, Mountain View, attorney for the applicant, informed the Commission that he worked closely with staff to ensure that all regulations are met, aesthetically, that will help the community accept these structures. He said that his client apologizes for any of the issues that have come up that have created turmoil over the structures. He said that he has worked diligently to resolve the problems. He said that his client would agree to work with staff to paint the structures with an earthtone color. He stated that he would discuss the fourth structure with staff to resolve this issue as well. He agreed to advise his client to attend to the height of the gate and to clean up the property and the building materials, including attending to the Monterey Pine. He agreed to have his client paint and lower the gazebo, and to paint the deck and the storage shed. Chairwoman Bernald expressed concern with the health safety of the dead deer carcass which was PLANNING COMMISSION, MINUTES JUNE 23, 1999 PAGE - 19 - noted by the owner in her (owner's) backyard. Mr. Barrett said that if the dead deer carcass has not been removed, it would be removed /resolved immediately. Also, there is to be screening of the storage shed and screening along the Starr's property. Director Walgren informed the Commission that it was a requirement that the property be surveyed and that an exhibit is submitted to show the new location of the accessory building(s). He clarified that the other site plan submitted of the house renovation and addition was prepared many years ago. Commissioner Kurasch noted that the site plan makes reference to the storage shed and two possible locations for it. Mr. Barrett clarified that he was only addressing the new accurate survey. Commissioner Jackman recommended that a condition be included that would require that the logs underneath the significant oak tree in the front yard be removed. She noted that there are significant vines growing up into the tree, noting that the tree would be dead if the vines are not removed. Mr. Barrett said that he would agree to work with staff as it relates to the trees as he is specifically dealing with three structures that he is trying to bring into a conforming nature. STAFF WAS GIVEN DIRECTION TO ADMINISTRATIVELY FOLLOW UP ON THE ITEMS IDENTIFIED. - Planning Commission Retreat Date and Topics Director Walgren requested that a day be identified to hold the annual Planning Commission/staff retreat. He said that the retreat would require three quarters of a day and recommended that it be held on a Friday. He informed the Commission that the City Council has scheduled a joint meeting with the Planning Commission for Tuesday, July 13 at 7:00 p.m. He suggested that the retreat take place a week following the joint meeting with the City Council and that items be placed on the agenda that may come out of the joint meeting. He suggested July 23 or July 30 as alternative dates. It was requested that the Commission bring their calendars to the first meeting in August to schedule a September retreat date. Director Walgren said that he has a follow -up to Commissioner Waltonsmith's inquiry as to the status of the Bicycle Advisory Committee. He informed the Commission that the part time contract city engineer, Jim Jeffery, would be reactivating the Bicycle Advisory Committee. He advised Mr. Jeffery that Commissioner Waltonsmith was the Planning Commission's liaison to the Committee and that he would be contacting her soon. Director Walgren informed the Commission that arrangements have been made for the minutes clerk who used to take the minutes for the City Council to replace Minutes Clerk Torrez to clerk future Planning Commission meetings. PLANNING COMMISSION, MINUTES JUNE 23, 1999 PAGE - 20 - Director Walgren informed the Commission that staff would be returning to the Commission at its next meeting with an update on the Woods project where it was noted that there was a discrepancy on the average slope calculation underneath the swimming pool. He indicated that the project has been placed on hold until staff has had the opportunity to present this information to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kurasch said that she spoke to Director Walgren and that she reviewed the slope calculations further. She noticed on the applicant's survey a 38% slope calculation. The concern is with the slopes under the pads of development, noting that city code requires that structures be built under 30% or 40% slope. She said that the proper process is for the applicant to apply for a variance. Director Walgren said that the exhibits reviewed by the Planning Commission gave different slope numbers: the average slope of the building permit at approximately 12% and the average slope of the pool at approximately 13% or 14 %. He said that the staff planner was aware of the requirement that it could not exceed 30% slope and correctly required that the applicant's engineer provide a detailed analysis for the slope of the building envelope and the slope of the pool site as well as the average slope. He said that staff was given incorrect calculations for the average slope of the pool. The applicants were asked to explain the discrepancy in the numbers. He said that staff has a detailed breakdown of the actual numbers. He said that the numbers are under 30% but that they are significantly higher than what was presented to the Commission (i.e., approximately 25% average slope and if you block off the pool, it is approximately 28 %). He provided the Commission with the updated information and that it would be discussed further at the Commission's next meeting before allowing the project to move forward. Director Walgren said that he has a copy of the Federal Communications Act and that he has marked the section that deals specifically with local land use. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Page stated that he received a letter today from the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group who has a housing leadership council who understands that there is a big housing shortage in Silicon Valley and that it was noted that there is not a lot of land left to construct housing. He said that a meeting will be held on Thursday, July 15, 1999 to discuss strategies on how to handle this problem. He indicated that he would leave the letter with Director Walgren if any Commissioners are interested in attending the meeting. Commissioner Page stated that he noticed that there is a freestanding sign pointing to a street address at 20898 Wardell. It is a temporary sign constructed out of plywood material that has been spray painted. He said that this sign has been up for several months and that several individuals have commented to him about this sign. He said that he noticed a sign attached to a utility pole on PLANNING COMMISSIO , MINUTES JUNE 23, 1999 PAGE - 21 - Saratoga Avenue, just before Fruitvale if you are heading south on Saratoga Avenue. He requested that staff investigate these signs. Chairwoman Bernald said that over the course of the year, she has had a number of individuals ask her about the one story house that is located on the corner of Via Eseuela and Cumberland where the driveway was changed. She said that construction has been on going for more than a year. She said that the neighbors are concerned with the safety of children riding their bicycles. She requested that staff investigate this issue. COMMUNICATIONS Written City Council Minutes for Regular Meeting of June 2, 1999 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING There being no further business, Chairwoman Bernald adjourned the meeting at 10:05 p.m. to Wednesday, July 14, 1999, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk 10711011110 "A-07510011 J• / n I me Walgren S ary to the Panning Commission CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 1999 Civic Center, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairwoman Bernald called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Roll Call: Present: Commissioners Kurasch, Page, Patrick, Roupe, Waltonsmith and Chairwoman Bernald Absent: Commissioner Jackman Staff. Director Walgren Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - May 12 and May 26,1999 COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MAY 12, 1999 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Page 6, paragraph 4, last sentence amended to read: "...approval of the variance with the minimal penalty that the Commission has in h the resolution before us." Page '7, paragraph 2, line 13 amended to read: "... that lot line pr-eJests problems are endemic... " Page 7, paragraph 3, last sentence amended to read: "...uphold her previous vote and vote against the project." Page 20, paragraph 7 amended to read: "Commissioner Page stated that there Was had been some discussion regarding Measure G related to this property ... " - Page 22, paragraph 4, amended to read: "He said that the processes are in place because it was found that Aver-time over time, they work. He recommended that they keep 44e toe this neighborhood beautiful." Page 29, paragraph 6, line 5 amended to read: "...that can be made to deny the tentative map: 1) the site is not physically suitable ... " Page 35, paragraph 10 amended to read: "Chairwoman Bernald noted that a representative from the Public Safety Committee Commission ... " TIIE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSTAINING AND COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT. PLANNING COMMISSI. A MINUTES JUNE 9, 1999 PAGE - 2 - COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MAY 26, 1999 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Page 5, paragraph 4, line 6, replace the word wi4 with may. Page 6, paragraph 3, amended to read: "Commissioner Page said that this is a diagram that is flattened out and that *'-° r^.- ,.A-i -ss o 49@s not got to see it does not show how the home actually looks. - Page 9, paragraph 3, the motion should reflect a 4 -1 -1 vote. Page 11, paragraph 5, line 3 amended to read: "...He said that he appfeeiated empathized with Mr. Keenan ... " Page 1.2, paragraph 4, line 10 amended to read: "...Commission saw an extensive driveway at elsewhere during the site visit ... " - Page 17, paragraph 2, fourth sentence amended to read: "He felt that there may be alternative designs but that he was not sure if any of them would be acceptable to the bay because there will be serious impact to neighbors' privacy and views caused by the configuration of the lot ea the as 4m„^^+ eii ..;°.,,s and the placement of the home on it ... " Page 20, deletion of paragraph 5 relating to the "Consensus of the Commission." THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSTAINING AND COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT. Oral Communications No comments were offered. Report of Posting Agenda Director Walgren stated that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 4, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet Director Walgren indicated that there were two technical corrections to the packet as follows: 1) Agenda Item 2, DR -98 -067 & F -98 -006; 15001 Bohlman Road, page 5, under tree protection, several trees were cited. The error is the first reference contained in the second sentence. The report notes that tree #13 and #14, both Coast Live Oaks, would be removed by design. He stated that these are actually tree #14 and #15. Tree #13, a coast live oak, would be subject to PLANNING COMMISSI�,A MINUTES JUNE 9, 1999 PAGE - 3 - construction impacts. On page 8 of the same report, Condition 3 in the Resolution indicates that the only trees that are being approved per this project approval would be trees 43, #14, and #15 (not tree #13). 2) Commissioner Kurasch noted that staff omitted in the resolution for two projects (Agenda Item 2 and Agenda Item 3) two of the necessary grading exception findings, noting that only four of the six findings were cited. He said that he would expand on the two missing findings in the presentation of the staff report as they need to be included in the resolution for it to be complete. He indicated that he would discuss a condition to the Woods' resolution when the project is considered by the Planning Commission under public hearing. CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. DR -98 -014 (503 -13 -059 & 503 -13 -122) - FOSTER, 22217 Mt. Eden Road; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,507 sq. ft., two -story residence on this 2.25 acre vacant lot. The property is located in a Hillside Residential zoning district. In September 1998 the two assessor parcels were merged and the one adjacent to Mt. Eden Road was annexed to the City of Saratoga. (CONTINUED FROM 5/26/99 FOR A RE- VOTE AFTER MOTION FOR APPROVAL FAILED ON VOTE OF 3 -3). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Director Walgren informed the Commission that this is a continued design review application presented at the Commission's May 26, 1999 meeting. At that meeting, staff presented its findings for the project, noting that the grading exceeded the 1,000 cubic yard limit for the hillside. Staff further noted that the majority of the grading was necessary to get to the house via a relatively long driveway. At the hearing, both adjacent neighbors were present to express their concerns and views about the project. Following the public hearing, the Commission discussed the project, noting that the project met all minimum zoning ordinance standards. However, the Commission noted concerns with the grading necessary for the proposed length in driveway and the physical appearance of the home. A vote was taken by the six Commissioners present which resulted in a 3 -3 tie vote with Commissioner Roupe absent. He informed the Commission that a 3 -3 tie vote is a failed motion and is automatically continued to the next available meeting for a revote. He indicated that the action before the Commission this evening is a hearing of a revote of the project. A second 3 -3 vote would result in a denial of the application. He recommended that the Commission ask if the applicant has any new information to present this evening. If so, the Commission will have to make a motion to reopen the public hearing, taking only new testimony, close the public hearing and then take a revote on the application. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 7:47 p.m. Kim Foster, applicant, addressed the previously stated concern by the Commission regarding the landscaping. She said that she obtained the services of Jeffry Heid, landscape architect, to come up with a landscape plan for the project. She said that the landscaping plans will be made PLANNING COMMISSI,-N MINUTES JUNE 9, 1999 PAGE - 4 - available next week. She said that in attendance were Barry Milestone, Milestone Geotech and Yitka Cymbal from Westfall Engineers to describe in detail the location of the house, the driveway and the grading volume. Barry Milestone, geotechnical consultant, informed the Planning Commission that the map prepared by William Cotton and Associates originally showed an old landslide on the property. He did some sub surface work and dug large diameter bore holes. He was able to identify the top of the old landslide that is shown on the upper limit of the landslide. He took samples and did a slope stability analysis and demonstrated that the old landslide is now stable. He said that he did not want to site a house on a preexisting fissure. Based on his work, he said that the house has been relocated 6 to 7 feet up slope. He indicated that the bottom of the landslide is located by the creek. Yitka Cymbal, Westfall Engineers, civil engineers for the project, addressed the aligiunent and the location of the driveway and explained the grading quantities. She said that the limitation of the hillside site resulted in having to set back the house from the landslide at the top of the hill. If the house could be built anywhere else, it could be set on a lower bench. However, she indicated that this was not possible because it cannot be done due to the site's geology. In order to make the landslide workable, it would require removing all of the debris and re- compaction. This would result in more grading than proposed with the construction of a driveway. She indicated that the driveway was designed to follow the natural grade, maintaining the 17% slope, the maximum slope allowed by the City of Saratoga. She said that the relocation of the driveway would still result in approximately the same amount of grading. She indicated that the greatest cut is at the entrance of the property. She did not believe that there were alternatives as the existing slopes are too steep to use the existing grade. Therefore, she had to cut down into the hillside until she could catch onto the natural grade (approximately 100 -150 feet up). She tried to balance the driveway with some fill and cut. She said that based on the limitations of the site, she ended up with 900 cubic yards of cut and 200 cubic yards of fill. She requested that the Commission consider the difficulty of the site and the requirements which were placed on the Fosters in locating their home. Commissioner Waltonsmith noted that the balcony was supposed to have been eliminated. Ms. Foster clarified that the balcony and the window were eliminated from the plans. Commissioner Kurasch inquired about the neighbor's letter and asked what Ms. Foster's feelings were about the change in sentiment of shifting the home as she did not know what the negative impact would have been to the north side neighbor. Ms. Foster informed the Commission that the Keenans decided that they did not want the house shifted to the left. She said that she would do whatever it takes to satisfy her neighbors' concerns. She indicated that Mr. and Mrs. Keenan requested the removal of the balcony and window only, and not the shifting of the house. She stated her agreement of their request. Commissioner Page asked if Ms. Foster explored installing a shorter, higher window to better articulate the side of the house where the balcony /window have been eliminated. Ms. Foster PLANNING COMMISSIuN MINUTES JUNE 9, 1999 PAGE - 5 - informed the Commission that the balcony and the window were decorative elements. She said that she designed a window to face the back yard. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Commissioner Kurasch noted that the impervious coverage proposed is 12,288 square feet with the structure being approximately 5,500 of this amount. She requested that staff break down what the rest of the lot coverage is for. Director Walgren informed the Commission that there is 3,700 square feet of lot coverage for the first floor footprint of the home and driveway with the remaining 8,500 square feet taking in the driveway and the driveway apron turn around. These numbers appear to be within the numbers indicted in the staff report. He said that the entire driveway, including the turn around in front of the garage is approximately 8,500 square feet. He said that the zoning ordinance for hillside districts allows up to a maximum of 15,000 square feet of lot coverage, excluding driveways. He said that the Measure G initiative did not include the exception provision and that the Measure G gives a strict 15,000 square foot lot coverage limits. He informed the Commission that staff recently amended the zoning ordinance to match Measure G because staff was constantly trying to explain two different sets of standards to individuals developing plans in the hillside. He indicated that Measure G requirements preempt the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Kurasch stated that she likes the site and how the building fits into the hill. She said that her primary concern was the siting of the driveway and that she was trying to understand why the house had to be located as proposed. She said that this has been explained to her satisfaction even though the design is a bit intrusive on the hillside. She stated that she was concerned about not shifting the house after the last discussion. She felt that it was a good idea to shift the house as it would fit nicer on the lot and that it would not have the driveway close to a neighbor. Commissioner Waltonsmith concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioner Kurasch. She felt that having a turn around area with a four -car garage capacity is a lot of cement near the property line. She stated that she likes the house as it fits nicely into the hillside. Commissioner Page stated that he remains supportive of the project. He said that when he first looked at the revised drawings, he was concerned because the second story above the garage appears to be bulky with no articulation. However, he did not believe that there would be a view from the street. He stated his support of the request. Commissioner Patrick stated that she is still opposed to the project and that she would vote against it based on the fact that the home's design is not compatible with the hillside as it appears to be bulky. She felt that there may be better design alternative. Commissioner Roupe stated that he was not present at the May 26, 1999 meeting when this item was originally considered by the Commission. However, he stated that he had the opportunity to PLANNING COMMISSh A MINUTES JUNE 9, 1999 PAGE - 6 - review both the video tape and the written record as well as to listen to what has been presented this evening. He felt that the design complies with all city ordinances and that there are no variances being requested. He noted that the design seems to have the support of both neighbors and staff. Therefore, he stated that he could support the project. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with the comments as expressed by Commissioner Roupe. She said that she previously supported this application. She stated that she could support the application because she felt that the design is compatible with the neighborhood. She commended Ms. Foster for working with the neighbors and the neighbors for working with Ms. Foster. Commissioner Page asked if the resolution contained the amendments from the last meeting such as the removal of river rock and shifting of the house. He asked if the resolution needs to be further amended to delete shifting of the house? Director Walgren responded that the condition relating to shifting of the house can be deleted. The condition relating to the elimination of the balcony and window has been deleted as the applicant has deleted them from the south elevation. He informed the Commission that a new condition has been added that resulted from the last meeting that the property be surveyed prior to the issuance of permits. COMMISSIONERS PAGE /ROUPE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -98 -014. Commissioner Kurasch asked if it would be possible to request the inclusion of a design change to allow the support of the project to shift the house five feet to the north? Director Walgren informed the Commission that any Commissioner can make a motion. THE MOTION FAILED ON A 3 -3 VOTE AS FOLLOWS: AYES: BERNALD, PAGE, ROUPE; NOES: KURASCH, PATRICK, WALTONSMITH; ABSENT: JACKMAN. COMMISSIONER KURASCH MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -98 -014, WITH A CONDITION TO REQUIRE THAT THERE BE A FIVE -FOOT SHIFT OF THE HOUSE DUE NORTH. Director Walgren informed the Commission that the neighbor to the north opposed shifting the home to the north, noting that both neighbors appear to be satisfied with the location of the house and driveway at this point versus shifting the home further to the north. COMMISSIONER KURASCH WITHDREW HER MOTION. COMMISSIONERS PAGE /ROUPE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -98 -014. THE MOTION FAILED 3 -3 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: BERNALD, PAGE, ROUPE; NOES: KURASCH, PATRICK, WALTONSMITH; ABSENT: JACKMAN. Director Walgren informed the Commission that the motion to approve the home and shift it five feet to the north as an alternative would not be such an impact that it would not be acceptable to PLANNING COMMISSh,14 MINUTES JUNE 9, 1999 PAGE - 7 - the neighbor to the north. He recommended that the Commission rescind its motion and make a motion to approve DR -98 -014, shifting the home five feet to the north. If it is a great impact, the neighbor would have the opportunity to appeal this requirement. Chairwoman Bernald stated that she could support staff s recommendation if it is geologically sound to shift the home. COMMISSIONERS KURASCH /WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 98 -014 ADDING A CONDITION TO REQUIRE THAT THE HOUSE /DRIVEWAY IS TO BE MOVED FIVE FEET TO THE NORTH. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER PATRICK VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT. 2. DR -98 -067 & F -98 -006 (517 -13 -012) - CAGAN, 15001 Bohlman Road; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new two -story 5,122 sq. ft. residence with a maximum height of 26 ft. on a vacant 2.4 acre (net) parcel in a Hillside Residential zoning district. A Fencing exception permit is also requested to enclose 13,000 sq. ft. The Design Review proposal was originally noticed for the April 14, 1999 Plarming Commission public hearing, but was continued at the request of the applicant. (CONTINUED FROM 5/26/99). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Director Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that this property and the adjoining property were reviewed several years ago and were issued preliminary building site approvals. He said that a building site approval does not vest the approval of a home on the property but that it verifies that the lots are legal lots of records and defines the parameters of what off site improvements are going to be necessary. It identifies a building site that meets geologic, slope, and grading requirements. He indicated that the building pad was pre identified and that the application, as submitted, is within the pre approved building envelope. Director Walgren informed the Commission that the City arborist has had a second opportunity to review this application as has the city's geologist. The city arborist notes that three trees will be removed by design: Tree 93 (English Walnut) as a result of widening the drive and Tree 414 and #15 (Coast Live Oaks) located directly in the center of the building envelope. He further noted that tree 410, directly below the fire district required a vehicle turn around, tree #13 directly below the south wing of the building and tree #28 located at the north end of the building would be severely to moderately damaged by construction. He said that trees #10 and #13, which have been given a marginal rating in terms of health and structure is not proposed to be removed but that staff has included a tree replacement requirement as though they were to be removed. He indicated that the city arborist will monitor their health through the development and construction of the property. Tree #18 is expected to be retained and protected. To ensure that the tree protection measures outlined in the city arborist report are met, staff has required that both a tree security deposit be posted and that a project arborist be hired by the applicant to rnonitor the project during construction and to provide status reports to city staff throughout the project. Staff finds that the necessary design review and site /tree protection findings can be made to approve the application. PLANNING COMMISSI\ A MINUTES JUNE 9, 1999 PAGE - 8 - Director Walgren indicated that the application also includes a grading exception request. Given the topography of the site and the fact that the grading exception is just a little over the 1,000 cubic yards provided in the Hillside Residential Zoning Ordinance, staff can support this request based on the four findings listed in the staff report. He read into the record the final two findings that were omitted as follows: Finding No. 5 - "The increased grading is necessary to reduce the prominence of the construction as viewed from surrounding views or from distant community views." He said that the only views that the adjoining property owners would have of this property would be the existing homes potentially off of Hidden View Lane to the north. From that angle, the home is primarily being cut into the site, lowering its prominence from the site. Therefore, finding No. 5 can be made. Finding No. 6 - "No building site shall be graded so as to create a flat visible pad surrounding the main residential structure." He said that this finding is intended to prohibit building a home on the hillside and then building out a flat level pad for a pool, tennis court or these type of yard improvements. He said that this design does not have this type of grading. Director Walgren indicated that the applicants are requesting an exception to the hillside fencing limit of 4,000 square feet, noting that it is not a variance request, only an exception request. He noted that the fence will be screened from public views and surrounding properties by topography and vegetation. The fence, at 13,000 square feet, represents approximately 20% of the total site area with the rest of the property remaining open. He said that the fence would not be visible from public views but that it could potentially be visible from homes on Hidden View Lane, noting that in most cases, the existing homes have already been fenced in. Staff feels that the exception finding can be made. Commissioner Waltonsmith requested that staff address tree #38. She said that at the site visit, it was noted that bedroom number 3 overhangs underneath the dripline of tree #38. Director Walgren said that the city arborist provided specific parameters for how tree #38 can be protected and that staff is supporting the arborist's recommendation that the drainage swale not be excavated down into the soil so that the feeder roots are not severed. He noted that between the time that city arborist reviewed the project and the plans were presented to the Commission there has been a slight shift of the home further away from the tree. He felt that the impacts are still relevant but that they have been reduced, to some degree, from the original report. If the tree is impacted, the building would have to be construction of pier and grade beam so that there is no excavation underneath the tree's canopy. This would result in a reduction in root loss. The swale would have to be modified per the arborist report and all of the other tree protection measures will have to be followed. He said that the purpose of having a project arborist on site is so that the trees can be monitored at regular intervals to document progress of construction. Ultimately, the city arborist will be performing intermediate and final inspection on the site and can detect excavation, soil compaction or tree damage. Commissioner Waltonsmith referred to tree #13, a tree that the Commission was concerned about at the site visit because of a car being parked on its root. She asked if this tree would have a fence installed around it too? Director Walgren said that it should be clarified that the tree numbers on the landscape plans should match the tree numbers in the arborist report. He said PLANNING COMMISSI ,_,J MINUTES JUNE 9, 1999 PAGE - 9 - that tree #13 is addressed in the resolution and that it will have a fence installed around it. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 8:22 p.m. Bob Flury, project designer, informed the Commission that one wood burning fireplace is proposed to be installed in the living room. He said that the copper element can be sealed so that there is no leeching to the soil. Commissioner Kurasch referred to the front and rear elevations and stated that the use of stone veneer was very attractive. She asked if consideration was given to wrapping the stone to the rear elevation? She asked what materials are proposed for the pillars that are holding up the patio /deck area? Mr. Flury said that wrapping the stone was considered at one point but that due to budgetary restraints, it was decided to delete the stone from the back side since this side of the home is not visible from off site. He indicated that the material to be used for the pillars is stucco. Commissioner Waltonsmith asked why there is a need for an exemption for the fencing? Mr. Flury said that the request for fence exception was due primarily to a safety concern. He said that there is an existing old barb -wired fence that is in roughly the same configuration where the new fence is proposed. He said that a wrought iron fence material is proposed. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:26 P.M. Commissioner Patrick said that provided that the copper material is sealed so it does not leech, she could approve the design. She stated that she could not approve the exception request for the fence, especially if wrought iron material is to be used. She said that an open -wire fencing material would need to be used in order for her to approve the exception request. Commissioner Roupe said that it was his understanding that the wrought iron fencing being proposed is consistent with what is being used in the neighborhood. Commissioner Page said that when he first reviewed the plans, he found a foot print that intrigued him. As he further studied the plans, he felt that excellent use of the space was made, shaping the available space to maximize it and gave a lot of views from the home. He felt that the architect minimized the amount of impervious coverage the way the drive is designed. He said that he could make the finding for the small amount of cut and fill that is over the amount allowed on hillside lots. He said that he could approve the design review provided that a condition is included to requiring sealing of the copper material. Regarding the fence exception, because of where the site is located and the lack of view that anyone else would have of the fence, he could support the fence exception based on the concern for safety and the lack of visibility. Another reason to support the exception is the fact that 80% of the property is not covered by fencing. PLANNING COMMISSI.,N MINUTES JUNE 9, 1999 PAGE - 10 - Commissioner Waltonsmith said that she too was wondering how the design would look. However, at the site visit, she was able to perceive how the home would be viewed. She said that the design still looks a little busy to her but that she could support the design of the home. However, she could not support the exception. She referred to page 6 of the staff report which provides an argument that everyone else has had an exception, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to one. She stated that she did not like this argument as it is circular. She felt that exceptions are suddenly becoming the rule and that she was concerned that exceptions after exceptions are coming before the Planning Commission to fence off the hillside areas. Therefore, she could not support the exception request. Commissioner Kurasch said that she also liked the design of the home but that she would have preferred the use of more stone for a small wrap around effect. She expressed concern regarding staffs comment relating to tree #28, an exceptional tree. She asked if staffs recommendations will be followed as they would involve some design changes? She wanted to make sure that tree #28 is safe guarded. She noted that the city arborist recommends that utilities be installed under the drive to minimize impacts. She did not know if this is a possibility that could be explored. Director Walgren indicated that this recommendation would be explored prior to the issuance of any permits for the home. Commissioner Kurasch supported the use of muted colors for the stucco and the pillars. She said that the retained trees that are affected by this project have a considerable value. She recommended that a 25% bond be required, if possible, to safeguard the trees. Regarding the fencing exception, she said that it was her perception that the Commission is not sure whether the other fences are legally permitted. She said that she understood that trying to tie in with the neighborhood is very important. However, she noted that this is a hillside conservation district and that the standard is higher in this district. She said that she would support the use of a wire fence that would not be visible. Director Walgren informed the Commission that the city arborist is making a recommendation regarding the bond for the trees and that it is up to the Planning Commission to accept or modify the tree protection bond amount. He informed the Commission that the conditions of approval require that all of the city arborist's measures be addressed prior to the issuance of permits. Regarding the bond amount, the 15% bond amount is a sizable bond amount (approximately a $20,000 bond). The question is whether this bond amount should be raised to 25% which would be approximately a $30,000 tree protection bond. If the bond amount is to be increased, there would have to be an amendment to the resolution. He reiterated that staff has required that the applicant hire a project arborist to further monitor all of the recommendations contained in the city arborist report. He said that physical changes would have to be done before permits can be issued. Commissioner Waltonsmith recommended that the exception be separated from the design review application. PLANNING COMMISSIvi*,I MINUTES JUNE 9, 1999 PAGE - 11 - Chairwoman Bernald stated that she could support the project. She said that she shared the Commission's concern regarding the amount of area that is being fenced these days. She supported reducing the amount of fencing being seen. However, in this case, she felt that it was appropriate to fence the amount of area being requested for the use of the property. Therefore, she would support the fence exception. COMMISSIONERS ROUPE /PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -98 -067, ADDING A CONDITION TO SEAL THE COPPER. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS PAGE / ROUPE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION F -98 -006. THE MOTION FAILED 3 -3 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: BERNALD, ROUPE, PAGE; NOES: KURASCH, PATRICK, WALTONSMITH; ABSENT: JACKMAN. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KURASCH MOVED TO APPROVE F -98 -006 WITH THE USE OF AN OPEN WIRE FENCE MATERIAL THROUGHOUT THE AREA BEING REQUESTED. THE MOTION FAILED 3 -3 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: KURASCH, PATRICK, WALTONSMITH; NOES: BERNALD, PAGE, ROUPE; ABSENT: JACKMAN. COMMISSIONER ROUPE MOVED TO REOPEN PUBLIC HEARING TO ASCERTAIN THE APPLICANT'S PREFERENCE ON THE FENCING MATERIAL OR THE USE OF WROUGHT IRON FENCING MATERIAL IN A REDUCED AMOUNT. THE MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND. Commissioner Waltonsmith noted that this is a hillside area. She stated that she could support fencing material that is less obtrusive that can be seen through versus the requested wrought iron fencing material. She said that she would support enclosing 4,000 square feet with an open wire fencing that goes around the house with the remainder of the land being left unfenced. Commissioner Kurasch said that she sees the logic of where the fence is proposed to be placed as the area has a drop off. If the fence was moved toward the property line, she could support the fence. She felt that the project may be better off without fencing or that the applicant retain the existing fence. She said that she would support a wire fence as there is a large area that is not being fenced. She said that she would not approve the use of the obtrusive wrought iron fence material. Chairwoman Bernald asked if the Commission would support the use of wrought iron at the beginning of the home, coming off of the garage and the northern most point up to the property line, connecting the remainder of the fence with on open wire fencing material? This would allow the appearance of the front of the home having a wrought iron fence. Director Walgren noted that the lower part of the property is not visible from off site. He said that an alternative would be is the installation of a fence directly east off of the residence and PLANNING COMMISSlvil1 MINUTES JUNE 9, 1999 PAGE - 12 - then connect with the lower enclosure down below. This would prevent the fence from being visible from public views and from residents on Hidden View Lane. He clarified that just because Hidden View Lanes residents received approvals of exceptions that other exceptions would not automatically be granted. Staff noted that there is an existing wire fence along the property line. Commissioner Page noted that 80% of the property will remain unfenced. He felt that there was plenty of room for animal traffic, noting that the site contained all kinds of natural vegetation. He did not see a reason not to allow the applicant to use the property as they would like to. Commissioner Patrick did not believe that the area of fencing is of a particular concern to her but the fact that the wrought iron fence would face the public area. The use of wrought iron fencing would make the area look less open and less wooded. She said that she could not support the use of wrought iron and that she would prefer the use of an open mesh fencing material. Commissioner Page recommended that the Commission keep in mind that two homes can be built, noting that the property is not located on Saratoga Avenue and having a number of individuals drive by. Commissioner Roupe felt that there is an element of trying to keep a consistent look to the community. Since the rest of the properties are fenced with wrought iron fences, this request would not be offensive, noting that the fencing is limited to a very small percentage of the total property. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioners Page and Roupe. She felt that Commissioner Page made a solid statement that supports the fact that the fencing is not all encompassing of the property. The fence would create and define a back yard and protects seniors and children from rolling into the ravine. She felt that the site would continue to provide a lot of other open space. Given the nice style of the home, it suggests the use of a wrought iron fence. She said that she could support having the open mesh in the back if that would help carry the vote. COMMISSIONERS PAGE /ROUPE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION F -98 -006. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -2 WITH COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND WALTONSMITH VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT. 3. DR -98 -051, UP -98 -018 & V -98 -017 (517 -23 -036 & 517 -23 -037) - WOODS, 15595 Peach Hill Road; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 6,769 sq. ft., two - story residence with a maximum building height of 26 ft. on a 4.6 acre parcel located in a Hillside Residential zoning district. Use Permit approval is also requested to allow a water tank within the rear yard setback. Variance approval is requested to allow retaining walls in excess of 5 ft. in height. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- PLANNING COMMISSI�,A MINUTES JUNE 9, 1999 PAGE - 13 - Director Walgren presented the staff report and informed the Commission that this parcel was a part of a five -lot subdivision approved as early as 1982. He said that lots 1 and 2, located off of Peach Hill Road, are owned by the applicant and that the other three parcels are owned by a separate property owner which are accessed from Madrone Hill Road. He noted that the three parcels are not visible from this site but were a part of the historic development of the property and contain the historic retaining walls, garden walls, walkways, etc., that have been recorded in the City's Heritage Preservation Book. He indicated that the water tower location was pre approved at the subdivision level and that it was a requirement of the fire district that the water tank be provided to provide for both domestic water use and fire protection use. A variance is being requested to exceed the 10 -foot height limitation for the parallel retaining walls. He stated that staff can support this component of the variance. A second component of the variance is related to the water tank proposal. A wall of approximately eight feet behind the water tank will exceed the five -foot height limit but would serve to cut the water tank into the site and is physically needed to construct the water tank at its proposed location. Staff is supportive of this component of the variance as well. Regarding lot 2, the applicant is proposing to build a guest parking pad to provide parking for approximately 8 -10 vehicles. This request exceeds the grading quantities permitted in the hillside residential district and exceeds the retaining wall height allowed within a front yard setback. It also requires the removal of significant native oak trees. Staff recommends Commission denial of this component of the application, resulting in the denial of all of the improvements on lot 2, including the grading exception and the variance for the retaining wall height. Director Walgren informed the Commission that the staff report contains an extensive series of tree protection reports and outline the number of trees that would have to be removed by design as result of construction. Replacement values have been assigned for the trees that would have to be removed and that a tree protection bond has been assessed for those trees to be protected. Staff is also recommending that a project arborist be contracted by the applicant to be at the site on a regular basis and provide status reports to staff and the city arborist to make sure that the protection measures are being followed. Director Walgren stated that the applicant is also requesting a grading exception for the main residence, noting that hillside grading is limited to a maximum of 1,000 cubic yards in order to protect the natural topography to the extent possible and prevent additional fill grading beyond what is necessary to build the home itself. He indicated that the applicant's proposal is for approximately 1,500 cubic yards for the house itself. However, it was relevant to note that 850 - cubic yards of this is excavation for the basement of the home which technically speaking, basement excavation is not grading and should not be considered in the total grading quantity. The true grading, in terms of cut, to put the home on the site is 700 cubic yards with no fill. This is important to know because it is consistent with the city's hillside development standards to integrate homes into the hillside versus building them out and beyond the hillside terrain. He said that 850 -cubic yards is necessary for the driveway to access the home. The driveway is approximately 1 /10 of a mile and includes 100 cubic yards of fill. He said that 1,250 cubic yards of cut is necessary for the driveway turn around with no fill, noting that this is a requirement of PLANNING COMMISSIuA MINUTES JUNE 9, 1999 PAGE - 14 - the fire district. He said that staff has concluded that this is an unavoidable impact given the site constraints and the fire district's objectives to provide fire protection. The pool area will require 150 cubic yards of cut and 250 cubic yards of fill. He said that these numbers become relative negligible given the total grading quantities. The total grading quantities of cut are 2,950 cubic yards, 1,950 yards beyond the 1,000 cubic yard limit of cut for the home itself. Staff felt that this can be supported given the necessity of the fire truck turn around, the necessity of a driveway and the nature of the property itself. Director Walgren informed the Commission that the applicant and his representatives have worked very closely with city staff, including the city's geologist and city arborist, to arrive at this proposal. Staff feels that the contemporary design of the home using a dark earthtone wood siding with stone veneer is appropriate and that the massing of the building is appropriate. He recommended approval of the improvements for the lot 1 portion of the application. He said that there would be significant grading taken off site even after you account for the fill. He said that significant amount of soil export via trucks would occur. He said that it was his understanding that the applicant would like to perform the rough grading as part of the subdivision improvements that are currently under construction to occur this summer with home construction to occur sometime next year. He clarified that the resolution contains a "whereas" that should state that the variance is approved in part for the parallel walls necessary to construct the house and yard improvements and that it is approved in part to build the wall necessary for the water tank. The resolution denies the parking area improvements proposed for lot #2. Commissioner Roupe asked how much parking would be available on the drive apron? Director Walgren responded that the applicant would have three spaces within the garage and possibly another three in front of the garage door(s). The apron can be used for short term parking but that it is the fire district's position that the turn around be left unobstructed at all times. He said that staff discussed with the applicant the fact that staff could not support the variance for lot #2 but that applicant would not be precluded from submitting a revised proposal in the future that would be separated from this application consideration, working with the arborist to reduce the number of trees to be removed and bringing the grading to under 1,000 cubic yards. This would return to the planning commission as a site modification application. Commissioner Waltonsmith asked if the applicant gave consideration to siting the home in the meadow below the proposed pool area versus on top, requiring the removal of so many trees? Director Walgren said that staff has not discussed siting the home in the meadow but that staff has been primarily responding to this proposal. Commissioner Kurasch requested that staff explain the grading again because she did not see the 2,900 cubic yards identified by staff add up. She noted that staff has listed the total as 4,150 minus 850 for the basement area. This results in 3,300 cubic yards. She felt that excavation for the basement is grading. She requested that staff identify the changes /corrections to the staff report. PLANNING COMMISSIu,4 MINUTES JUNE 9, 1999 PAGE - 15 - Director Walgren clarified that the changes to the resolution would be the incorporation of the findings that he read into the record for the Cagan property: Finding 45 to read that the increased grading is necessary to reduce the prominence of the construction as viewed from surrounding views or from distant community views (reduce the home's prominence on the hillside); and Finding #6 to state that no building site shall be graded so as to create a flat visible pad surrounding the main residential structure. Staff does not feel that this is occurring in this case and felt that the grading is primarily cut to fit the home on the site. He noted that there is not an expanse of pad grades beyond what is necessary for the home with the exception of fill for the pool. He noted a typo in the staff report. He said that the staff report indicates a different slope number (29% average site slope) which is incorrect. He said that the maximum site slope that is possible to locate a building envelope is 30 %. He noted that the building envelope, in this case, is approximately 10 %. He said that the overall average site slope dictates how large the lot needs to be when the property is subdivided. The greater the average slope, the larger the lot has to be, noting that this has been predetermined at the subdivision level. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 9:13 p.m. Murray Woods, property owner, felt that his site is a special site and that it is a very beautiful and natural site, worthy of every effort that is put into the site to preserve and enhance it. He identified key members of his team Sylvia Spracus, consultant; Hugh Kennedy, project architect; and Danielle Machotka and Harold Kobayashi with the firm of Royston, Hanamoto, Alley & Abey. He said that he did his best to design a home that would be unobtrusive. The home has a very low profile and designed with the use of natural materials (i.e., stone and dark redwood) to reduce the visibility to individuals from far way. This is a difficult site to develop as there are only two fairly flat spots on both lots combined. The one relatively flat spot is at 10% grade and is located on lot 91 which will be the house site. He said that an old landslide exists in the meadow area where Commissioner Waltonsmith asked if consideration was given to locate the home. Relocation of the home to this area would result in a lot more cut and fill. The only other area identified as a house site is on lot #2 where he proposes to install a guest parking lot. He said that the fire district prohibits parking in front of the garage as this will be used as a turn around area. He said that the space behind the garage would not allow parking as it is also considered a turn around area. He said that the lower cul de sac is also part of a fire district turn around and therefore does not allow parking. He said that no parking is allowed along the entire driveway area. In addition, Peach Hill Road is only 18 feet wide, noting that a road would have to be 28 feet or wider before parking is allowed. Therefore, there is no parking allowed either on the site or within a reasonable vicinity for guest parking. He noted that the parking lot is over the grading limit and that it also exceeds the retaining wall height limit near the front setback. He said that he is withdrawing the proposal for the parking lot and that he plans to resubmit a new proposal that would have less than 1,000 cubic yards of grading in order to save the tree(s). He said that he would work with the arborist to save as many of the other trees as possible. Mr. Woods informed the Commission that the site is approximately 90% forest and approximately 10% meadow. He said that the meadow runs between the two development sites PLANNING COMMISSIuA MINUTES JUNE 9, 1999 PAGE - 16 - (between the parking lot and the house site). It is his goal to preserve the trees, the forest and the meadow. He said that the city arborist believes that development of the site would result in the removal or damage of 61 trees. His landscape architect believes that this number can be reduced to approximately 35 trees. He noted that he is being requested to plant $50,000 worth of trees to replace the trees that are to be removed or damaged. He said that it is his goal to try and save as many of the existing trees as possible and not significantly alter the site. He said that he did not want to fill up the meadow area with trees. He said that he plans to backfill the old path and that he would like the new driveway to have the aspect of a mature forest. He felt that some trees are needed in this area. He said that he would also install mature oak trees at the entryway to the home. However, he did not want to install $50,000 worth of trees if it would destroy the basic nature of the site. He said that the emergency generator's location will be moved to the arborist's satisfaction where it does not affect tree #21. He indicated that the generator would be enclosed in its own structure and that the generator would be fed by the natural gas of the home. Commissioner Page inquired as to the height of the crawl space? Director Walgren said that the enclosure for the generator would be included in the lot coverage and that it would be subject to the same retaining wall height/wall limits of five feet. If it is truly an enclosed structure, it would be limited to 12 feet in height similar to the height limits of accessory structures. Commissioner Kurasch said that in looking at the site, she said that she understood that due to the lot split, the property owner is obligated for the main access road. She said that the first application had a parking area, noting that it is proposed to have a parking area on lot #2. She asked if Mr. Woods is intending to use the two parcels as one lot? Mr. Woods responded that he is proposing to use both lots as one lot due to the fact that he would have isolation from the neighbors. He did not believe that the parking lot would be visible to anyone as it would be located where the only house site was approved on it. He said that should he ever sell lot #2, the parking lot would be removed and a home constructed on this approved building site. Danielle Machotka, landscape architect, informed the Commission that she spoke to Mr. Bench, the city's arborist and that she reviewed his recommendation about the trees that he felt would be affected by design. She said that Mr. Bench felt that there were no truly significant changes that would have to be made to save a significant number of trees. Moving of pathways and looking at the grading plans may work to mitigate the concerns relating to the trees. She addressed the issue of on site vegetation. She said that there were two primary issues - ecological and visual and that in both cases, you try to avoid a change in character. She looked at how you could plant trees on the site and yet maintain the character of the site both for habitat value and to maintain the visual character. She said that trees exist in clusters of 2 -4 and occasionally large clusters of 10 trees with space in between the clusters. Using this layout and trying to maintain the existing balance between woodland and meadow, it is proposed to plant as many trees in this area. Her firm came up with approximately $20,000 worth of trees that seemed reasonable to plant on the site and to achieve the city's and the applicant's goals of maintaining both the ecological and PLANNING COMMISSIV,.� MINUTES JUNE 9, 1999 PAGE - 17 - visual integrity of the site. Commissioner Roupe asked if there is flexibility in the dollar amount as specified by the city's arborist relating to the replacement value of trees or was this an absolute figure? Director Walgren responded that the arborist's comments are recommendation. He said that the arborist has determined that there is a much larger valuation of trees that could be impacted in addition to those that would be physically removed. He said that the city arborist came up with a much larger number of over $100,000 versus the $50,000 replacement value identified by staff in the staff report. As the applicant develops the application further and there is a reduction in the number of trees that could be impacted, the figure could go down. He said that the Planning Commission would be the one to make the ultimate decision on how much tree replacement is necessary or appropriate. He did not believe that the amount would be lower than the $50,000 suggested by staff. He understood that the recommended $50,000 is a large amount of money for replacement trees but that in terms of sheer tree numbers, according to the city arborist's tree evaluation chart, this would equate to 10 good specimens, four foot boxed native oak trees; seven 52" box trees; or three 72" box trees. Ms. Machotka said that it is proposed to install 15 gallon trees and 24" boxed trees as the site is wooded. She noted that 48" boxed trees are very large and would require a great deal of care, including irrigation and special installation techniques. The installation of 15 gallon and 24" boxed trees would insure a greater success rate overall. She said that she would agree to plant more trees but that they would be smaller in size to begin with. She said that there are approximately 31 trees to be removed versus the 61 trees indicated in the arborist's report without mitigations based on some of the design modifications. Director Walgren said that the replacement numbers can be revised if the plans are changed. The city arborist can review the design changes to determine if the valuation can be reduced. Commissioner Roupe recommended that the Commission accept the replacement value and that as the project moves forward and it is determined that the valuation number is reduced, the application can return to the Commission at a future date. Hugh Kennedy, project architect, addressed why the house is sited on the hill and not in the meadow. He said that the subdivision had the house sited on the hill. He studied the meadow area, noting that it is located down below and that this is a fairly steep area. When you cut into the meadow, you end up with narrow spaces along the hill. This was not a design that would be satisfying. He said that the current location for the house is on a fairly flat hill and meets all the standards of stepping the site of the excavation, yet achieve a 26 -foot height limitation. He said that the height of the crawl space under the living room is two feet. In response to Commissioner Waltonsmith's question, Director Walgren clarified that the retaining wall exceeds 10 feet at the swimming pool area and at the retaining wall behind the home. He said that this is the cumulative height of all of the parallel retaining walls, noting that PLANNING COMMISSIUA MINUTES JUNE 9, 1999 PAGE - 18 - parallel retaining walls are not suppose to exceed 10 feet. Mr. Kennedy informed the Commission that the reason that the retaining walls exceed 10 feet in height in certain areas is due to the fact that the hill is very steep and to go back 30 feet would result in the elimination of several trees. Commissioner Waltonsmith asked if thought was given to making the pool smaller? Mr. Kennedy said that the pool was not the major issue but that the issue was the parking area. He said that the use of a retaining wall exceeding 10 feet would minimize the impacts to the site as it would eliminate the need for multiple retaining walls versus the two retaining walls being proposed. Commissioner Waltonsmith said that if you have a smaller top that is flat, the project can fit within the 10 -foot retaining wall limit. She stated that she did not like external generators as they are extremely noisy. Mr. Kennedy said that an emergency generator provides some safety features for a remote site such as this one. He said that the generator is sized to handle a few basic elements to allow the owner to get out of the building in case of an emergency. He said that it does not run the entire house nor pool. Mr. Woods said that a 30- kilowatt gas generator is proposed and that setting the generator into the woods would help muffle the sound. As it is a gas - powered generator, he did not believe that it would be noisy. He said that measures can be taken to deaden the sound further (i.e., fully enclose the generator or pad the wall). Chairwoman Bernald asked if a natural gas generator is proposed, would it be possible to have a smaller generator as a 30- kilowatt generator is quite large. Mr. Woods responded that the physical outer dimension of the generator does not change based on the type of fuel used. Commissioner Kurasch asked what area would the proposed wrought iron fence enclose? Mr. Kennedy responded that the fence would enclose and secure the swimming pool area. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:58 p.m. In response to Commissioner Page's question, Director Walgren indicated that an ordinance has not been adopted that requires that parking be provided outside of the garage. The ordinance requires a two car, fully enclosed garage. Commissioner Roupe stated that he found the design to be compatible and that a significant effort has been made. It was his understanding that both the recommendation of staff and the applicant are such that there is no conflict on the issue of the parking lot and its associated retaining walls. He said that he would have had some serious reservations on this aspect of the application. Seeing that this is now off the table to be considered at a later date, he does not have PLANNING COMMISSIuN MINUTES JUNE 9, 1999 PAGE - 19 - any reservations other than the generator seems to be rather large. He felt that a 5- kilowatt generator would satisfy meeting emergency requirements as a 30- kilowatt generator could run a big house. Commissioner Patrick concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioner Roupe. She stated that she liked the design as it was well set into the hillside and that it would not be visible to the surrounding area. She noted that is set into the hillside. She concurred with the recommendation that the tree replacement be monitored by the city arborist's office. She expressed concern with the proposed generator as it will be quite noisy and would be audible to the neighbors. She stated that she could not support the approval of the generator and recommended that it be deleted from any recommendation subject to it returning with a lesser decibel level acceptable to the Commission. She did not believe that the size of the generator is the issue but that the issue is noise. Commissioner Page said that it was interesting to look at the design as it was minimal compared to a lot of other projects that the Commission has seen in the past. He said that at first, he was concerned with the total amount of cut. He said that staff has clarified his concern relating to grading of the basement area. He felt that some of the generator noise may be mitigated by natural vegetation. However, not having the specifications of the generator and not knowing the decibels, this should be an element that should be postponed. He stated his support of working with staff relating to the trees. He said that even if 34 trees are to be removed due to construction, it is 1/3 of the trees in the area. He stated his support of the project subject to the conditions he identified. Commissioner Waltonsmith concurred with the comments expressed by the Commission. She would agree to look at a parking lot that would fit with the trees and the hillside at a later date. She said that she has heard fired up generators and felt that the neighbors would complain. She recommended that the generator be removed from the application and that further consideration be given to the size /power of the generator. She said that she liked the design of the home as it fits in with the neighborhood. Commissioner Kurasch stated that she would not support the project as she felt that the grading is excessive and represents sizable impacts to the area. Knowing the topography, she felt that a lot of effort has been made to site the home. She said that she spoke to Director Walgren a few times about the problem of having the lot split with a design that is basically on one lot. She asked if there had been discussion about merging the lot. This would result in the entrance road which has a significant amount of the grading of 2,200 cubic yards being replaced with a smaller driveway. However, it was pointed out that because of the changes to the code, the 15,000 square feet of impervious coverage would be exceeded because the driveway would have to be included into the formula. She asked if it would be possible to reduce the driveway entrance, removing the cul de sac in order to mitigate the impacts? She felt that the grading was in excess of that permitted, noting that it would not be permitted for a lot split or development based on the codes in place today. She recommended that a friendly amendment be included that would PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 9, 1999 PAGE - 20 - stipulate that all construction activity is to be monitored by the project arborist or city arborist to oversee all measures. She said that the estimated tree replacement value of $137,000 is a value lost to the environment and recommended that this loss be mitigated. She recommended that the replacement value be left with staff and the city arborist. She said that other trees are in significant danger of later decline. She therefore recommended that language be added to the bond according to Municipal Code Section 14- 60.060 - Improvement Security. She recommended that the bond remain in force for a specified period of time as trees will decline many years following damage to them. She stated that she would concur with the city arborist's recommendation relating to the diversity in sizes and types of native trees as this would mitigate the fabric of what is being changed. She said that she would like to find a better solution to 4,000 cubic yards of grading. Commissioner Waltonsmith said that she understood that the grading was due to the two lots being a part of a larger development. Director Walgren said that the large grading amount was a result of the subdivision being approved in the early 1980s. The subdivision established the building site locations. The break down in grading for lot 1 is 1,500 cubic yards for the home but that approximately half of this was for the basement excavation. He said that 850 -cubic yards of grading is for the driveway and 1,250 cubic yards is for the driveway turn around, noting that these are the fire district's requirements. He said that the decision to grant tentative map approval in 1982 resulted in the need for the large grading quantities. Commissioner Kurasch said that if these two parcels were one lot, the grading would exceed the 15,000 square feet lot coverage because of the driveway. However, in view of much less cost to the applicant and much less grading, the variance probably would be in the best interest in terms of an environmental mitigation. She said that these lots will probably come up again and that it may be useful to think about something creative that could serve the applicant and the city. She noted that this is a hillside area and that every effort should be made to preserve the hillside. Chairwoman Bernald felt that staff has worked hard and long on this project and that staff tried to come up with the best possible solution given the situation. Regarding the driveway, she felt that an ultimate compromise has been achieved by allowing an 18 -foot drive versus a 26 or 14- foot driveway. This provides more protection for getting a fire engine up to the site and protecting the hillside, eliminating the cut fill that would be required for a standard 26 foot public access road. She concurred with the Commissions' comment about deleting the generator request from the application and having the applicant return with specifications so that it can or cannot be supported at a later date. She supported the monitoring of tree replacement and monitoring the activity by the city arborist. With the removal of the variance for lot #2 from the table, she could support the other two items before the Commission. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -98- 051 PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, INCLUDING THE TREE REPLACEMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 9, 1999 PAGE - 21 - ISSUES, GIVING STAFF AND THE CITY ARBORIST THE ABILITY TO DEAL WITH ANY OF THE MITIGATION ISSUES REGARDING THE TREE REPLACEMENT; DELETING THE GENERATOR REQUEST AT THIS TIME. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER KURASCH VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS PAGE /ROUPE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. UP -98 -018. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS PAGE /ROUPE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. V -98 -017, APPROVING PARALLEL WALLS WITHIN A 30 -FOOT RUN AND A 9 -FOOT WALL AROUND THE WATER TANK; AND DENIAL OF THE PARKING AREA WALLS. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT. DIRECTOR ITEMS Request for revision to a previously approved Site Modification application: SM -99 -001 - Jepsen, 21756 Congress Hall Lane Director Walgren presented the staff report and informed the Commission that the applicant is requesting to move the pool from a steeper slope along the side of the home and place it further down slope, directly in front of the home on a slightly more level location. He indicated that the grading quantities have changed slightly as there is also the inclusion of a pool cabana. However, the grading quantities are still under the 1,000 cubic yards permitted by the Hillside Zoning Ordinance. The pool cabana is under the height limit permitted, it is under the floor area and that it meets lot coverage and setback requirements. He reconnnended approval of the site modification application. He informed the Commission that the location of the pool improvements were approved based on the fact that it is down below the home that is hidden by a very significant, dense canopy of native trees and that it would not be visible from off site. Commissioners Patrick and Roupe indicated that they did not have a problem with the requested site modification request or staff s recommendation. Commissioner Page expressed concern that a fence exception was approved based on the previously approved swimming pool configuration. He stated that he would be supportive of the request with a condition that moves the fence to a point south/southeast to the current existing line on the south side as long as it is in a direction that does not impact the existing tree's root structure. Commissioner Waltonsmith concurred with Commissioner Page's recommendation of moving the fence and said that she could support the site modification request. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 9, 1999 PAGE - 22 - Commissioner Kurasch and Chairwoman Bernald concurred with Commissioner Page's recommendation. COMMISSIONERS PAGE /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE THE SITE MODIFICATION WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE FENCE BE ADJUSTED PER COMMISSIONER PAGE'S RECOMMENDATION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT. Director Walgren said that he would be redistributing the Measure G document, noting that the City Council adopted implementation measures. Director Walgren informed the Planning Commission that staff and the Commission will need to plan for its annual planning commission/staff retreat. He said that the retreat is usually held on a Friday (approximately six hours). He requested that the Commission give some thought as to what day this should be planned for and to give thought to topics of discussion. He recommended that city consultant's be invited to allow them to make a presentation to the Commission. He indicated that another part of the retreat is to develop goals for the upcoming year. Chairwoman Bernald recommended that a topic be discussion/information on generators. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Page said that he attended the second annual Santa Clara Planning Commissioners' workshop on Buildable Living Communities on May 3, 1999. He provided staff with information on upcoming workshops. He said that there were speakers in attendance at the seminar that did a great job of defining a mix of commercial and residential development and that the presentation gave a lot of food for thought. COMMUNICATIONS Written - City Council Minutes for Adjourned Regular Meeting of May 11 and Regular Meeting of May 19, 1999 Planning Commission Notices for Regular Meeting of June 23, 1999 Communication to Planning Commission from Saratoga citizens, dated May 21, 1999 Director Walgren said that the letter dated May 21 was addressed to the Planning Commission. He said that staff will look to see if the structure violates any zoning or building codes or whether PLANNING COMMISSlu,4 MINUTES JUNE 9, 1999 PAGE - 23 - there are any noise violations occurring on the property. No action is required by the Commission. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING There being no further business, Chairwoman Bernald adjourned the meeting at 10:20 p.m. to Wednesday, June 23, 1999, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, MAY 26, 1999 Civic Center, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairwoman Bernald called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Jackman, Kurasch, Page, Patrick, Waltonsmith and Chairwoman Bernald Absent: Commissioner Roupe Staff. Director Walgren Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - May 12, 1999 Minutes for the May 12, 199 Regular Meeting will be submitted for approval at the June 9, 1999 Regular Meeting. Oral Communications No comments were offered. Report of Posting Agenda Director Walgren stated that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 21, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet No corrections were noted. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. DR -98 -067 & F -98 -006 (517 -13 -012) - CAGAN, 15001 Bohlman Road; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new two -story 5,122 sq. ft. residence with a maximum height of 26 ft. on a vacant 2.4 acre (net) parcel in a Hillside Residential zoning district. A fence exception is also requested to enclose 13,000 sq. ft. The Design Review proposal was originally noticed for the April 14, 1999 Planning Commission public hearing, but was continued at the request of the applicant. (CONTINUED TO 6/9/99 AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- PLANNING COMMISSIk_�� MINUTES MAY 26, 1999 PAGE - 2 - COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/JACKMAN MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 1 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. DR -98 -034 (397 -03 -074) - GAUDREAU, 14510 Sobey Road; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 5,454 sq. ft., two -story residence with a maximum height of 26 ft. An existing 565 sq. ft. guest house is proposed to remain. Total buildings on site proposed would be 6,019 sq. ft. The parcel is 1.29 acres and is located in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 5/12/99). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report. He indicated that at the site visit, the Commission noted that the property is fairly steep and devoid of significant vegetation with the exception of a hand full of trees scattered on the property. He said that there is a slightly level plateau at the top of the property which is in front of an existing 500 square foot cottage. He said that staff worked with the applicants closely to get the driveway into a configuration that would meet the maximum slope gradients acceptable to the fire district. Staff informed the applicant that the architecture proposed was different from the majority of the homes in this area. He said that Sobey Road is characterized by the early ranch style, rural homes. Staff finds that this design is a contemporary design but that given the horizontal post and beam style of architecture, he felt that it lends itself to a hillside parcel. He said that the colors and material board notes the use of stone veneer at the base of the building with the use of medium earthtone colors and earthtone shake -style composition roofing materials. With the materials to be used, staff feels that the design review findings can be made relative to architectural compatibility. He said that staff does not believe that the home would unnecessarily obstruct neighbors' views or privacy. Therefore, he recommended approval of the project subject to the conditions contained in the resolution (i.e., redesign some of the exotic elements on the building and the requirement that the applicant work with staff and the fire district relating to the installation of a fire hydrant). Commissioner Kurasch requested a definition or that staff explain why the basement is not computed in the square footage as the basement appears to be partly exposed. Director Walgren stated that city code defines a basement based on the volume of the room enclosed on all sides by existing grade so that no more than two feet is exposed from the grade to the ceiling of the basement. If a room is entirely below grade and meets this definition, it does not count toward the building's square footage and that it does not count toward the building's height nor story limitation. He said that this design, as it steps down the hill, has a portion of the underfloor of the building that qualifies as a basement. The back part of the basement labeled "workshop" qualifies as a basement. However, as you move toward the daylight plane of the hill where the garage is exposed to the grade, the garage would not qualify as a basement. He said that staff met with the applicant's architect several times to rework the cross sections and design to ensure that the design meets the city's definition of a basement and that there is not a three -story overlap in the design. PLANNING COMMISSI ,�� MINUTES MAY 26, 1999 PAGE - 3 - Commissioner Jackman requested that the applicant explain what modifications have been made to the front entryway. Specifically, she wanted to know what the bulb elements were at the top of the columns. Commissioner Jackman requested to know why the driveway off of Singing Hill is going to be maintained other than for fire safety. She felt that since the accessory structure is to be a guest house, it seemed more likely that the access would be from the house to the guest cottage. Director Walgren said the applicant may want to maintain Singing Hill as a secondary access but deferred the question to the applicant. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. G'lush Dada, project architect, informed the Commission that she tried to meet all zoning and design guidelines as well as meeting her client's requirements. She said that she tried to use horizontal lines to compliment the slopes and that she created a flat roof design to reduce bulk and height. She addressed the entryway and noted that the staff report recommends reducing the entrance element. She informed the Commission that she used a parapet element to design a 1.25 entryway (porch). She said that the tower element is 17 feet behind the porch. As this is an up slope approach to the house, she did not believe that you would be able to see the windows. The windows would be used to create light for the entry hall. She requested that she be allowed to keep the entry porch as other homes in the area have higher entryways and that she did not believe that it was a tall element. She felt that the use of horizontal elements would blend well. If required to be changed, it would ruin the continuity of the design. She said that precast concrete spheres are proposed to emphasize the entrance. If this element is a problem, she would agree to eliminate it. Commissioner Waltonsmith asked why Ms. Dada designed a steep driveway versus the continued use of the existing driveway off of Singing Hill? Ms. Dada stated that the entrance to the home will be from Chester Avenue as this is the front of the house. Commissioner Waltonsmith expressed concern that additional impervious coverage is proposed with the construction of a new driveway on a steep slope with water draining down the street. She asked why the existing driveway could not be used? Ms. Dada said that the new driveway off of Chester was designed at the request of her client. She said that the existing fencing is proposed to be retained and that if it is necessary, additional fencing would be provided. Commissioner Kurasch asked if consideration was given to moving the cottage? She asked what were the needs of Ms. Dada's clients that triggered the concept of a new driveway? Ms. Dada responded that thought was given to siting the garage in the flattest area. Therefore, she created a court area in front of the house and that keeping more land for the driveway reduced slope grading. She said that the driveway would allow parking for social gatherings. Commissioner Kurasch requested that Ms. Dada explain what she has done to minimize the perception of bulk with a horizontal home design. She felt that an area above the garage gives PLANNING COMMISSIV,� MINUTES MAY 26, 1999 PAGE - 4 - the perception of a three -story home with the exposed lower area adjacent to the basement. Ms. Dada said that the drawings submitted to the Commission are two dimensional, technical drawings and that the drawings do not give a depth to the design. Dan Gaudreau, applicant, said that there were two reasons for the design of a new driveway: 1) access to the guest house and to provide another parking facility and 2) he wanted the front of the house to face toward the hill as it would give the house a better look to have the approach from Chester Avenue. He said that he wanted a full circular driveway but that it could not be designed to meet the criteria of the slopes and other city code requirements. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Commissioner Waltonsmith said that she appreciates the fact that the applicant is going to remodel the guest house so that it looks like it is a part of the house. She felt that this is a gorgeous design. However, she was not sure if the design was good for the property as the design appears to be quite bulky. She said that she did not like the idea of installing another driveway with this amount of impervious coverage. She recommended that the Singing Hill driveway be retained, eliminating the Chester Avenue driveway. She said that she would not vote for this project at this time. Conmissioner Kurasch said that this is an interesting design based on how it relates to this particular property. She expressed concern with being able to make the findings to support this type of design. She said that the perception of bulk is from other properties /individuals to the site and not that there would be a blockage of views. She did not believe that the perception of bulk has been minimized or addressed, understanding the severity of the slope. She recommended that the architect step the roof with the terrain, reducing some of the horizontal look. She said that the three story design troubles her. Contrary to what staff has stated, she did not believe that all of the area can be defined as a basement. In looking at some of the sections of the plans, she sees three stories with the use of a retaining wall. Although the finished grade is at the retaining wall, it drops from the existing grade and expressed concern that it would be visible. She said that she discussed with Director Walgren how the 26 -foot level is measured. She understood that the measurement is taken from natural grade, but that with the drop of grade, the overall cumulative affect would result in a large amount of bulk. Therefore, there may be a perception of a three -story home. She said that the two sections that are most troublesome are the ones fronting Chester and the left side elevation which would be the most visible from the surrounding properties. She felt that there are alternatives that can be made such as: using underground spaces to reduce bulk; terrace the building floor levels; minimize areas of maximum height; avoid large underfloor areas and exposed foundations; minimize grading; and minimize the amount of continuous concrete or paving. She said that this design represents the maximum allowable grade. She recommended that an alternative design be considered that is less impacting to a hillside lot. She supported a driveway entry or scaling back the large turn around as it is located in an area that has a severe slope. PLANNING COMMISSIL.q MINUTES MAY 26, 1999 PAGE - 5 - Director Walgren addressed the issue of design review and the three story perception. He referred to the left side building elevation and indicated that this elevation shows more of the volume spaces that are not solid walls that will provide shadow and depth to the elevation. He said that the elevation better illustrates that the roof steps down. He informed the Commission that the maximum permitted lot coverage in this district is 35 %. He noted that the applicant proposes less than 20% total site coverage. Commissioner Kurasch noted that this is a hillside property so it makes this number translate a little differently in reality. She agreed that the design is within the maximum allowable lot coverage. She stated that a part of the concern is the configuration of the driveway. Chairwoman Bernald asked if it would help if the Commission goes to a study session to allow the Commission the opportunity to view a three dimensional model to assist it in seeing how this design is going to work? Commissioner Page said that he liked what the architect has done and felt that the space was used well. He even liked the access from Chester Avenue and felt that once the landscaping is installed and the growth comes in, the house will look great. However, he expressed concern that this is an area that is prominent. He felt that a more classical approach to the existing homes should be pursued. He said that he would want to see a less modern approach used because people from the other hillside may not see this home in a positive light. He said that he could support the project but that he would want to see something done (i.e., entrance redesign, or cutting down some of the geometric shapes). Commissioner Jackman said that she likes the project. She noted that the house faces Chester Avenue and therefore the driveway has to come from Chester Avenue. She inquired as to the square footage of the gray house located across the street? Director Walgren responded that the approximate square footage is 5,500- 6,000, similar to the square footage of this home. Commissioner Jackman noted that the garage is located to the far left end and that it is the first story with a second story above it. At the other end of the home, where the lot goes up, if measured from the garage level to the top of the far right side, it looks like a two and a half story home when in actuality, there is never more than two stories in one spot. She did not believe that the basement presents a problem. She felt that the design could compliment the neighborhood and stated her support of the project. Commissioner Patrick stated that she liked the design of the home. She noted that this was a neighborhood of new homes. She felt that the trees to be planted would make a difference on a hillside that is devoid of planting. Because of the way that the driveway is to be configured and the uniqueness of the lot, she felt that it was a good idea to have two driveways. She felt that the neighbors on Singing Hill would cooperate to maintain the road. She stated that she would support the application subject to staffs recommendation, minimizing the entryway. PLANNING COMMISSIu.� MINUTES MAY 26, 1999 PAGE - 6 - Chairwoman Bernald stated that this is an exciting design. However, she has a problem with carports but that she understood the reason for a carport. She said that she would support a study session to see the dynamics of the entryway, to see if it fits and to see if it is not too over whelming (use of a three - dimensional mock up). She asked if it would help make the decision any easier if the Commission was to go into a study session or were some of the Commissioners not comfortable in supporting the project? Commissioner Kurasch said that she made her points very clear and that she did not believe that she needs to study the design any further. She said that she could not make the findings to support the project. Commissioner Page said that this is a diagram that is flattened out and that it does not show how the home actually looks. He felt that this flattened look tends to make the home look bigger and more grandiose than it might be. He felt that a study session may serve to include some of the elements that staff has talked about and to help the Commission get a better perspective of the design and how it would or would not fit into the neighborhood. Commissioner Kurasch stated that her concern was not so much of the design in the hillside but with the amount of impervious surface that is proposed next to the home. She said that there is an area of 50 feet in front of the house on two sides that will not accommodate screening. She said that she liked the side landscaping as it is effective. She did not agree that the front area will provide much screening of the driveway. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -98- 034 PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -2 WITH COMMISSIONERS KURASCH AND WALTONSMITH VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSENT. 3. DR -99 -007 & UP -99 -007 (397 -24 -007) - DUNCAN, 20211 La Paloma Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to allow the construction of a new 2,398 sq. ft., single -story residence and a detached garage of 482 sq. ft. Use Permit approval is requested to allow the detached garage to be located within a rear yard. (CONTINUED FROM 5/12/99). Commissioner Kurasch stepped down from discussion of item 3 due to a conflict of interest. She said that she is in a financial contractual and professional agreement with the next door neighbor. Director Walgren presented the staff report. He said that at the May 12, 1999 meeting, upon being presented with a letter of objection from an immediate adjacent neighbor to the variance, the applicant agreed to continue the item to redesign a project that meets the minimum six foot side yard setback requirement. He indicated that the variance is no longer a part of this application. He said that staff finds the design to be compatible with the older homes in the neighborhood. He said that the developers of the Spaich Hayfield Estate Subdivision, Pinn Brothers Construction, directly to the north of this property have submitted a letter attached to PLANNING COMMISSIu�� MINUTES MAY 26, 1999 PACIP -7 - the staff report discussing the detached garage's location directly under PG &E lines. He said that this situation has existed for many years and that the lines were probably installed following the construction of the building. Therefore, there were no utility easements recorded along the back of the property as you would normally have. After noting this concern, staff has included a condition that PG &E be consulted and that they agree /consent to the proposal before submittal of building permits. Pimi Brothers also expressed concern with the protection of a large eucalyptus tree located on the side property line. He said that the resolution contains conditions that the arborist has prepared that address this concern. He also indicated that staff received correspondence from the immediate adjacent neighbor to the east expressing concern with the protection of their cedar tree located in the front corner of the property next to the existing driveway. The neighbor is requesting that the tree's canopy be entirely fenced off to protect it during construction. He said that staff would defer this recommendation to the applicant to determine if this will work. It would need to be known if the applicant is willing to remove the rose garden to access the middle of the property over a curb line. An alternative would be to lay down heavy mulch between the two driveway strips and then place plywood on top of this. He said that a combination of mulch and plywood panels would allow vehicles to drive over and not further compact the root zone. He said that both street trees are to be replaced and stated that the arborist has noted that the larger tree has been structurally undermined as a result of sidewalk improvements and that it is a hazardous tree. It is being recommended that both trees be removed and that new street trees be planted. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 8:21 p.m. George Espinola, project architect, stated that he is prepared to accept the conditions as recommended by staff. He requested that he be allowed to build a 134" high garage as the recommended 12 foot height limit would affect the architectural compatibility with the main house. It would require him to use a roof pitch that would be flat in the back. He asked if the property owner would be required to provide replacement street trees or would the city be responsible for replacement trees? Director Walgren said that the property owner would be responsible for replacing the street trees with 24" boxed replacement trees. Mr. Espinola said that he would be opposed to constructing a fence in order to protect the neighbor's tree. He said that he would also be opposed to providing driveway access through the middle of the property. He said that he would like to explore the options which allows the continued use of the driveway for access during construction. Commissioner Patrick said that the Commission is in receipt of a letter from the adjacent resident that states that an agreement has been reached regarding the tree and that mulching /plywood would be utilized. Mr. Espinola deferred this question to the property owner. Commissioner Page asked how high would the interior be with a 134" garage? Mr. Espinola said that with a 134" peak would provide a little over an 8 -foot plate in order to install a 7 -foot door plus an acceptable header over the door. PLANNING COMMISSI ,,� MINUTES MAY 26, 1999 PAGE - 8 - Director Walgren informed the Commission that the neighbors to the east have expressed concern about the protection of the trees. He said that staff has copies of two letters from Meg Caldwell and Bob Williams, 20201 La Paloma Avenue. The first letter outlines their interest in protecting the trees, listing their three preferences. A second letter was received noting that they have worked out an agreement relating to protection of the trees. The letter also states that an agreement has been reached that stipulates that during demolition, when heavy equipment is on the property, the driveway access will not be used. Following demolition, mulch will be put down within the center strip and the edges of the driveway to ensure that the root zone is not compacted by construction vehicles. Low branches are to be tagged for visibility. COMMISSIONERS MOVED PAGE /PATRICK TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Commissioner Patrick said that she has no objection to the design. She stated that she did not see a need for a taller garage. She said that she was pleased that the neighbors came to an agreement regarding the trees and that she would recommend approval per staffs recommendation. Commissioner Jackman expressed concern with the recommendation to tag the branches. She said that she has visited the site several times and that she knew the previous owners well. She said that the site contains an outstanding tree. She has had experience with trucks knocking branches down and that she was afraid that tagging the trees would not help when a big truck is backing up. She felt that the tree is a big asset to the Duncans as well as the owner of the tree. She felt that it was important to install protective fencing around the tree, at least during the demolition stage and while heavy equipment is coming in and out of the site. She said that she could support the design because the applicant worked with the neighbors to move the side yard setback. Commissioner Page said that he liked the design as it fits extremely well with the neighborhood. He was pleased to see the way that the neighbors pulled together. He felt that it was great that an agreement has been worked out with Meg Caldwell and Bob Williams and that he was happy to support the agreement. He said that he understood some of the reasons addressed by the project architect for an increase in garage height but stated that he would support the garage at 12 feet. Commissioner Waltonsmith agreed that the design is quite nice and that it fits in with the neighborhood. She was glad to see that the applicant came to a negotiated conclusion with the neighbors as it makes it easier to approve the project. She did not believe that increasing the height of the garage to more than 12 feet was justified. Chairwoman Bernald felt that the plan is charming. She stated her support of keeping the garage height down per staff s recommendation. She felt that the Commission should support the agreed upon solution of the neighbors and not require fencing of the area. She noted that the neighbors have offered to do some work at their expense which means that they will be looking out for the tree to ensure that it is protected. She said that she could support the project and support the letter from Bob Williams and Meg Caldwell. PLANNING COMMISSIV.� MINUTES MAY 26, 1999 PAGE - 9 - COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. UP -99- 007 PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, INCLUDING THE LANGUAGE OF THE SECOND LETTER FROM MEG CALDWELL AND BOB WILLIAMS AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL. Director Walgren clarified that the motion would include installation of fencing during demolition. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -1 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER JACKMAN VOTING NO, COMMISSIONER KURASCH ABSTAINING AND COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -99- 007 PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER KURASCH ABSTAINING AND COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSENT. Commissioner Kurasch resumed her seat on the dias. 4. DR -98 -014 (503 -13 -059 & 503 -13 -122) - FOSTER, 22217 Mount Eden Road; :Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,507 sq. ft., two -story residence on this 2.25 acre vacant lot. The property is located in a Hillside Residential zoning district. In September 1998 the two assessor parcels were merged and the one adjacent to Mount Eden Road was annexed to the City of Saratoga. Director Walgren presented the staff report and stated that the project meets all minimum zoning ordinance requirements. He said that the project has been reviewed by the public works department for offsite improvements, the city's consulting geologist and city arborist, and the Saratoga fire district. He said that staff has worked with the applicant to achieve an architectural design that meets the city's design criteria for the hillside district and for this area in particular. Staff worked with the applicants in great lengths to achieve a driveway that meets the fire district's maximum permitted slope gradients. He said that staff feels that the design findings can be made to approve the project. He said that the neighbor to the southeast of the property expressed concern with the southern elevation containing a window and balcony element. Staff s review of the plans conclude that this is a decorative balcony versus a truly usable balcony. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 8:35 p.m. Daryl Fazekas, project architect, said that a split -level house that merges into the hillside is being proposed with a front setback of approximately 250 feet. He said that the highest point of the roof is located in the center of the house and that the height is less than 26 feet. He tried to cut bulk and mass by providing a one story roof element across the front of the house and having the second story roof element recessed. He adjusted the roof elements to different heights to provide variety. Also, the vegetation on site is to be protected and that it is proposed to plant native trees. He will be contacting the arborist to have him on site. He tried to create privacy on both the left PLANNING COMMISSIuN MINUTES MAY 26, 1999 PAGE - 10 - and right sides of the neighbors. He said that a 33 -foot side yard setback is proposed on the right side. He would agree to increase the setback to 37 feet. He felt that the traditional style matches the surrounding neighborhood and that the floor area is less than is allowed for a lot of this size. He noted that he tried to step the house back from the center to the left and right side to provide front and rear articulation. He stated that he would be willing to accept the Commission's recommendation relating to the Juliet balcony located on the right side. He indicated that he is proposing two, two car garages. He said that he originally proposed one wood burning fireplace and two gas fireplaces but that the owner may decide to change them to all gas burning fireplaces. The driveway is proposed to be looped based on the steepness of the hill. He said that the lower areas have a geological feature in the center. Therefore, he had to push the house uphill further than he wanted to. Paul Scola, 22301 Mt. Eden Road, adjacent neighbor on the down hill side of the subject property, stated that upon initial review of the plans, he had initial concerns as they relate to privacy. He said that his backyard, sideyard, porches and balconies face the proposed house. However, the house is high enough that it is not a direct view to his living area. He said that there is a window that may have been proposed in the family room that is no longer proposed. He indicated that he spoke with Ms. Foster who agreed to do some planting along the boundary line that would prevent a view straight down into his yard. He said that he was pleased with the location of the house on the property and stated his support of it. John Keenan, 22215 Mt. Eden Road, stated that he has been an area resident for 22 years with the closest neighbor being approximately 800 feet away. Now, someone is proposing a home approximately 30 feet away. He said that he too spoke with Ms. Foster who has agreed to eliminate the window and the balcony on the right side of the house. He informed the Commission that the driveway has been in place for at least 30 years. He said that the boundary has been a subject of question for the entire time that he has lived in his house and that the stakes have not been located. Therefore, the boundary question is somewhat in the air. He expressed concern with the drainage from a retaining wall behind the driveway. He said that the plans show a drainage swale between Ms. Foster's driveway and his. He spoke to Ms. Foster's geologist who has agreed to install a concrete swale to channel the water. He said that Ms. Foster has agreed to move the house to the left to address his concern of bulk and to lessen the impact to his property. Director Walgren clarified that one of the previous speakers mentioned that the applicants are willing to shift the home five feet to north, away from the Keenan property. Mr. Keenan said that it was his understanding that the house would be shifted greater than five feet. Kim Foster, applicant, confirmed that she spoke to both neighbors. She said that Mr. Scola agreed to a five -foot shift of the house to the left. However, Mr. Keenan would like to move the home further. She said that she would like to work with both neighbors to come up with an exact setback number agreeable to both. PLANNING COMMISSIVi• MINUTES - MAY 26, 1999 PAGE - 11 - Chairwoman Bernald asked if there were any restrictions associated with the lot that would not allow the house to be moved any more than five feet? Director Walgren said that several items will need to be checked such as driveway gradient, retaining wall heights, slopes, under building pads, and grading. He said that given the home's design, he felt that the home can be shifted more than five feet along the contours in a north direction. He said that a condition could be added to state that the house is to be relocated no less than five feet but in a position acceptable to both neighbors. Chairwoman Bernald noted that Mr. Keenan requested that both balcony and the window be removed. She asked how Ms. Foster felt about this request? Ms. Foster said that she agreed to the removal of the balcony but that she was not aware of the request to eliminate the window. If she is going to shift the home further, she could not look toward Mr. Keenan's property as she would be ftrrther away from Mr. Keenan's property. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Commissioner Page asked if it would be better to continue this item due to the many contingencies that have been raised by the neighbors in order to see a final product instead of adding conditions that may or may not be accurate. Director Walgren said that if it is just a matter of eliminating the balcony and shifting the home 5 -10 feet, he felt that the amendments would be relatively minor. He stated that the resolution of approval contains a condition that requires that a final landscape plan be developed. He said that this condition can be expanded to state: "increase landscaping on the south side." Commissioner Page said that it was great to see the neighbors working together. He felt that the home is nicely designed and that this is a neighborhood that is going through a lot of renovation. He said that he empathized with Mr. Keenan not having neighbors for a long time and now he will have neighbors. He said that one of the things that he looked at was the amount of cut and fill. He said that he can find that the additional grading is required to allow access to the home as there will be 60% cut and fill in the driveway to access the home and that there is only approximately 436 cubic yards of cut and fill relating to the home itself. He said that he could support the project subject to the conditions contained in the resolution, including the conditions that are yet to be determined. Commissioner Waltonsmith agreed with the comments as expressed by Commissioner Page. With a four -car garage 10 feet away from a neighbor, she felt that it would be nice to move the home away from the neighbor. Therefore, she would support the project and the changes identified above. Commissioner Patrick noted that both neighbors are trying to push the house from their home which leads her to believe that things are not agreed upon. She said that she could not support the project as the house is too much of a one story, non split level home, and appears as a square. PLANNING COMMISSIu,� MINUTES MAY 26, 1999 PAGE - 12 - She said that she understood the logistics of the grading for the driveway. However, she felt that the design needs to be reconfigured and that she could not support the application on this basis. Commissioner Jackman said that she has a lot of trouble with the driveway and understood that the applicant had to grade it for fire department access. However, she felt that this was a lot of extra cut and fill primarily for a driveway. She felt that there should be a configuration that does not require this much cut and fill to get to the top of the house and cover this much of the ground. She noted that 1,000 cubic yards is the maximum cut and fill allowed in hillside areas and that 196 cubic yard seems like a lot to go over when it is primarily in the driveway. She recommended that the project be redesigned. She also expressed concern with the mass and with the use of pinkish -beige tile and stucco paint. She felt that a yellow color would blend in better with the neighborhood. Therefore, she could not support the project at this time. Commissioner Kurasch stated that she likes the way the house is designed but that she also has a problem .fitting the house into the site. She recommended that consideration be given to a different configuration for the driveway or flipping the house, providing a greater setback away from the existing home. She expressed concern that residents come and go and that approval of the project, as designed and sited, may affect future residents. She understands that the Commission has to make all six findings to allow extra grading in hillside areas. She stated that she has a problem supporting additional grading of the site. She said that she would like to see simple natural material groupings discussed by staff that would blend in with the rural area be included in the landscape plans, including the use of native plantings. She felt that community views are important. She said that she has reservations about supporting this application. Chairwoman Bernald said that given the fact that there are two neighbors interested in the siting of the house, she recommended that the applicant have the land surveyed. She said that she would like to avoid this application returning to the Commission in the future because of problems. She said that she lilted the design as presented in the colored rendering that was included in the Commission's packet. She said that she did not care for the use of river rock and recommended that it be removed. She stated that she could support the project subject to the house being moved 5+ feet to the left. She recommended that the balcony be removed but that she did not see a reason to remove the window if the house is to be moved. She would support the inclusion of Mr. Keenan's condition relating to drainage. Regarding the driveway, the Commission saw an extensive driveway elsewhere during the site visit. Because the driveway was well landscaped, she did not believe that anyone would know that the driveway exists. She said that she is seeing a lot of cut and fill. However, given the configuration of the lot with the geological problem down below, the house has been sited where it needs to be sited. Therefore, she understood why the driveway is there. She said that staff has enumerated the six conditions and felt that the findings can be made. Therefore, she could support the project subject to the conditions she stated. COMMISSIONERS PAGE /WALTONSMITH MOVED APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR- PLANNING COMMISSIu.,� MINUTES MAY 26, 1999 PAGE - 13 - 98 -014 WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: ELIMINATION OF THE USE OF RIVER ROCK; THE HOUSE TO BE MOVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEIGHBORS, THE WINDOW BALCONY TO BE REMOVED, INSTALLATION OF A DRAINAGE SWALE AND THE OTHER CONDITIONS THAT THE NEIGHBORS AND THE OWNER HAVE DISCUSSED (I.E., PROPERTY TO BE SURVEYED; FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN TO INCLUDE NATURAL GROUPINGS OF IDENTIFIED NATIVE PLANT SPECIES). THE MOTION FAILED 3 -3 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: BERNALD, PAGE, WALTONSMITH; NOES: KURASCH, JACKMAN AND PATRICK; ABSENT: COMMISSIONER ROUPE. Director Walgren said that this item would automatically be scheduled for the Commission's June 9, 1999 . meeting at which time Commissioner Roupe would be present and will have reviewed the audio tapes, read the record and be prepared to vote and break the tie. He said that the other alternative would be that the applicant can accept the tie vote as a failed vote and appeal the denial to the City Council. 5. DR -99 -013 (366 -14 -059) - JIH, 12651 Arroyo de Arguello; Request for Design Review approval to add a 584 sq. ft. second story to an existing 3,415 sq. ft. residence. Maximum height is proposed to be 21 ft. The applicants are also proposing to add 163 sq. ft. to the existing first story. The total floor area proposed is 4,162 sq. ft. on an 18,381 sq. ft. (net) parcel located in an R -1- 15,000 zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report and informed the Commission that the parcel is constrained by its own configuration in terms of accommodating any other additions to the site once you deduct the front, rear and side yard setbacks. He said that there is little room in this flag lot for an addition at a first floor level. He said that at a site visit, staff tried to take a look at window orientations and how this 21 -foot tall building would affect neighboring views. Staff did not feel that the project would have any unnecessary impacts or obtrusive impacts on neighboring property owners. When dealing with a flag parcel, the impacts are always magnified by the fact that you have additional properties abutting it by the nature of being a flag parcel interior to a residential block. Upon advertising the project, staff received several letters from adjoining property owners expressing concern that the addition will block their views, will impose on privacy, or that the sheer size of the home is over development of this particular neighborhood. He said that the home will become more visible from the surrounding owners but that it would be difficult to state that it will unreasonably obstruct all existing views. Regarding the window orientation, he said that the windows on the second story that faces the adjoining property owners are stairway or hallway windows that can either be eliminated or obscured. Regarding the bay window, while it looks like a room window, he said that it is just a hallway window. The two habitable windows face the property owner to the east (the Whites), the front parcel abutting Arroyo Del Arguello. He said that these two windows cannot be altered. In terms of privacy, he recommended that the Commission give focus to the two, forward facing windows. He said that the City recently passed an ordinance that requires class A roofing throughout Saratoga. Therefore, this project proposes fire retardant roofing material. He said that because of the odd configuration of the parcel, the setbacks are not necessarily based on how PLANNING COMMISSIt, � MINUTES MAY 26, 1999 PAGE - 14 - the house is used. He informed the Commission that the front yard setback is measured from the south property line and the building is right at the minimum requirement. Because of the nature of the parcel, there is no defined rear yard. The sideyard setback are the two property lines coming out perpendicular to the front which terminate to the far northwest corner. The rear yard setback is a radius drawn from the furthest corner. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing. Thomas Liu, project architect, stated that he spent a lot of time analyzing the neighbors' views and the constraints associated with the very unique shape of the lot. He also took into consideration the location of the building based on the property's shape. He tired to minimize any impacts associated with the second story addition by setting back the wall, reducing the overall building height and reduced the pitch of the second story to 3.5 in order to lower the overall building height. He felt that the design addresses Mr. Dittrick's concern who resides across from the property owner's garage. He realized that a second story, if not sited in the right location, would somehow block views. He shifted the building to the right from the Dittrick's angle to create a corner next to the pine trees to provide them a view of the hillside. Regarding the concern of building mass and bulk, he said that this is a very small and minimal second story addition, noting that the second story addition is approximately 580 square feet with a first story addition of 160 square feet. He said that the first floor addition is designed to accommodate the stairs to access the second story addition. The second story addition will consist of two bedrooms and closets. Because of the privacy concern, he tried to locate the bedroom toward the backside so that the hallway serves as a visual buffer. In looking at the elevations, he tried to setback the second story from the garage in both directions in order to reduce mass and bulk. He said that due to the existing topography, the Knapps and Logothetis first floor level is almost to the second floor level of this project. By reducing the overall building height to 21 feet, it was his belief that if the neighbors stood at the ground floor deck area, the eye level will pass through the roof line. He reiterated that he tried to reduce the building's height to a very minimal level in order to address the neighbors' concerns. Donna Dittrick, 20834 Verde Moor Court, informed the Commission that she lives directly behind where the garage exists. She stated that she has lived in her home for 24 years and that at that time, a walnut orchard existed. She said that approximately 9 -10 year ago, most of the orchard was removed to be replaced with single story homes. She said that Mr. Jih has been a good neighbor. She informed the Commission that she spoke to Mr. Jih, after receiving the public notice, and that he said that he would like to be a good neighbor. She said that the Jihs have a 3.5 car garage and that due to the odd shape of the lot, the addition will oversee her backyard. She said that her rear yard consists of the family room and the kitchen, the rooms where her family does all of its living. She said that what she sees is the Jih's roof and the mountains. With the addition, her family's view is being compromised. She also expressed concern with the bay window and the two other windows proposed above the garage overlooking her backyard, impacting her family's privacy. She requested that the rural feel of Saratoga be maintained. She did not believe that a second story addition has a place in this block. She did PLANNING COMMISSIo,� MINUTES MAY 26, 1999 PAGE - 15 - not believe that the odd shaped lot should be an excuse for making the area an unenjoyable place for the neighbors to live. She also expressed concern with the future buyer of her house when she decides to sell it if a second story addition goes up. If the second story is moved to another location, it would still ruin her views. Director Walgren clarified that the right elevation windows would not necessarily be a privacy impact because they are hallway windows and that they could be eliminated. He did not believe that the windows were necessary for a habitable room with the exception of the front corner window. He recommended that the Commission focus on this window. Sharon White, 12649 Arroyo de Arguello, stated that she her home is located in front of the flat lot and sits parallel to this house. She said that the residents of this house have to pass the side of her home adjacent to her master bedroom window. Then they go around the back of her lot and do another turn to access their garage (an S access to the garage). She said that the Jib's home faces her backyard. She stated that she has a small lot and that she sees the Jih's home above her already. If a second story is to be added, it would be obtrusive to her property. She said that she did not want to deny the Jihs the house that they would like to have but felt that it would be unfair to take away the privacy that exists today. She said that if this addition is approved, construction vehicles would be using a driveway that is located 15 feet from her swimming pool. She said that this is a very odd, rectangular configured home and felt that the Jihs were adding a rectangular addition on top of an existing rectangular box. She did not believe that the addition would look nice from her view. The windows proposed at the upper end will look directly down to her yard, her family room, the master bedroom and her kitchen. Regarding the comment that the roof line is low by today's standard, she said that the existing home has a low ceiling and that she anticipated that the remodel would be low anyway. She stated that if she was in the market to purchase her home and saw that a two -story home was built behind it, she would not consider purchasing the home. Ron Knapp, 20885 Wordell Road, informed the Commission that he has been an area resident since before the subdivision was installed. He said that at the time the subdivision was installed, he appeared before the Plarming Commission to suggest that the odd configuration of this parcel did not allow this lot to be shoved to the back of the other three lots of the subdivision even though it met the one -third acre requirement. Despite his concerns, the subdivision was approved. He said that he would like to support the Jihs as they have been good neighbors. However, he has concerns with the property. He said that he is located higher to the west, and that in his case, the views of the hills would not be a problem nor would the Jihs be looking down his yard. Conversely, he would be looking right down the proposed bulky structure. He said that his property is situated such that his main view off of his deck and picture window are right over the current garage where the second story addition is planned. He said that the lot is jammed with a large 3,400 square foot house, a triple garage, a swimming pool, a pool house and a tremendous amount of driveway. He noted that the house is relatively close to the back property line, not meeting the rear yard requirements. He felt that a larger home would appear to be a terrible bulk and that a six - bedroom home with a guest bedroom is a bit much for the PLANNING COMMISSIVvJ MINUTES MAY 26, 1999 PAGE - 16 - constrained small lot. He stated his opposition to the second story addition. However, if the addition was moved to the other end of the house, a second story would not be an impediment because it would be away from his views and be located behind several large trees. He said that his problem was somewhat mitigated 25 years ago by the fact that he had three very large pine trees between him and this property. Since that time, one tree has died and has been removed and that the other two trees were leaning and have since been removed. He said that this is now a non tree barrier and that the fence level is below him. Therefore, there is no privacy afforded by a fence. He stated his opposition to the addition as proposed. Bob Herzberg, 20823 Verde Moor Court, informed the Commission that he lives across the street from the Dittricks. He addressed the Dittrick's concerns regarding the impact of this house on their views and privacy. He said that he spends many evenings in the Dittricks' backyard and that he has no doubt that this house will impact their views as you can clearly see the existing roofline. If the roofline moves up and back toward the Dittricks's, it will impact their views. He felt that a bay window and the other windows would be overlooking the yard and would impact the Dittricks' sense of privacy. Mr. Liu noted that the property contains heavy vegetation. Therefore, he did not believe that the Jihs would be able to look down into the backyard and driveway of the Whites who live on Arroyo de Arguello due to the tall trees and the fact that the second story is setback at least eight feet. COMMISSIONERS PAGE /WALTONSMITH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Commissioner Jackman stated that the Commission conducted a site visit yesterday. She expressed concern with the approval of a second story addition as the property is fairly well built out. Because of the configuration of the property, anything done to this lot will impact five neighbors rather than the customary two to three neighbors. When you look at the site plan, it lists the setback to the rear as 55 feet for the first story and 59 feet for the second story. At the site visit, she felt that the driveway where you turn into the garage, appeared shorter. Looking at the site plan, the 55 feet is measured from the corner of the garage and not the corner of the new structure. Therefore, she did not believe that this is a true reading. The other side of the garage shows 31 feet which she felt was a true reading. She felt that this distance is barely enough to turn into the driveway. She felt that the approval of a second story addition would impact neighbors too much. Even with a 21 foot instead of 26 foot tall building, she felt that there would be a lot of impact to the neighbors. Commissioner Patrick felt that the second story appears to be far enough away from everyone so that it is less of an impact than what the neighbors may believe that it will be. She agreed that the flag lot is a strange configuration but that she did not believe that if an individual purchased a strange configured lot that one would receive approval of variances due to the configuration of the lot. She noted that there is an incredible amount of vegetation installed by the neighbors to block the view of the driveway. She said that she could not approve the addition because she did PLANNING COMMISSIc.� MINUTES MAY 26, 1999 PAGE - 17 - not believe that the design is well integrated into the existing house as this appears to be a box on top of a box design. Commissioner Page felt that the applicant did a great job in keeping the height of the house down as this is a major concern. However, he felt that the addition is more of a tower element than anything else. He did not believe that the addition integrates well with the house. He felt that there may be alternative designs but that he was not sure if any of them would be acceptable because there will be serious impact to neighbors' privacy and views caused by the configuration of the lot and the placement of the home on it. Therefore, he could not support the addition and stated that he was not sure if there was much more than can be done to convince him that there is a configuration that would work on this lot. Commissioner Kurasch concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioner Page. She agreed that the second story addition did not integrate well with the house. She said that one of the neighbors had an interesting comment that the view of the direct line of sight and the desirable view was of concern. She said that she also respected the views of the neighbors or higher residences and the impacts that would be created. She wondered if there were other alternatives such as shifting the design toward the street or variance to setbacks to address the neighbors' concerns. She felt that the problem was the site's location. Commissioner Waltonsmith stated her concurrence with the comments as expressed by her fellow Commissioners. Therefore, she could not support the request. Chairwoman Bernald stated that she also agreed with the comments as expressed by her fellow Commissioners. She felt that this a box on box design. She felt that the Commission has seen other designs in the city where a second story addition has been setback to the back end of the house, resulting in an unobtrusive design. She felt that staff could cite examples where the neighbors (Dittricks and Whites) would not be aware that there is a second story. Given the small amount of space that is being requested, she felt that the Jihs can fit the addition running north/south in length rather than the east/west being proposed. She said that she could support a north/south redesign if the Jihs decided to return with this suggested design layout. She said that she could not support the design as presented. COMMISSIONERS PAGE /PATRICK MOVED TO DENY DR -99 -013. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSENT. 6. DR -98 -049 (517 -07 -013) - NOBLES, 20801 Pamela Way; Request for Design Review approval to add a 981 sq. ft. second story to an existing 1,734 sq. ft. single story residence. Maximum height is proposed to be 21.5 ft. The applicants are also proposing to add 10 sq. ft. to the existing first floor. Total floor area proposed is 2,725 sq. ft. on a 7,600 sq. ft. parcel located in an R -1 -10 000 zoning district. Director Walgren presented the staff report and indicated that the request meets all minimum PLANNING COMMISSR,1� MINUTES MAY 26, 1999 PAGE - 18 - zoning standards. He informed the Commission that staff has been in corresponding with the neighbor directly to the southwest of the property. He said that a letter from the neighbor, Mary Lynn Dutro, was distributed to the Commission this evening expressing concern about the potential privacy impacts of the two, upstairs master bedroom windows of the elevation facing her property. Ms. Dutro is requesting that the Planning Commission consider an alternate design to the windows to protect her privacy during the season when her deciduous trees have lost their leaves. He said that this is the only correspondence received to date on this project and that staff can recommend approval of this application by making all the necessary findings upon further consideration of the letter submitted by Ms. Duttro. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 9:35 p.m. Wayne Nobles, applicant, said that he bought a home that supports the needs of his young family. He felt that he has created a design that is perfect for the neighborhood and enhances the appeal of his home and the surrounding properties. He stated that he discussed Ms. Dutro's proposal. He said that unfortunately, with the type of windows she is suggesting, they would not be appropriate for the home. He noted that the window is centered on the lot and overlooks the center yard. He informed the Conunission that Ms. Dutro's lot is located 35 -40 feet from the windows. He furnished the Commission with photos that he took from his roof line, looking at the deciduous trees. Mary Lynn Dutro, 20825 Pamela Way, felt that the pictures taken by Mr. Nobles were well put together and that the pictures show the trees at their best. She felt that the Nobels did a nice job in placing a small home on a small lot and felt that it will be nice design when completed. She expressed concern that the windows would over look the side back yards. She said that there are three deciduous trees depicted in the photograph and that these trees provide screening part of the year. She said that the distance between the homes is not much, noting that driveway is located on the property line. She requested that the Commission make stipulations relating to the windows that address her future privacy needs and value of the home. Commissioner Patrick said that pictures show lovely vegetation of trees. She asked if Ms. Dutro has given consideration to planting non- deciduous trees? Ms. Dutro responded that she did not believe that there was space to plant additional landscaping. Mr. Nobles informed the Commission that he showed his plans to the other neighbor and that they have not expressed concerns. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Commissioner Page felt that this is a lovely addition to the home and that is in keeping with the neighborhood and the home. He said that the windows are of concern. However, he did not believe that the Nobels would be looking out the windows often. He said that he could support the project as presented and that he did not believe that there would be a view into the home as PLANNING COMMISSI- -.� MINUTES MAY 26, 1999 PAGE - 19 - the windows were nicely designed. Also, the angle would restrict views into Ms. Dutro's home. While there may be some backyard viewing, he did not believe that it would be a type of window that would be used for this kind of activity. Commissioner Kurasch agreed that this is a beautifully designed project that it would integrate well with the house, and that it will be a real asset. She recommended that something be done with the windows to address the privacy concern, (i.e., planting of tree(s) or some other kind of privacy protection). She recommended that the arborist's comments be incorporated as a condition. She wanted to emphasis the corrective measures to the rear twin valley oak which is strongly recommended by the arborist in order to protect the privacy of other neighbors. Commissioner Waltonsmith agreed with the comments as expressed by the Commission, stating that she liked the sensitive design. She stated that she would approve the request. Commissioner Jackman stated that she could support the application. She expressed some concern with the upstairs window but that she was not sure what can be done during the winter to change the view. She noted that there is a fence between the branches of the oak tree and that there were things that are not too healthy for the tree when the buttrices are exposed. She recommended that this be included as a condition. Commissioner Patrick concurred with the comments expressed by her fellow Commissioners and stated that she could approve the application. Chairwoman Bernald also concurred with the comments expressed and felt that this was a charming addition, one that is well integrated. It was her belief that due to the angle that the house sits on, it will make it impossible to see inside the home. She understood that there would be some privacy issues on the deck but that the impacts would not be great enough to turn down the application. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KURASCH MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR- 98 -049. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSENT. DIRECTOR ITEMS Cancellation of August 25 Meeting Director Walgren said that it is traditional to cancel the Planning Commission's second public hearing meeting in August to accommodate summer vacation schedules. IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION TO CANCEL ITS AUGUST 25, 1999 MEETING. PLANNING COMMISSIu,� MINUTES MAY 26, 1999 PAGE - 20 - Conflict of Interest Laws Handbook Director Walgren informed the Commission that he has received, through the city attorney's office, new Conflict of Interest Laws Handbooks, produced by League of Cities that he will be distributing this evening. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioners Waltonsmith and Kurasch requested that a joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting be scheduled as soon as possible. Director Walgren noted that the next joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting is scheduled for September 7, 1999. Chairwoman Bernald said that there are symphony tour signs being displayed throughout Saratoga stating that there is a showcase house in Saratoga. She asked if the use is in the city or in the county and whether the signs have been permitted? Director Walgren informed the Commission that it is a county property that is being advertised as being in Saratoga and that it is a home located outside the city's jurisdiction. Chairwoman Bernald indicated that she has received a request from KSAR staff to meet with the Commission so that they can demonstrate how the cameras and microphones work so that they are better integrated. She requested that the Commission meet a few minutes early prior to the next scheduled meeting. COMMUNICATIONS Written City Council Minutes for Regular Meetings of April 27 and May 5, 1999, and Special Meeting of May 4, 1999 Planning Commission Notices for Regular Meeting of June 9, 1999 - Notice of Preparation of Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration for Regular Meeting of June 23, 1999 Letter from Irene Jacobs, Staff Liaison to the Parks and Recreation Commission Director Walgren informed the Commission that the Parks and Recreation Commission and public works department are considering a custom restroom building design that would be more unique and that the new design would need to go out to bid. PLANNING COMMISSI(.w MINUTES MAY 26, 1999 PAGE - 21 - Commissioner Jaclunan stated that she read the Saratoga Village Plan and that it contained definite ideas that would affect Wildwood Park restrooms. She stated that she wanted to make sure that there was consistent Saratoga style in the restroom design. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING There being no further business, Chairwoman Bernald adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m. to Wednesday, June 9, 1999, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 1999 Civic Center, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting Chairwoman Bernald called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Jackman, Kurasch, Page, Patrick, Waltonsmith and Chairwoman Bernald Absent: Commissioner Roupe Staff: Director Walgren Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - April 28, 1999 On a motion by Commissioners Patrick/Page, the Commission approved the April 28, 1999 minutes with the following amendments: - Page 3, paragraph 2, line 1 amended to read: "Lisa Trexler, speaking for Mary Bogdanovich ... " - Page 11, paragraph 3, last sentence amended to read: "...She clarified that the property line which the house is g sitting too close to ... " - Page 13, paragraph 1, line 13, amended to read: "...being aware of them,. maximizing what can be done on the lot,, dater to complain that the home was sited in the wrong area ... " - Page 24, paragraph 3, replace with Commissioner Kaplan. The motion carried 3 -0 -3 with Commissioners Jackman, Kurasch, and Waltonsmith abstaining and Commissioner Roupe absent. Oral Communication Denise Levy, 12915 Regan Lane, stated that she just learned about the use permit approved for Starbucks and that she did not recall being notified that the use permit was to be discussed. She said that several area residents have been asking what else is going into the shopping center and when area residents are going to be notified of any other proposed uses? She inquired as to the parking and driving on neighborhood streets with Starbucks as she is almost getting hit on a daily basis pulling out of her driveway? Chairwoman Bernald referred Ms. Levy to staff as the shopping center issue is not an item that is scheduled before the Commission this evening. PLANNING COMMISSR -A MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 2 - Director Walgren indicated that to date, the only tenants proposed by the property manager are the two anchor tenants (Safeway and Longs) and now Starbucks. He stated that there has been some discussion regarding locating a real estate office in the independent building on pad B, noting that the use has not yet been approved. This use would not go through a public hearing because it is not a use that would require a conditional use permit. Other than the uses identified, Director Walgren stated that staff is not aware of any other proposed future tenants. Chris Hawks, 20390 Blauer Drive, adjacent resident to the Argonaut Shopping Center, stated that he was present at the last meeting when Starbucks was considered by the Planning Commission. He said that due to the format of the way things are addressed, the residents watched as a decision was made on Starbucks. Area residents are concerned that they have no voice and that they were not able to respond to comments made during the discussion after the public hearing was closed. He said that residents do not believe that Starbucks is the end of what is happening. It is believed that with the signal given by the Planting Commission at its last meeting and the direction given by staff to the developer, it is clear to area residents that whatever the owner wants they will get approved, no matter what it does to the neighbors. He felt that the approval of the outdoor sitting from the hours of 5:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. is incompatible with the enjoyment of area residents' property. He felt that the outdoor seating is an area that is zoned neighborhood cornnercial which should mean commercial zoning that is compatible with the neighbor that it is next to. He did not believe that this issue was addressed by any of the Commissioners. He stated that the neighbors feel insulted by the lack of consideration given to their concerns. He did not believe that the uses permitted in the neighborhood commercial zoning district have been addressed to the neighbors' satisfaction. He stated that the residents are still fundamentally outraged by what happened to the neighborhood and informed the Commission that any additional permits to be requested for this end of the center for additional fast foods will be opposed by the neighbors. Report of Posting Agenda Director Walgren declared that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 7, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet Director Walgren informed the Commission that Public Hearing Item #6 for Duncan, 20211 La Paloma Avenue, was initially continued from the Commission's April 28, 1999 meeting to tonight's meeting. The applicants have requested a further continuance to May 26, 1999 as they are working, at the request of the neighbors, to revise the plans so that the side yard setback encroachment is no longer necessary, thereby withdrawing the variance request. He recommended that this item be placed on the Consent Calendar to be voted on with the other two items on the Consent Calendar. Chairwoman Bernald noted that there is a director's item at the end of the agenda for application DR -97 -043, 18590 Avon Lane. She informed the public that it is not the Planning Commission's PLANNING COMMISSluLl MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 3 - custom to open public hearings for the items listed on the Director's Item. She informed the public that the Commission will be recognizing staff s memorandum and be responding to it and that the Commission will not be taking any public testimony on that item this evening. CONSENT CALENDAR COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO PLACE AGENDA ITEM 6 ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 (COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSENT). L DR -99 -022 (503 -09 -022) - SVOBODA, 22040 Mount Eden Road; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 1,432 sq. ft. detached "barn" with a maximum building height of 12 ft. The existing residence is 5,878 sq. ft. Total buildings on site proposed would be 7,310 sq. ft. The parcel is 5.02 acres and is located in a Hillside Residential district. (APPLICATION WITHDRAWN). 2. DR -98 -034 (397 -03 -074) - GAUDREAU, 14510 Sobey Road; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 5,450 sq. ft. two -story residence with a maximum height of 26 ft. An existing 565 sq. ft. guest house is proposed to remain. Total buildings on site proposed would be 6,015 sq. ft. The parcel is 1.29 acres and is located in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 5/26/99 AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. DR -99 -007, UP -99 -007 & V -99 -002 (397 -24 -007) - DUNCAN, 20211 La Paloma Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to allow the remodeling /construction of a new 2,396 sq. ft., single -story residence and a detached garage of 601 sq. ft. Use Permit approval is requested to allow the detached garage to be located within a rear yard. Variance approval is necessary to allow an exterior wall to remain only 2 feet, 6 inches from a side property line where a 6 foot side yard setback is required. (CONTINUED FROM 4/28/99 AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT; CONTINUED TO 5/26/99 AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT). COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 1, 2 AND 6 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 (COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSENT). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. V -98 -001.1 (503 -26 -028) - BAGNAS, 14005 Wildwood Way; Request for modification to an approved Variance for side and rear setbacks. The property is 3,572 sq. ft. and is located in an R -1- 10,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 4/28/99 FOR A RE- VOTE AFTER MOTION FOR APPROVAL FAILED ON VOTE OF 3 -3). PLANNING COMMIS SIk-,A.MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 4 - Director Walgren presented the staff report and indicted that at the April 28, 1999 meeting, the motion to approve failed on a 3 -3 vote. As such, the item is automatically continued to the next available meeting for a re -vote. He stated that a second tie vote this evening would be a denial of the variance request, resulting in the building to be demolished and reconstructed in the approved location. He said that staff is recommending approval of the modified variance request because the findings still apply. He stated that this parcel is a severely substandard parcel and the approved house is a reasonable use of the property, thus the basis of staffs original recommendation for the project. Staff also believes that the city bares some responsibility for this situation, acknowledging that the property owners bare the fullest extent of responsibility for verifying that the building is being built properly. However, there was a situation where the city's building inspector allowed the property owner to work at their own risk which led to the situation at this point. He did not believe that it was reasonable practice to allow a project to get this far along before stopping it and noting the discrepancies. He felt that if the application had been submitted in this configuration initially, the city could have made the same findings to approve the variance up front. Chairwoman Bernald asked if staff was stating that there were homes in this area that have setbacks less than five feet or whether these setbacks were common in some of the older neighborhoods? Director Walgren noted that the Duncan application scheduled to be considered this evening is an existing home built around the same era as the original homes in this subdivision which are two feet from the property line. This could be attributed to the fact that there were minimal or no setback requirements when the homes were first developed prior to the city incorporating. The City is dealing with lots that are, in some cases, 30 feet wide and in this case 40 feet wide in a zoning district where a new lot created would have to meet the minimum 85 foot standard. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. Marilyn Bagnas, applicant, requested Planning Commission approval of a variance to the required rear setback. She noted a correction to the staff report dated April 28, 1999. The staff report states that prior to a foundation permit, the applicant was required to submit a letter by a licensed engineer or land surveyor to certify the setbacks. She stated that the statement was false because she was not required to submit a letter from a land surveyor to certify the setbacks prior to a foundation permit. She referred to the building permit submitted as an exhibit that indicates that she was approved to pour foundation pending verification of setbacks and elevations. The report goes on to state that the building department contacted the applicant to inform them that the letter sent was not sufficient since it was not from a licensed engineer or land surveyor and that if the applicants proceeded, it would be at their own risk. She felt that this statement was erroneous and a misrepresentation of the truth. She said that no one told her that if she continued the project, it would be at her own risk from the beginning. She noted that she was approved until the second inspection on February 10, 1999. This inspection included the mechanical, underfloor, plumbing and electrical. At this point in time, the framing of the building was completed. It was at the February 10 date that she was told for the first time that a license surveyor's report was necessary. She agreed that there was confusion at the beginning when staff PLANNING COMMISSI�,A MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 5 - indicated that a letter needed to be presented. A letter to her meant a letter. The use of the word "surveyor" never came up until February 10, 1999. She said that it was emotional wrenching that the Commission had erroneous information that could not be corrected because the public hearing was closed. She asked why she was not told at the very beginning to stop the project if a land surveyor's report was a requirement? She acknowledged Director Walgren's statement that the building inspector made a mistake and not through a negligence on her part. She requested that the Commission consider the situation where she is at this time as it has presented her with a hardship. She requested that the variance modification be approved. Through the suggestion of the neighbors in the area, she circulated a petition in support of the variance request. She stated that her immediate neighbors signed the petition and submitted the petition as an exhibit. Emmanuel Bagnas, applicant, informed the Commission that the copy of the building permit submitted did not have the back side of the permit that indicates that the foundation was found to be acceptable pending verification of setbacks and elevation. He said that there was no mention that a surveyor's report was needed at that time. Commissioner Patrick asked if Mrs. Bagnas sought out the owner of the vacant parcel adjacent to her lot? Mrs. Bagnas responded that she did and that the property owner was present this evening. Everet Killian, 14395 Wildwood Way, adjacent property owner at the top of the hill, stated that he discussed this variance with several of the neighbors and indicated that none of the neighbors had a problem with the variance that he is aware of. He said that his house is setback less than four feet from his property line and that the neighbor across the street has a house sitting on the property line with the gutters hanging over the property line. He felt that the requested setbacks provide a lot of room compared to other building setbacks. Also, the house will be an asset to the Wildwood Way community. He said that he was looking forward to having the Bagnases as neighbors and requested that the Commission not take away their dreams. Norman Payne, licensed land surveyor, stated that he certified the foundation and elevation for the owners across the street. He verified that the home next to this one is on the property line. He said that once the Bagnases were notified on February 10, 1999 that they needed to retain the services of a licensed land surveyor, they tried to solicit two other surveyors to perform the work. It was indicated that their schedules were full and that they could not make it out to the site. He said that on March 27, 1999, he performed the survey and that on April 5, 1999, he sent a letter to the city with his findings. He recommended that the city look at its ordinance to include provisions for the building official to require that the property corners be set prior to the issuance of a building permit so that the inspectors can see the property lines and determine setbacks in order to prevent problems in the future. He said that this particular subdivision has lots created that are very small, and this is an unrecorded subdivision, and that every lot in the subdivision was transferred by title deed. Commissioner Waltonsmith stated that she understood Mr. Payne's comment that many homes do not need a licensed surveyor but that many homes are in the middle of a lot bigger piece of PLANNING COMMISSb- -�4 MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 6 - property. She asked Mr. Payne that if this had been his property, would he have secured the services of a land surveyor immediately? Mr. Payne responded that with his background and experience, he would have secured the services of a surveyor when he bought the property before the close of escrow. Claudette Ford, 14378 Springer Avenue, owner of the two adjoining vacant lots next to the Bagnases, stated her support of the side yard setback variance. She informed the Commission that she spoke with planning staff on Monday because she was concerned with the application. She was told by planning staff that the fence would be on the property line. Therefore, her setback would be the required six foot setback and that she would not be penalized. In response to Commissioner Patrick' question, she stated that she would not be seeking a setback variance on her lot because of the lot's irregular setbacks, should it be approved. COMMISSIONERS PAGE /PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 (COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSENT) Commissioner Page said that it was not the policy of the Planning Commission to endorse the creation of a home with a substandard lot and provide for a situation where a variance is created. However, due to the honest mistake made in this case and because of the extenuating circumstances of what he considers to be less than crystal clear communications, it was his belief that the Commission should approve the variance as stated, including a minimal penalty. As the applicant accepts full responsibility for the measurements and the fact that they came out incorrect, he felt that there should be some penalty involved. He stated that he could support the approval of the variance with the minimal penalty that the Commission has in the resolution before us. Commissioner Waltonsmith expressed concern with the variance. To use a fence post to determine property lines rather than having a surveyor find the property lines bothered her. She realizes that this is a small lot and that the applicants made an honest mistake. However, ignorance of the law does not mean that a property owner can come forward and request a variance. She said that the existing buildings that do not meet current codes were built before the adoption of city codes. She felt that the Commission needs to talk about buildings that must be built to code. She stated that she could not support the variance request. Commissioner Kurasch felt that both parties (applicant and the city) have taken responsibility. She agreed that this was an honest mistake. However, from ignorance or inexperience, the idea of the difference from a stop work order or proceed at your own risk should be made very clear. From the city's standpoint, they have made a correction and the sequence of these events will be prevented in the future. However, she felt that the situation was minor in the perspective of the entire variance. The first variance related to the size of the lot, noting that this variance is a very minor discrepancy. However, if this was a different circumstance such as a 10 -foot mistake or another mistake, there would be a different opinion. She stated her support of staff s recommendation to approve the variance. PLANNING COMMISSI�,A MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 7 - Commissioner Jackman stated her concurrence with Commissioner Page's comments in that this has been an unfortunate set of circumstances that got the issue to this stage. She said that at the site visit, it was noted that the property is a small, substandard lot. She did not believe that the applicants had a lot of choices and space to work with. She said that one of her major concerns was that of the adjacent vacant property, noting that the property owner was present and addressed the Commission regarding her support of the variance. She felt that the home would be a good addition to the neighborhood and stated that she would vote in support of the variance. Commissioner Patrick stated that she originally voted against the design. She voted against the request for the variance at the last meeting partly because she was concerned about the vacant lot. She said that the Commission oftentimes has individuals come in and state that the city granted the neighbors a variance and that they are being penalized because they want to build. She agreed that there was not a lot of room to maneuver on these lots. However, she felt that the applicants bought the property knowing this fact. She said that the Commission does not grant exceptions just because the property is a small lot and that if was known that it was a small lot when it was purchased. She stated that she was not convinced about the applicants' arguments about the letters, noting that a letter was written February 4, five days after the pouring of the foundation stating that they would accept all responsibility and accept the risk of what happens thereafter. She stated that she was not convinced that the applicants did not know at this point that there was a potential problem. She said that she also knows that this is an area in the city that lot line problems are endemic. She said that everyone that she knows in this area has to hire a surveyor to get their lot lines figured out and to have the lots surveyed properly so that they know where their homes are being placed. Also, the applicants are building a big investment and did not believe that individuals do this on a whim. She said that the applicants were in attendance at the Commission's meeting last summer when the design was approved. She stated that the applicants were aware of how much agonizing discussion went into where the home was to be sited. However, as Ms. Forbes has indicated that she will accept the responsibility for her vacant lot and not seek a variance because of where the home is being placed, she would be willing to accept staff s recommendation. Chairwoman Bernald stated her agreement with Commissioner Patrick until she spoke about Mrs. Forbes. She said that there were no guarantees in ownership in the city. She said that she was not saying that Ms. Forbes will sell the parcel. However, she felt that the Planning Commission needs to look to the future and see what is going to occur in the city and what the Commission wants for the city, including views. She agreed that this is a lovely neighborhood full of lovely neighbors who try to help each other out. Unfortunately, when applicants take a job without the help of a professional contractor or surveyor, the applicants assume responsibility for their actions. Unfortunately, the applicants did not take all the precautions that they should have. She felt that the city needs to abide by the setbacks. For this reason, she stated that she would uphold her previous vote and vote against the project. COMMISSIONERS PAGE /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. V -98- 001.1. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -2 WITH COMMISSIONER WALTONSMITH AND CHAIRWOMAN BERNALD VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSENT. PLANNING COMMISSI, -.4 MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 8 - Director Walgren stated that staff has immediately implemented procedures and that staff will require that verification of pad elevations and setbacks be in the inspectors hand, in writing from a licensed, qualified professional before the first inspection takes place. He said that staff discussed the situation at length with the building inspector about this particular situation. He noted that a $2,500 fine will need to be paid and has been incorporated in the resolution of approval. 4. DR -99 -004 (503 -26 -007) - JAFARI, 20860 4th Street; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 3,177 sq. ft., two -story residence with a 1,468 sq. ft. basement. The maximum height of the residence will be 21 feet, 4 inches. (CONTINUED FROM 4/28/99 AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT). Director Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that this item was originally scheduled for an April 28, 1999 public hearing and included a variance request for the second story portion of the building which did not meet entirely the setback requirement for the second story. Upon receiving the staff report and noting that staff was not in support of a variance, the applicants agreed to continue the item in order to redesign the project and to bring the height down, thereby reducing the side yard setback requirement and slightly insetting the upstairs walls to meet the setbacks. He informed the Commission that the application before it this evening does not require a variance and that the application meets all minimum zoning ordinance requirements. Staff finds that the design is architecturally compatible with the older homes in the area. He informed the Commission that the few remaining issues on this application are: 1) removal of approximately five trees on site. He said that three trees are located within the building envelop which is the only reasonable place to site the home on the property. These trees include a fan palm, a cyprus or cedar tree that is in mediocre condition, and a young coast live oak that is in very good condition. The arborist supports the removal of two of the trees but is recommending that the live oak be transplanted elsewhere on the site and be retained. The arborist also noted that there are three trees in the back that should be removed but do not need to be removed as a result of this application (i.e., pine and cedar trees). The drawback of removing the trees is that they provide a healthy level of screening between this property and the adjoining property. A benefit, however, is if the trees are removed at this point, the city can require that they be replaced with minimum 24 -inch or 36 -inch box replacement trees whereas if the trees decline and die on their own in the next year(s), the city will not have the opportunity to require this type of replanting. 2) Another issue is a letter from the adjoining property owner directly to the east of the property, noting their concerns with the variance request and the window orientation of the upstairs window looking onto their property. Staff had an opportunity to look at the window orientation more closely at the site visit yesterday afternoon. It was noted that the two back windows are proposed to be obscured and that it was his belief that if the forward facing windows (i.e., bathroom window) are also obscured or made translucent via the use of cut glass and perhaps some combination of the lower panel of obscured glass in the bedroom window allowing clear glass above, the privacy impacts can be mitigated. He recommended approval of the project with these conditions. As the resolution is currently written, it does allow the removal of the trees on the back property line and their replacement PLANNING COMMISSlu- A MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 9 - with large, fast - growing evergreen trees. Commissioner Waltonsmith asked staff what requirements are put into place to make sure that the trees grow versus taking care of the existing trees? Director Walgren responded that trees are required to be properly installed and that irrigation be provided. By the time someone goes through the expense of buying trees, installing the trees and irrigation system, staff finds that the trees are being maintained. He said that there is no leverage two to three years down the road to require the trees to be maintained versus having the existing trees maintain themselves. Commissioner Page said that Michael Bench recommended the transplant of tree #1 in the winter. He asked if it was too late to transplant the tree? Commissioner Kurasch stated that in order to transplant the tree in the winter, you would want to take advantage of a slower growing season, noting that there is greater stress in the summer or the hotter season. The requirement for water and keeping the tree alive will be much greater in the summer months. She said that she would defer this question to the arborist but that if it was recommended to transplant the tree in the winter, there has to be a good reason. She requested that staff address the findings for compatibility and to also address the privacy issue with the next door neighbors. Director Walgren said that staff made its findings relative to architectural compatibility based on the fact that a craftsman style design was used which utilized wood siding and that this architectural style /design is seen in the neighborhood homes. The home uses horizontal wood siding, colors and materials to match existing homes. The remainder of the findings has to do with protecting views. Staff did not find that the building unnecessarily or excessively obstructs views. With regard to the neighbor's concern that privacy is protected, the staff planner thought that the issue was resolved with the adjoining neighbor. He felt that the concern can be resolved with the use of cut glass and /or obscured glass to prevent the forward facing, habitable rooms from looking into the applicant's habitable rooms. Solar accessibility - the second story has been set back from the first floor so that you do not have a sheer vertical wall right at the setback line to obstruct the availability of sunlight. Protection of natural features - he noted that this is not a hillside parcel. The finding relates to the trees on site. If there were three healthy oak trees located in the building envelop, it would have been a more difficult proposal. In this case, there are two marginal trees and one young healthy coast live oak that appears can be retained in the landscape. Based on this analysis, staff felt that the findings can be made to approve the application. Chairwoman Bernald indicated that she received a speaker slip from Chuck Bommarito who wanted to speak on the Duncan project. It was her belief that the request to address the commission came in after it was announced that the application had been continued. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 8:35 p.m. Diane Jafari, applicant, informed the Commission that she purchased the parcel in August 1998 with the idea of building a new home on this parcel as her mother -in -law lives in the PLANNING COMMISSI`. -.J MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 10 - neighborhood. She said that she has been working closely with staff and followed their recommendation. She felt that the two story home is compatible with the neighborhood. She felt that the architect was careful to keep the mass in check. She said that the home was designed large enough for her family's need but that it was not overpowering. She stated that she would like to retain as many trees as possible. It was her understanding that the trees in the back were diseased and that this was a good time to take care of this. It was not that she was trying to get rid of the trees for any reason as she wants her privacy and that she wanted her neighbors to have their privacy. She noted that a few trees are being retained that were not mentioned. Regarding the small oak located in the building envelop, she said that she would do whatever is necessary. Commissioner Waltonsmith requested that Ms. Jafari address the circular staircase and the skylight at the top and how the heat is to be mitigated? Ms. Jafari stated that there is a house up the street that has a spiral staircase and that she was impressed with it. She decided to incorporate a spiral staircase. She also saw another spiral staircase design used in another neighborhood, off of Saratoga -Los Gatos that had the same design on the outside. As far as the heating goes, her architect did not indicate that there was going to be any particular problems. She indicated that there will be skylights throughout the house. Commissioner Waltonsmith referred to trees #10 and 411 and noted that it was indicted that their health was rated a number 2. She did not believe that the trees were diseased but that they are not great specimen trees. She stated that she was not supportive of cutting down trees. Mrs. Jafari said that the arborist indicated that the two trees to the rear of the property are in bad shape and that one of the trees is falling over the fence, growing sideways. She stated that she would prefer not to cut down trees but that the only reason she is cutting down trees is because they are located within the footprint of the home. Director Walgren informed the Commission that page 12 of the staff report has a more descriptive narrative summary of trees #9, #10 and #11. He said that tree #9 is the only tree that the arborist outright states is hazardous and should be removed. The arborist states that trees #10 and #11 have structural problems but are not as critical to be removed as tree #9. He informed the Commission that Ken Schultz spoke with him earlier in the meeting and indicated that he had to leave. Mr. Schultz stated his support of the removal of the trees as long as they are replaced with reasonably sized, fast - growing evergreen trees. He informed the Commission that he is the property owner opposite these trees. COMMISSIONERS PAGE /PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Commissioner Jackman stated that the Planning Commission conducted a site visit yesterday. She felt that the primary concern was bedroom number two that was looking over the adjacent neighbor. There was discussion regarding screening the view with trees and the use of opaque - type glass to mitigate the concern of views. With these improvements, she said that she would support the project. PLANNING COMMISSi,-,J MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 11 - Commissioner Patrick stated that she was not opposed to the request. She noted that a large house is proposed and that it was amazing how large a house you can design on a small lot. She felt that it was a good time to remove the marginal trees and install good, healthy trees in their place. Commissioner Page stated his support of the request and that his support would be enhanced if the Commission included a condition that would require the applicant to work with staff on the appropriate configuration of the windows. He said that he was not sure if the use of a half opaqued or obscured glass would work. He stated that he would like to include the removal of the marginal and poor specimen trees located in the back and that they be replaced with fast growing native or evergreen trees. Commissioner Kurasch stated that she has some reservations regarding this project. She appreciated staff s perspective and that she also tried to put this application into perspective. She said that she understood the compatibility issue. However, the issue for her in terms of compatibility is the style, size, height, and bulk of the building. She said that she is having a difficult time in seeing the compatibility of this house on a narrow lot where it imposes on the neighbor's privacy. She said that at the site visit, a neighbor indicated that the home would be over looking their backyard. It was her perception that this would be quite an imposition. She indicated that she revisited the neighborhood yesterday and counted the number of two story homes not to count the number of two story homes in the neighborhood but to study the compatibility of the entire neighborhood. She said that she found six, two -story homes in a two to three block area. She found that a lot of the new homes were also one -story with the style of this home. She felt that the style of this home was nice and well delineated. However, she has a problem with the size and the height of a two -story home in a very narrow lot. She noted that the upper level floors only offers a 10 -foot setback and that there is not much that can be done to escape this with such a narrow area. This is a part of the problem she was having in supporting the request. She felt that there may be other alternatives such as shifting the pad or modifying the design to lessen the problem of privacy. She offered the following modifications to the resolution of approval: Condition 3a to state: "The Arborist Report shall be incorporated, as a separate plan to the construction plan set, landscape plan set, and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans are to be applied." This modification is being made because the approval involves the transplanting of one of the oaks which is a good tree on the lot. This would address making the arborist report available to the landscape individuals and provide one more level of protection. She also recommended that condition 10 be modified to read: "...Replacement trees as recommended by the arborist shall be planted prior to a final inspection prior to release of bond." This modification will satisfy some questions relating to the maintenance of the trees after they are planted. She noted that it has been stated that tree #8, the Monterey Pine, is in fine condition. This tree may decline in health as so indicated by arborist. No one knows how long it will take before the bark beetle does further damage to the tree. She felt that it should be up to the applicant whether they want to remove this tree as it seems to be one of the better trees in the back area. Regarding tree #3 located next PLANNING COMMISSI,_A MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 12 - to the neighbor who is concerned with privacy is the one that bothers her. It was her belief that this is the tree that had pad roots cut by another construction process. This tree may have a problem with safety and root structure in the future. She said that she would not be opposed to moving this tree, noting that its removal is recommended by the arborist. Director Walgren clarified that tree #8 is proposed for removal. He stated that Commissioner Kurasch's recommended modifications can be incorporated into the resolution of approval. He provided a background of the subdivision and stated that this is an area that the city is seeing extensive redevelopment. There have been approximately 6 -8 new homes approved within this area over the past four to five years. These have been two story homes because of the nature of the narrow parcels. In general, these two story homes have been well supported by area residents. He said that these concerns were raised with the applicant early own and that they managed to design the building a few inches over 21 feet which for a two story building is very low. He noted that the typical height for a two -story home is 26 -30 feet tall, with a 26 -foot height limit in Saratoga. Commissioner Waltonsmith stated that she liked the design of the home and that it appears that the applicant worked with planning staff to build a home within the confines of the narrow lot. She expressed concern with the trees on site that provides privacy. She was not urging the applicant to retain the trees if everyone is saying that new trees will do better. However, she stated that she personally did not like cutting down trees unless they have to be. She agreed that tree #3, the Monterey Cyprus, looks like it is most at risk. She stated that she would approve the design of the home and the request before the Commission. Chairwoman Bernald stated that she could approve the design request. She felt that the applicant did a wonderful job designing a house that will be a tremendous addition to the neighborhood. She recommended that the applicant work with staff regarding the windows. She felt that this was a good opportunity to have the tilting tree in the back and the tree that is diseased with the beetle replaced. She said that she has been in a neighborhood that had a beetle infestation move from one tree to another. She felt that it would be better to remove the trees and replace them with healthy trees to have a nice balanced looking back yard with a nice landscape look to it. Director Walgren offered the following condition should the Commission wish to have some of the trees removed: "Replacement of trees to be a minimum of 24" boxed, fast growing evergreen screening trees. These trees are to be incorporated into a landscape plan prior to submittal of plan check. The arborist report is to be attached. The construction as well as any drawings are to be attached. The release of the bond is to be tied to the final of the project, the installation of trees and the transplanting of the trees." He offered the following recommendation relating to the windows: "The applicant to work with staff regarding the windows to ensure privacy." COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/BERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR- 99 -004, INCORPORATING THE MODIFICATIONS AS IDENTIFIED BY DIRECTOR WALGREN. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSENT. PLANNING COMMISSi,,4 MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 13 - 5. F -98 -005 & V -99 -004 (503 -75 -020) - HENRY, 21801 Congress Springs Lane; Request for Fence permit approval to enclose more than 4,000 square feet of a rear yard. Variance approval is also requested to allow a 6 foot tall fence to be located within the front yard setback. The site is 3.3 acres and is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 4/28/99 IN ORDER TO BE RE- NOTICED TO INCLUDE VARIANCE REQUEST). Director Walgren presented the staff report and informed the Commission that findings can be made to approve the fence exception request based on the fact that the fence is not visible off site. However, it is visible from the private Congress Springs Lane but that it is not visible from the greater public views from any public roads or public vistas. Regarding the variance request, staff did not find that there were special or extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property that does not apply to other properties in Saratoga. Therefore, staff was unable to make the findings to support the variance request. He recommended approval of the fence enclosure request and but did not recommend approval of the variance request. He recommended that the owners either set the fence 30 feet back from Congress Springs Lane or lower its height to no more than three feet. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing. Jim Henry, applicant, addressed the comment that the project commenced prior to filing an application. He said that he relied on bad advice of neighbors and friends of which he regrets and apologized to the Commission. At the time that the project was brought to the attention of the city by one of the neighbors on an adjacent parcel, he immediately stopped all work and indicated that no further work has taken place. He said that modifications were made to the fence line in order to respond to concerns of one neighbor on the adjacent parcel as well as to respond to the scenic easement on the top of the hillside property. Regarding the fence setback, he understands that there is a 35 -foot front setback requirement from the street. He noted that the property is located on a private road with four residences on the street. He informed the Commission that his is the first home on the street and that this side of his lot is the first visible section of the hillside. He views his lot as a side yard and not the front yard of the property. He said that the front yard of his property is landscaped and that the side yard of the property has no other practical or aesthetic use that he can find after consultation with the landscape architect. The area in question is the toe of an old, inactive slide. He stated that he plans to install three for four rows of grapes along the street side for aesthetic reasons so that the drive -up appeal is significantly enhanced, otherwise, the view would be the toe of a slide. A row of tall oleanders has been planted ten feet in front of the fence of a height that will cover and provide a nice landscaping of the fence which further decreases its visibility. The fence allows for some use, both aesthetically and erosion control of the property. He informed the Commission that he has discussed the plans with every adjacent neighbor, including the one that had the original comment on the property. He said that these neighbors are in support of the plans. He requested that the Conuilission consider the variance for the setback as well as approval staffs PLANNING COMMISSluN MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 14 - recommendation on the fence. Commissioner Waltonsmith asked Mr. Henry if he was going to install a vineyard or two to three rows of grapevines? She also asked how Mr. Henry would take care of the deer problem as deer can go over a six -foot fence? Mr. Henry clarified that the landscape plan calls for two distinct plantings of vines. As he did not have the landscape plans in front of him, he could not recite the number of rows or plants. However, he indicated that it is a substantial number of plants. It was his belief that four rows of grape vines would fit which would equate to 150 plants. Regarding the deer, he hoped that they would be slowed down by fence and the landscape planting in front of the fence. Commissioner Kurasch noted that in Mr. Henry's application, it was stated that a fence would protect the vineyard. She asked what is the fence suppose to protect? Mr. Henry responded that the request for fencing was to protect the vineyard primarily from deer. He did realize that deer can juunp a six -foot fence but that he hopes that the fence would slow the deer down and allow the vines to take root and survive. He noted that the property suffers from an onslaught of wild life as he is the last outpost between this area and Santa Cruz. Therefore, the fence is important to protect the plantings, including the landscaping inside the fenced area. Commissioner Jackman noted that it is proposed to enclose 31,000 square feet of area. It was mentioned that there would be the installation of four rows of grapes. She asked why the rest of the area is being enclosed? Mr. Henry said that there is to additional plantings of vines, more than four rows, behind the house in the upper hillside lot which is also a part of the enclosed area. He noted that this is the larger enclosed fenced area and that the entire property is on a hillside. He said it has been advised not to plant to the left side of the home because it is the toe of a slide. He said that he is not enclosing the top area because the fence would be visible from Pierce Road and the neighbors behind him. Anthony Davis, 21770 Congress Hill Lane, adjacent neighbor who complained when the fence went up, stated that he did not object to the installation of a fence. However, he has two concerns: 1) He would like to ensure that the fence is located on Mr. Henry's property and not on his property; and 2) requested that a requirement be added that would stipulate planting of ivy along the fence to mitigate the view of the long expanse of fencing. Regarding the six -foot fence, he said that as long as oleanders are planted, there should be no problem. He also observed that there are other houses in the development that have five -six foot fences at the front of the properties. Mr. Henry stated that the revision to the plans includes the scenic easement located at the top of the property, substantially reducing the amount of enclosed area. He brought the fence down to within 35 -50 feet of the upper property line. He felt that he would be far ahead of the request to make sure that the fence is within the property line as it is substantially within the property line as revised. This means that the existing fence line needs to be removed and brought into compliance with the easement. Regarding the second comment, he understood the request to PLANNING COMMISS1,_A MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 15 - plant ivy to screen the fence from an aesthetic stand point to have some planting of vines along the upper fence. He said that he would be willing to comply with this request. He indicated that he did not have a formal survey conducted of the property. He felt that there were enough obvious indicators of where the lot line is. He felt that the fence at the upper area and both sides are substantially within those boundaries. Regarding the side, a fence exists that marks the boundary of the neighbor's house to the left. On the other side, the lot drops off a sharp hillside and that there is no issue with the adjacent property owner located to the right of his property. COMMISSIONERS PAGE /WALTONSMITH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Commissioner Patrick stated that she detests big fences similar to this one and that she did not believe that big fences like this one are a good idea in general. She said that the Commission receives a lot of request for fencing of in hillside areas. However, she felt that the findings can be made in this case as the fence will not be visible from public streets or anyplace that she could locate. She stated that she was not willing to change the three -foot fence to a six -foot fence. She stated that she would support staff s recommendation. Commissioner Jackman stated that she would support staff s recommendation. She stated that she was still concerned with the amount of fencing proposed and with deer migration. Commissioner Page concurred with staffs recommendation. He said that the Commission has approved large expanses of fences and that they have been hidden by the topography, noting that this is not the case here. However, due to the private road and the fact that there are no other areas that would view the fence, he could approve the fence. He said that he would not support the six -foot fence height variance in the front setbacks. Commissioner Kurasch stated that she could not make the findings to support the request. She did not believe that this was an invisible fence as there is no topography or landscaping that is obscuring or buffering the fence. When you see the line of the fence, it stops at a certain point and will come down dividing the property and crossing in front of the hill that is seen. She felt that there will be a crisscross of fencing over the entire property, noting that this is a hillside residential zoning district. She felt that the standard is higher in this zoning district. The idea of protecting the vineyard is great and that she respects it. However, she noted that this is an area for migrating wildlife. She felt that fencing would only allow smaller animals to access the area. She felt that the area was being divided up more and more with fencing. She felt that the city needs its contiguous hillside areas, noting that a scenic easement exists on site. She did not agree with the statement that this is not a visible area from a public road. She said that she can see this lot every time she drives to Sandborn Park. When the fence is finished and the lot is subdivided, it will be a very jarring visual impact. Therefore, she stated that she could not support the application. Commissioner Waltonsmith stated that she was having trouble with this application. She concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioner Kurasch. She recommended that the PLANNING COMMISS1k N MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 16 - fence be pulled back so that there is some form of pathway. She stated that she also lives on a hillside lot and that she also experiences a tremendous deer problem. She said that individuals have obtained variances to enclose huge amounts of land, pushing the herds of deer onto smaller and smaller areas, one being her parcel. She stated that she could not support the request as she does not like enclosing large pieces of land with fences. She felt that the fence would be seen. She said that she measured the fence and that it was greater than six feet, noting that deer go over six foot high fences. She would hate to approve the six -foot fence only for the applicant to find out that it did not address his concern of keeping the deer out of the vineyard. Therefore, she could not support the request. Chairwoman Bernald stated that she supports the installation of some fencing. She recommended that the three foot fence start 10 -20 feet to the side of the house and than go straight up. Director Walgren noted that it would appear that there would be a 3 -3 vote on this item, resulting in a failed motion. Scheduling this item for the next commission meeting would still result in having the same six commissioners in attendance, resulting in another 3 -3 vote. He recommended that a modified, alternative motion be considered to approve the enclosure request per the form described by Chairwoman Bernald. Commissioner Jackman stated that she has had second thoughts on how she will be voting on this issue. It was her belief that enclosing the area would be objectionable and felt that it would be too large an area to enclose. Therefore, she would be voting against the applicant's request. Commissioner Kurasch stated that another reason that she is not supporting the application is due to the fact that the applicant is requesting to enclose an area that is eight times the exception and that the request is at odds with the General Plan open space for view and wildlife corridors. She felt that this was a unique area and that it is getting more and more divided up. She felt there was a legal aspect here called "investment backed expectations." She felt that every homeowner who bought into the area had the expectation from the legal limits that they would also be limited in their fencing and their expectation of changing. If the Commission approves one application, it may be an unfair expectation for others and would financially penalize them. Therefore, she opposed the request. Director Walgren informed the Commission that a typical lot size for the area is a two -acre minimum but that this goes up quickly based on the average slope of the property. Therefore, the normal lot size is 2 -5 acres. He said that the 3.3 acre is the minimum size for this parcel. Commissioner Jackman stated that she read the zoning text relating to hillside residential areas before tonight's meeting. She said that one of the primary goals of the initiative that was worked by quite a few people several years ago was to conserve the city's natural rural character by controlling density. She also assumed that the intent was to keep hillside areas in their natural state as much as possible. PLANNING COMMISSIk A MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 17 - COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/BERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. F -98- 005 AS MODIFIED BY CHAIRWOMAN BERNALD, ELIMINATING THE ENCLOSURE OF THE JOGGED OUT AREA (ENCLOSED AREA WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 20,000 SQUARE FEET INSTEAD OF 30,000 SQUARE FEET), INCLUDING THE PLANTING OF VINES ALONG THE FENCE TO HELP SOFTEN THE FENCE. THE MOTION CARRIED 4- 2 WITH COMMISSIONERS KURASCH AND WALTONSMITH VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/BERNALD MOVED TO DENY RESOLUTION NO. V -99- 004. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSENT. 7. SD -99 -005 (510 -01 -023) - RAMSDELL, 15081 Pepper Lane; Request for Tentative Map approval to create two lots of 36,919 sq. ft. and 25,813 sq. ft. The site is approximately 1.4 acres and is located within an R -1- 20,000 zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that the proposed lot split, as presented, meets all general and specific plan criteria for this particular part of Saratoga and it also meets all minimum zoning ordinance standards. The existing residence is proposed to be retained at this time. He indicated that the structure is not listed on the city's Heritage Resource Inventory but noting the age of the structure, staff had it reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC). The HPC has reviewed the map and has endorsed and has not raised any objections to it. The review before the Commission is only the lot split. When the house plan is developed for the vacant parcel, if the application is approved, it would be subject to current zoning ordinance procedural requirements. If a two -story home is proposed, it will come before the Commission. In instances where it is a single story structure not more than 18 feet in height, it may be processed as an administrative design review application but that neighbors would still be notified. He recommended approval of the application with the conditions contained in the tentative map resolution. Commissioner Waltonsmith noted that a new fence exists on the property, noting that the tentative map indicates that the fence is to be relocated following demolition of the existing house. She noted that in staff s presentation, it has been indicated that there is no plan to relocate the fence. Director Walgren said that when the city arborist reviewed this proposal, it was assumed that it included demolition of the existing residence but that this is not the proposal. The suggestions in the Arborist's report responded to the project as though the existing home was to be demolished and that there would be heavy equipment used on the adjoining property. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 9:35 p.m. Greg Howell, 125 Glenridge Avenue, Los Gatos, informed the Conunission that he was speaking PLANNING COMMISSI,,,.� MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 18 - on his behalf as well as his partner Tim McNeil. He said that he worked closely with staff to design a lot split that met all of the city's requirements. When he proposed the lot split, he spoke to staff regarding a two -story home versus a single story home. He was advised that if a single family home was designed, he would not have to go through the planning process again. There was some question as to whether this would happen or not. He said that he is far along with the design of the single story home and is close to being finished. If he has to come back before the Commission, he said that he may return with a two -story home. He said that the purpose for designing a single story home was to avoid returning to the Commission. Director Walgren stated that staff was not suggesting that the procedures be changed. He clarified that if an application is filed for a single story home under 18 feet in height and meets all of the zoning requirements, there is an administrative noticing process that would occur. The application would not come before the Commission as it would not be a full public hearing. However, it is a process that would take 10 days to two weeks to review at a staff level. Mr. Howell informed the Commission that the existing home is to remain. However, he is actively trying to sell it and that there are no plans to do any work to the home. A new homeowner may propose to demolish the home. Should he expand the home, he said that he would not propose to demolish it and that he would work with the existing structure. Maureen Lightbody, 15060 Park Drive, informed the Commission that her property is the second property from the Ramsdell property. She stated that she has lived in her home that was built in 1920s and that was of a similar design to that of the Ramsdell home for the past eleven years. She has been trying to restore the home as well as the property. She noted that a neighbor across the street lives in one of the original homes and that they too have been restoring the home. She said that Park Drive has a special character and that it is very rural. She felt that Park Drive has the special character that she likes to think of as Saratoga. She expressed concern that when Mrs. Ramsdell died, the property would be put up for sale. Within a short time of the sale of the Ramsdell property, the orchard next to her home was demolished. When the neighbors spoke to a gentleman on the Ramsdell property, they were told that a permit was obtained to remove the orchard trees and that the property had been subdivided. She noted that she received a public hearing notice that the property was to be subdivided. She said that a fence has been installed to divide the property. She informed the Commission that the neighbors are very disappointed with the actions taken by the new property owners. The neighbors are asking how did this happen. She stated that she would not like to see the demolition of the Ramsdell home or a new home built without public notification. She stated that she would want to see a home constructed that is in keeping with the neighborhood. She said that the neighbors want to be helpful and work as closely with the property owner. She requested that the Commission be aware and concerned with what is happening to the neighborhood. Director Walgren clarified that if any of the trees were larger than 10 inches in diameter, they would have required tree removal permits. He said that this is the first that he has heard that there was an orchard on site. He said that the site did contain a hollowed out native tree trunk PLANNING COMMISSIuN MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 19 - that had evidence of decay and damage which could have had a tree removal permit issued. Don Lightbody, 15060 Park Drive, commented on the process that has occurred to date on getting this property to the point of subdivision. He expressed concern that the property owner is a developer and not a resident and that they are more interested in getting the property ready to resale at any speed and at any cost, jumping the gun on some issues such as the installation of a fence prior to attaining subdivision approval. He asked if a permit was secured to install the fence and whether a permit was issued? He felt that the installation of a fence was suspect and that he was concerned about the quality of the home that will be built. He said that comment by the applicant that he wants to start construction of a new home as quickly as possible concerns him. He was not sure that the process has been followed especially in considering the concerns of the neighbors. He wanted to make sure that the property is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and that it is of a style and flavor that currently exist. He expressed concern with the process in getting this application approved and done without anyone knowing about it. Sandy Baker, 15069 Park Drive, stated that a measure was approved a few years back in order to control the density in Saratoga. She informed the Commission that this is a beautiful entrance into old Saratoga. She said that she had no idea that the Mrs. Ramsdell home would be quickly subdivided and that the character of the neighborhood would change. She stated that she felt it offensive that anyone would subdivide the parcel especially to make money. She also found it offense and upsetting that someone would bull doze the orchard. She also took offense to the fact that her street will now become more dense. She stated her opposition to the lot split as it would upset the poetry of the land that is slowly going away. She did not see a need to change the existing 1 acre parcel as it has already been changed. Commissioner Patrick inquired as to the size of Mrs. Baker's lot? Mrs. Baker responded that her lot is an existing half acre that she improved upon. Commissioner Waltonsmith recommended that Mrs. Backer provide staff with the pictures depicting the orchard that was removed. Commissioner Jackman informed Mrs. Backer that when she addressed density, she was referring to the hillside preservation act of hillside residential which is quite different from the zoning of this neighborhood. However, she understood Mrs. Backer's concerns. Mr. Howell stated that this is an emotional piece of property and that this is why he was drawn to it. It does not surprise him that there are neighbors that object to this request and stated that he understands and sympathizes with the neighbors' concerns. He said that he would like to work with the neighbors and address their concerns as he has a good reputation for working with neighbors. He said that he secured permits for everything done to the site. A licensed arborist recognized by the City of Saratoga was used to do all of the work. The fence was installed because he was going to sell the house conditioned upon the lot split being approved. The fence was not installed to rush this application through, but that it was designed to show people the proposed property line, subject to a lot split being approved this evening. He took the risk that if PLANNING COMMISSR,�• MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 20 - this application was not approved, he would tear down the fence at his cost. He assured the Commission that the Ramsdell home would not be torn down if he retains the lot as it is a beautiful old home, one that should be preserved. He said that he has asked his architect to coordinate the proposed new home with the existing old home as far as roof lines and designing a single story home. Regarding the growth on the property, he said that both neighbors immediately adjoining the property asked him if he would remove more of the growth. He did so at their request. Commissioner Kurasch asked if Mr. Howell gave any consideration to restoring the 1926 home? She also asked if it was Mr. Howell's intention to live in the proposed new home or was it his intent to sell the lot? Mr. Howell responded that it was his intent to sell the lot but as a builder, you never know when you may be moving into one of your projects. He said that he intends to sell the existing home. He is working with a builder who has the intention of working with the existing home, noting that an agreement has not been formalized. Commissioner Waltonsmith asked if the fence was built to code? Mr. Howell responded that he did everything within the rules that Saratoga placed upon him. Director Walgren in formed the Commission that the fence was not installed when the city initially received the application. However, the fence had been installed when the Commission conducted its site visit on Tuesday. He said that the fence meets the zoning ordinance requirements in terms of height and that it was designed not to exceed three feet in the front setback. The fence does not require a building permit, noting that the fence was built at the property owner's risk because the subdivision is an application that needs to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission before it becomes official. On the other hand, if the application is denied, there is nothing in the zoning ordinance that states that a fence could not be installed through the middle of the property. Therefore, the fence is not in violation of any codes. He noted that the action before the Conunission is the subdivision and not the fence. COMMISSIONERS JACKMAN /KURASCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Commissioner Page stated that there had been some discussion regarding Measure G related to this property. He said that he was not here when Measure G passed. It was his understanding that Measure G does not apply to this application because the code for the ordinance around this property is R1- 20,000. Director Walgren stated that Measure G was a hillside preservation initiative that was passed in the mid to late 1980s, prior to the city having a specific zoning ordinance for the hillside districts and that the initiative was a reaction to subdivisions like the Parker Ranch subdivision. The action resulted in the Hillside Specific Plan and the Hillside Residential Zoning Ordinance. It has specific criteria such as limiting fencing to no more than 4,000 square feet and limiting grading PLANNING COMMISSh A MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 21 - to no more than a certain number of cubic yards. He said that these regulations only apply to hillside residential districts. He stated that he was hoping that the applicant would respond to the question relating to the removal of the trees. He said that the applicant's statement was that he just removed brush from the property. He recommended that the applicant be asked what trees were removed when they cleared the property. BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSION AGREED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. Chairwoman Bernald reopened the public hearing at 9:56 p.m. Mr. Howell informed the Commission that the arborist report was made before the trees were removed and that the trees would be listed in the city's arborist report. He said that the orchard trees were removed on a Saturday and the police showed up. He indicated that the police checked the permits and allowed him to continue. He further indicated that an arborist was used that is listed on the city's arborist list and that he would not take down any trees that would jeopardize his firture with the City of Saratoga, nor would he. Director Walgren clarified that the city arborist's report shows the native trees that are currently retained on site and not the ones that have been removed. ON A MOTION BY COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/WALTONSMITH, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Waltonsmith expressed concern with the trees and their severe pruning. She wanted to know what happened to the trees that were removed. She stated that she was pleased to see that the home on parcel A is to be saved at this time and that she hoped that it would be restored. She felt that the lot split is acceptable and that she hoped that the remaining trees are carefully considered in terms of the home design. Therefore, she would support the request. Commissioner Kurasch stated that she did not know the history of the lot until tonight's presentation. She looked at this as an allowable subdivision, not really knowing anything else. She said that she could see that this is a very beautiful estate, one that had an orchard and a grace of the past which she still sees. She hoped that there is sincere effort to either restore, save, move the home, or some way acknowledge that the house has a value to the community. Having the fence installed, disappoints her. However, she could understand that the fence could provide clarity and has some logic as far as the placement of the lot line. With the loss of trees, she recommended that some conditions be worded strongly in terms of tree protection. She recommended the following modification to the recommended conditions of approval: Condition 5 to read: "Prior to Final Map approval and driveway demolition, tree protection measures are to be in place prior to any construction or grading permit issued..." Condition 7 amended to include language that would show the proposed location of the underground utilities and that they are to be reviewed /approved by the city arborist. Condition 14 to include landscape plans for any new home design to be reviewed by the city arborist and that all applicable PLANNING COMMISSI% .A MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 22 - recommendations relating to tree protection are to be incorporated. She noted that the site contains 36 ordinance size protected trees, many of them in exceptional health. She would like to note that protection does not end when the demolition ends or when the house is constructed. Therefore, she stated that she would like to have the city arborist review the landscape plans and have his recommendations of appropriate measures around the trees be incorporated. She did not believe that it would be of use to save the trees if they are going to die from irrigation, inappropriate planting or implementation. Director Walgren informed the Commission that the arborist would review the underground utilities when the house plans are submitted. He informed the Commission that the city's requirements would be that when a new house application submitted, the improvement plans as well as utility locations would have to be reviewed by the City arborist a second time. He said that Commissioner Kurasch's recommended modifications can be reemphasized in the resolution. Commissioner Kurasch clarified that she is requesting that at the final map or the subdivision level that her recommended items are included as conditions and that the protection measures would run with the approval granted this evening. Commissioner Page said that the zoning of the lot is such that the subdivision is acceptable to the City of Saratoga and the ordinances that the city has to live by. Therefore, he said that he could support the application. He strongly encouraged Mr. Howell and Mr. McNeil to work with the neighbors and that the applicants not hold a threat of a two -story home over anyone. He said that the processes are in place because it was. found that over time, they work. He recommended that they keep this neighborhood beautiful. Commissioner Patrick concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioner Page. Commissioner Jackman stated that she felt sorry for the neighbors. She said that she would like to see all the orchards stay in Saratoga. However, this parcel is zoned an R1- 20,000. She felt that it should be expected that when an elderly person dies and leaves a very large lot that it will probably be subdivided. She would support proceeding with the division of the lot per the recommended conditions contained in the resolution, eliminating the driveway that goes out to the park and Pepper Lane. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioner Page. She said that she would like to see that every measure is taken to protect the Ramsdell home as it currently exists and that the home that is to be built is compatible with the 1920s period architecture. She felt that it was important that the neighborhood is changed as little as possible. She said that she would hate to see the Ramsdell home demolished for the sake of putting in a much larger, newer home. Director Walgren stated that Chairwoman Bernald's comments can be emphasized as a condition of the tentative map resolution that the architecture needs to be compatible with the 1920 homes, PLANNING COMMISSh_.A MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 23 - including a strong recommendation of maintaining the character of the Ramsdell home. COMMISSIONERS PAGE /KURASCH MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. SD -99- 005 INCORPORATING COMMISSIONER KURASCH'S MODIFIED CONDITIONS, INCLUDING A CONDITION OF COMPATIBILITY AND CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING HOME AS EXPRESSED BY CHAIRWOMAN BERNALD. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSENT. 8. SD -98 -008 & DR -98 -052 (397 -13 -057) - NAGPAL, 19101 Via Tesoro Court; Request for Tentative Subdivision Map approval to create two parcels from one existing 2.46 acre parcel. The site is located in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. The existing residence, which is on the Heritage Resources Inventory, is proposed to remain. Applicant also requests Design Review approval for a single - fancily, two - story, 5,301 sq. ft. residence, with a maximum building height of 25 ft., 10 in. on the proposed 48,921 sq. ft. parcel. Director Walgren presented the staff report and stated that this application is more detailed than the planning commission would normally receive on a tentative parcel. He informed the Commission that staff recommended and encouraged the applicant to develop house plans to give the Planning Commission additional information to work with as this is an unusual and slightly difficult map request. He said that the tentative map, although the lot is irregular in configuration, does meet all general and specific plan criteria for this general plan designated area. It also meets all minimum zoning ordinance requirements and complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. What makes this application unusual is the fact that it has a very significant, historic adobe brick building presiding in the middle of the property and is listed in the city's historic registry. As a result of the significance of the property, the property owners have designed the subdivision to go around the existing home, allowing the lot split to occur and retain the historic home. This results in an unusual lot configuration. He informed the Commission that it first heard this proposal in 1995 and included a variance request. The Commission had a problem supporting the tentative map as a result of the variance and the configuration of the map at that time. The previous application resulted in an S -shape property line, putting the proposed new residence in the rear yard lawn area of the existing historic adobe building. The Planning Commission, at that time, had a difficult time visualizing a second home in the rear yard of the existing residence. The applicant has since reworked the map to move the proposed home outside the rear yard area up above the embankment where the existing driveway loops through the property. Director Walgren informed the Commission that following the advertising of this application, the adjoining property owners expressed concern with the proximity of the residence to their property as well as the fact that a vehicular driveway is proposed and are concern with head lamp glare with cars pulling in and backing out of the driveway. He said that the adjacent residents have submitted a letter that has been distributed to the Planning Commission. It was his belief that the author of the letter, Mr. Ratner, was present this evening who is prepared to read his points into the record. He noted that there are physical constraints associated with the lot. There PLANNING COMMISSI�,A MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 24 - may be an opportunity to take the garage element and shift it to the other side of the residence to address concerns. This would result in a significant redesign of the home but that this would be a potential alternative. He wanted to make it clear that shifting the home in its entirety to the north results in the same application reviewed previously and denied by the Platuiing Commission. He informed the Commission that there was one other issue that it needed to be made aware o£ There is an old pedestrian equestrian easement that wraps around the property on its frontage that was recorded as part of the overall subdivision. He said that either the pathway was never improved or that over the years, residences have encroached their yard improvements into the pathway. He said that the pathway does not exist in this development. He said that the Parks and Recreation Commission has reviewed this proposal and stated that they would like to see the pathway improved to an eight -foot pedestrian corridor which would require the construction of a very tall retaining wall in some areas. This would violate the city's retaining wall height limit and would require the removal of four or five healthy native oak trees. A compromise suggestion is to install a pedestrian pathway to the extent feasible without having to remove any of the ordinance protected oak trees or to do any significant grading or retaining wall construction. He said that this is the way the condition is drafted in the resolution. Chairwoman Bernald asked if there was an issue with moving the garage or any of the oak trees on site? Director Walgren stated that it was noted at the site visit yesterday that the building wraps around the valley, evergreen oak and that it does encroach somewhat into the tree's dripline, resulting in an impact to the tree. He stated that the arborist has noted that if the building can be built entirely on pier and grade, these impacts would be mitigated. Commissioner Kurasch stated that she did not see on the first page analysis the height limit allowed. Director Walgren indicated that the height limit allowed is 26 feet and that the home is proposed just a few inches under 26 feet. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 10:15 p.m. Virginia Fanelli, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. She said that serious consideration was given to the issues which the planning commission and the neighbors raised in 1959. The issues were preservation of the existing historic home, maintenance of the open atmosphere around the home, preservation of the trees and landscaping, and a new home design of the style and the size compatible with the existing neighborhood. She said that it has always been the intention if the Nagpals to retain the existing home, if possible, as they too appreciate its history and its style. In response to the 1995 issues, she said that the first step was to create a lot which contained the existing house and which was in conformity with all city's codes. This application eliminates the need for any variances now or in the future when it is necessary to repair the historic structure. The second issue was to preserve the atmosphere surrounding the home and to have the largest setback possible between the existing home and any home proposed. For this reason, the new lot is proposed to face onto Via Tesoro which allows for a 50 -foot rear yard setback plus the 20 feet side yard of the existing home. This leaves 70 feet in between the two homes /structures in which no other residential structure can be built in the PLANNING COMMISSI� -A MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 25 - future. This not only preserves most of the lawn area but also preserves the pool area and a portion of the existing trellis. The proposed lot configuration also makes it possible to build a new home without removing any of the existing vegetation or mature trees. She said that all of the trees along Chester Avenue will be saved and all of the vegetation and trees along the driveway will be preserved. Most important, the heavy vegetation located on the rise will remain in order to give the ambiance to the existing home. Lastly, the new.home needed to be of a size and design to complement the existing home and the surrounding neighborhood. She said that in June 1998, when very preliminary plans had been put together, the neighbors were invited to join her and the Nagpals to review the proposals and to provide input. It was the Nagpals desire to address all the neighbors' concerns prior to making any final plans or to submit an application. She met with the neighbors who responded to the letter. As a result, several significant changes were made to the plans. When the plans were completed, a home was placed and situated on the lot to save all of the trees and to eliminate any need for grading, using the existing mature landscaping to screen both the existing home and the neighbors' homes from the proposed new home. She felt that the style of the home compliments the existing home and those of the neighborhood in size and design. The same material, colors, and roof tile will be used in the new home. As far as size and massing goes, this is a 5,300 square foot home, including 421 square feet enclosed patio and approximately 560 square feet of garage. Approximately 75% of the home is one story. The use of the hexagonal design has given great articulation to the architecture. With the use of varied roof lines and the architectural articulations, it eliminates any massive look of the building. Mrs. Fanelli stated that following the revisions based on the neighborhood input, the application was submitted in October 1998. Since then, the plans have been reviewed by numerous individuals, agency and staff, including the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). The HPC voted unanimously in favor of the plans. She informed the Commission that recently, Mr. and Mrs. Nagpal again sent a letter to the neighbors inviting them to join in the review of the plans. There were no objections to any of the plans or the subdivision from any of the neighbors who agreed to meet with the applicants. The only objection received thus far has been from Mr. and Mrs. Ratner who reside next door. Contrary to the statement in their letter, they too were sent letters both in June and in April. Unfortunately, they did not respond to either of the letters. She said that the Ratners' greatest issue seems to be their privacy. She said that Mr. and Mrs. Nagpal took into consideration the placement of the home. It was important to them to make sure that the home did not impact the Ratners more than it needed to. The great constraint was all of the other elements of the site that needed to be recognized. She felt that the best thing that can be done to recognize the problem that the Ratners might face is to design a home that would have the least impact to them. There are no windows on the side of the home on the first level except for the nook which is located 105 feet away from the Ratners' home. She indicated that the windows are used to provide light. The only other windows located on this side of the home are the windows located in the master bedroom, noting that most of the windows, except for the upper portion, are blocked from the Ratners by the roof pitch. The Ratners' second story that faces this lot have only one small window in the upstairs. She noted that between the two homes, there is mature landscaping which completely blocks the first floor view. Mr. and Mrs. Nagpal have PLANNING COMMISSI�..� MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 26 - stated that they are willing to work with the Ratners to ensure that sufficient landscaping is installed and maintained along the driveway. The other issues that the Ratners raise if the driveway and its use. She said that the driveway is currently being used by the existing home. As a condition of approval, the driveway will be terminated and will only be used for the new home. Therefore, no more than one home will be using the driveway. In their letter, the Ratners states that they have built a stately home and that they do not want the value diminished by this application. She agreed that the Ratners have a stately home which stretches 20 foot setback on one side to 20 feet on the other side. At 7,897 square feet, she said that it was the largest home in the neighborhood where the average size home is 5,600 square feet. She felt that the intensity used by the Ratners is greater by far than what is proposed by the Nagpals. Harry Ratner, 19103 Via Tesoro Court, admitted to receiving a letter in June 1998 and losing it. He said that he called the planning department on a monthly basis to find out what was going on and that no one seemed to know anything. He said that he does not have a problem with the lot split but that he has a problem with a residence being sited 20 feet away from his home. The house faces his living quarters where he spends a substantial amount time. He said that his bedroom and his grandchild's bedroom, the swimming area and the lounging area in the backyard will have the privacy impacted. He noted that this is a 2.5 acre parcel. He asked why the home has to be placed right next to his home. He noted that there is no parking on Via Tesoro in the front of the home and that parking of cars would impact his privacy. He wanted the Nagpals to know that he would prefer that they move the home away from him and that the parking be reconfigured. He said that he would appeal the application if it is approved as submitted. Mark Fredkin, 99 Almaden Boulevard, San Jose, representing Mr. Ratner, stated that he was aware of the tradeoffs and conflicts associated with the review of land use applications having sat as a Planning Commissioner in a neighboring community. He said that the design review findings that the Commission has to make relates to the issue of height, elevation and the placement of the property so that it does not adversely impact the adjacent home. He did not believe that the Commission can make these finding in the present context. He said that he contacted Mrs. Fanelli in order to try and meet to discuss this application. He said that with the various schedule, they could not meet. He said that he intends to meet with Mrs. Fanelli, if given the opportunity. He said that a tradeoff has been created in order to provide value to the Nagpals, noting that a design was created that impacts the Ratners. If you look at the driveway configuration and you look at the front of the home, the front of the house faces the Ratners, where people will walk into the house. He noted that the front door is on the 20 -foot setback, impacting the Ratners. He said that no one is suggestion that a lot split should not occur. What is being suggested is that this lot split be done in a way that would allow economic benefits to the individuals looking to split the lot that there be equal consideration to the economic impact or consideration to the Ratners whose property is going to be impacted. He requested a continuance of the design review application so that he can work closely with the Nagpals, Mrs. Fanelli and their architect to work on something that may be mutually acceptable that would address alternatives to the location of the garage and siting the home away from the bedroom wing of the Ratners' residence. PLANNING COMMISSlu.q MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 27 - Mrs. Fanelli stated that she too was sorry that the Ratners did not respond in June as it would have saved a lot of time and effort in design. She said that the Nagpals intend to live in the new home as it will be a home designed to meet their fancily needs and so that their older parents can live down stairs in a separate bedroom area. This home is not being proposed to create value for a sale. She noted that the actual entrance to the house is 43 feet from the Ratners. She realizes that the driveway is located along the Ratners' sideyard, 20 feet from their house. However, it is not any different from the driveway currently being used by the Nagpals. She noted that most of the homes on the street are setback 20 feet from the side yard. Had the Ratners come to them earlier, it would have been easier to design the house. To move the garage now would result in the total redesign of the house, which would be expensive and time consuming. To move it further to the north is possible but would diminish what is trying to be done, leaving the ambiance and the landscaping to protect the existing home. Commissioner Kurasch asked if any thought was given to reconfiguring the driveway? Mrs. Fanelli responded that this is the third house design that has been prepared since June 1998 and since meeting with some of the neighbors. She said that redesign would be possible, however, she felt that there were trade -offs, noting that the footprint of the house will be kept small. It is not a home with a large number of rooms and therefore would not be occupied by a large number of individuals. She felt that it was a tastefully designed home. If the Commission directs the redesign of the home, a redesign will be submitted. However, it was her belief that the home meets all the criteria of the design review and the subdivision ordinance. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Commissioner Patrick stated that she would not support the application. She said that the city does not require a meet and confer between neighbors and the applicants. Therefore, this is an issue for her. She said that she would not support the lot split because the lot split could end up requiring a certain design which she did not believe would be a good idea. She agreed that the driveway needs to be modified. She felt that moving the new house as far as possible from the historic house to maximize its value would be of a benefit to the property owner. However, this cannot be done at the expense of the neighbors. She felt that the Ratners deserve a less intrusive alternative design. She felt that a study session would be appropriate in order to review different alternatives to what she knows is a difficult site. Commissioner Page agreed that the driveway is an impact. He felt that the position of the home is probably caused by the split of the lot and that the home /driveway impact the Ratners' privacy. He did not believe that the size of the Ratners' home is an issue and that it should not be discussed. In looking at the lot, he did not know how it could be split and not site a home where the home is proposed. He felt that additional work was needed. He supported a study session with the applicant coming back with a design that everyone can agree upon to ease the impact on the privacy issue. PLANNING COMMISSIuA MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 28 - Commissioner Kurasch agreed with the comments expressed by Cominissioners Patrick and Page as they address her main concerns (i.e., the driveway). She felt that moving the entrance of the home may mitigate the Ratners' concern. As designed and sited, the project would not work because of the impacts that it will impose on the Ratners. Commissioner Waltonsmith stated that she could not support the design of the house as presented. She wanted to make sure that this comes to a timely end for the applicant. She said that she understands that it is disturbing to have to go back to the drawing board. She said that she did not like the front of the house facing the side yard of another home. She agreed that the driveway has been in the area a long time but swinging it around and having more cement to accommodate a three -car garage would impact the tree. She stated that she was concerned about the tree being impacted with a cement pad. She wanted to make sure that when the design returns to the Commission that there is some way for the applicants to get some sense that the Commission is agreeing to the design. Regarding the pedestrian path and the horse path, she stated that she was very concerned with its downsizing. She would like to make sure that the horse path remains. She said that it was sad that Saratoga has few hiking paths and therefore, she did not want to lose these paths. She said that the home was nicely designed but that it was positioned oddly. Therefore, she could not support it. Commissioner Jackman supported going to a study session. She stated that she liked the design of the house. She understood that Mrs. Fanelli has given the Commission reasons why the home cannot be moved. She wondered if the architects and the individuals involved could study other alternatives (i.e., moving the home toward Chester Avenue) to see if they would lessen the impacts to the Ratners without destroying the environment. Chairwoman Bernald felt that there was a problem with moving the home toward Chester Avenue because there is quite a slope that drops from this point and begins to interfere with the yard. She stated that she agreed with everything that has been said. She said that the Commission needs to go a step hither. She felt that the Commission needs to take a futuristic look at this application and say that the Nagpals bought the one home. She noted that the existing house did not meet the needs of the Nagpals and that they are now building another home. She said that there may be changes requested in the firture if this house does not meet their needs and that the city would be left with two homes, one that should be protected forever because it is an extraordinary special jewel in Saratoga's crown. Secondly, the home that is being requested at this time is a slap in the face to the existing neighborhood. Therefore, she could not support the application. She said that she understood that the applicant has been through a lot and that she appreciates this fact. However, she could not make the findings that would allow putting this size house oriented toward the Ratners' home when all the other homes are oriented toward the street. There is a problem with the garage /driveway being so close to an existing neighborhood home. Also, there was language in place in 1959 that states that the city should preserve the atmosphere and openness around existing homes. She did not believe that this subdivision would protect this language. She said that she would not be supporting either the subdivision or the design review applications. She clarified that the way the house is sited, it PLANNING COMMISSluA MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 29 - makes the house run the length of the Ratners' property. She does not see how the house could be moved farther down on the lot because there is a tremendous drop off. This would then begin to infringe upon the back yard of the historic home. It also cuts into the trellis which provides a tremendous atmospheric ambiance. For these reasons, she was having trouble with the whole plan as presented this evening. Director Walgren stated that should the application be continued, he suggested a study session between the applicants and the neighbors. He felt that the Planning Commission has given clear direction as to what they would want to see in terms of improvement to the project. He felt that the applicants can work with the neighbors to make plan revisions, not to debate whether the plan revisions are necessary or not. These plan revisions can be brought back to the Commission at a later hearing, concluding the matter in that way. He clarified that it was the direction of the Commission to move the home to the north, protecting the rear yard of the existing historic home and to protect the oak tree (i.e., redesigning the entire home and taking the garage and flipping it to another side, orienting the front of the home toward the cul de sac). Commissioner Patrick clarified that she was not supporting either application. She said that she would not vote for the lot split because she felt that design was inappropriate and that she is not inclined to give site approval at this time. She said that she would not oppose a continuance if so requested. Commissioner Page felt that the applicants have been through a long process. However, if they are willing to extend the process a little longer in order to return with something that the Commission and the neighborhood would feel more compatible with, he would agree to a continuance. Commissioner Bernald stated that she was ready to go another step as this site has been reviewed several times. She would like to vote to deny the applications with prejudice. Director Walgren clarified that denial with prejudice would mean that a similar application could not be resubmitted for a period of one year versus turning around and resubmitting a revised application the next month. He noted that a negative vote on a tentative subdivision map needs to reference the specific findings that the commission has. He identified the following findings that can be made to deny the tentative map: 1) the site is not physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and 2) the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO DENY WITH PREJUDICE APPLICATION NO. SD -98 -008 BECAUSE THE APPLICATION DOES NOT MEET THE BURDEN OF PROOF FOR THE FINDINGS SUCH AS: THE PROPOSAL OF HIGH ELEVATION AND PLACEMENT ON THE SITE WHEN CONSIDERED IN REFERENCE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE COMMUNITY VIEW SHEDS WILL ADVERSELY IMPACT THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES; THE NATURAL LANDSCAPE WILL NOT BE PLANNING COMMISSI.,..� MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 30 - PRESERVED IN SO FAR AS BEING PRACTICAL; AND THE APPLICATION WILL NOT BE INTEGRATED INTO THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND WOULD NOT BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER JACKMAN VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO DENY WITH PREJUDICE APPLICATION DR -98 -052 BASED ON THE FINDINGS IDENTIFIED IN THE ABOVE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSENT. 9. DR -99 -009 (397 -24 -010) - PINN BROTHERS, 20040 Spaich Court (lot #5 of the Hayfield Estates subdivision); Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,670 sq. ft., two -story residence. The site is 60,157 sq. ft. and is located within an R -1- 20,000 zoning district. Commissioner Kurasch stepped down from discussion of this item. Director Walgren presented the staff report. He said that the project meets all subdivision restrictions and conditions of approval as well zoning ordinance requirements for this particular district. The architecture of the home was pre- approved at the subdivision level. Architectural exhibits were submitted as part of the vested tentative subdivision map which dictated the homes of a mix of craftsman or prairie style architecture using earth tone colors, materials, siding, brick and stone detailing. He said that the plans are consistent with what the planning commission reviewed at the tentative map stage. He recommended approval of the application with the conditions contained in the resolution. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing. Chuck Bommarito, representing Piaui Brothers, stated that he has reviewed the staff report and concurred with the staff report. He said that there was an issue in Barry Coate's report regarding tree damage down in the creek area. He said that since the report was distributed, he met with Mr. Coate and reviewed the installation of the storm system. He said that Mr. Coate came to the site after receiving the report and approved the installation. He clarified that there was no damage to the tree nor was a fine imposed. He furnished the Commission with a colored rendering. Commissioner Waltonsmith asked if the rendering depicted the picture of the home? Mr. Bommarito said that the colored rendering depicts the home and that the colors were in close proximity to the colors of the home. He provided the Commission with a color board. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Commissioner Jackman stated that the design of the house was compatible with that of the neighborhood. She said that she was not clear which trees are to be protected. PLANNING COMMISSI� � MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 31 - Director Walgren stated that the trees on the property are primarily located at the base of the property, adjacent to the creek. These trees would be protected with permanent chain link fencing. He said that there is one tree off to the side of the property which is outside of the building footprint and that it would also be protected with chain link fencing during construction. Commissioner Jackman felt that there was a lot of work with the planning of the whole neighborhood. She felt that the project meets all city regulations. Therefore, she would approve the application. Commissioner Patrick stated her concurrence with Commission Jackman's comments. Commissioner Page stated that he liked the prairie design and that he would support the project. Commissioner Waltonsmith stated that she liked the design of the home as it appears that a lot of work went into it. She expressed concern with the surveyed trees. She noted that a cyclone fence is in place but that page 0000011 of the staff report states that the canopy spreads far out over the cyclone fencing. This would mean that the roots extend beyond the cyclone fencing. She wanted to make sure that there is something in the record about extra protection of the trees located in the stream system. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioner Waltonsmith. She said that she wanted to see all the trees in the area protected. She hopes that as this is ongoing extensive project that the arborist will visit the site frequently and take note of anything that is amiss. She said that she has no problem with the design review as she felt that this would be another beautiful home, very compatible with the soon to be neighborhood. She stated that she would vote in support of the application. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -99 -000. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER KURASCH ABSTAINING AND COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSENT. Commissioner Kurasch resumed her seat on the dais. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS 10. AR -99 -008 (503 -31 -080) - KAABIPOUR, 13970 Albar Court; An appeal of the Coinintmity Development Director's decision to approve an administrative level design review application to add 198 sq. ft. to the first floor and 927 sq. ft. to the second floor of an existing 4,858 sq. ft., two -story residence. Director Walgren informed the Commission that this is an administrative application that staff reviewed. He said that administrative notices were sent out to all of the adjoining property PLANNING COMMISSIk,,J MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 32 - owners and that the adjoining property owners had ten days to review /comment. He said that there is an appeal process that can be appealed to the Planning Commission but that it cannot be further appealed to the City Council. He said that the staff planner reviewed the project and found that it met all of the zoning ordinance criteria. It has been noted by the neighbors who appealed the project that there are significant privacy impacts in that the house looks directly down onto their property and their rear yard area. The staff planner agreed with the applicant that this is a privacy problem that currently exists and that a benefit of approving this project could result in mitigation measures being taken to correct the privacy problem such as the planting of evergreen screening of large growing shrubs or trees. With this included as a condition of administrative approval, staff approved the project and the neighbors are appealing the approval to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kurasch requested that staff clarify the drainage problem and whether staff believes that this project will have an impact. Director Walgren did not believe that the drainage problem will not have an impact. He informed the Commission that there have been severe geotechnical problems in this area, noting that there was a major road failure that the city was responsible for repairing as it was a publicly accepted roadway. These improvements were to the up slope properties, partly being this property. It was his belief that the immediate area/landslide problem has been corrected. In response to Commissioner Jackman's question, Director Walgren said that he did not believe that the proposed addition would increase the geotechnical problems. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 11:02 p.m. Atul Sheth, 13946 Damon, appellant, stated that he was pleased to see that the Commission was sensitive to privacy issues. He said that he is the father of two teenage girls. He provided the Commission with photographs that depict his concerns. He said that this home is at a higher level than his home and that the second floor of his home is the first floor of his building. He said that a photograph shows the adjacent home's chimney from his bedroom window. He said that there will be 18 windows looking into his bedroom, causing a privacy problem. He said that he has no objection of his neighbor building a house but that he did not want the home to be built at the cost of his privacy. He said that approximately six months to a year ago, someone focused a laser beam through the window at his teenage daughter. If the Commission allows this project to be built and he cannot maintain his privacy, he asked what good is a million- dollar home to him. He requested that the Commission take into consideration his concerns. When he first looked at this application, he was informed by staff that the application would be approved regardless of his objection. He was told his course of action would be to appeal the administrative approval. Mrs. Sheth, 13946 Damon, stated that she made a phone call to the neighbor who acknowledged that a laser beam was being focused on her daughter and that the action stopped. Commissioner Page asked Mr. Sheth if he felt that the trees would be appropriate screening to PLANNING COMMISSlu-N MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 33 - give back the privacy that is not afforded today? Mr. Sheth responded that a solution would be to eliminate the windows facing his bedroom. He felt that the installation of trees would help but that they would not be sufficient to address his privacy concern. If there are no windows facing his home, he would not have an objection to a two -story home as long as his privacy is maintained. Chairwoman Bernald noted that there are windows already facing his home. She asked what Mr. Sheth would propose for the existing window? Mr. Sheth clarified that the windows are not in place at this time. Abe Kaabipour, property owner, informed the Commission that when he was notified by the Sheths about the laser beam, he immediately took it away from his 12 year -old son. He indicated that at the site visit yesterday and through photographs, he showed the Commission that the Sheths have 20 windows looking down into an adjacent neighbor's house and that the neighbor installed trees to address the privacy issue. He said that the Sheths' privacy is just as important as his privacy is to him. He said that he is not interested in looking into the Sheths' house. He said that he would be willing to install any kind of trees to address their privacy concerns. He informed the Commission that he tried to communicate with Mr. Sheth but that the phone calls were not responded to. Mr. Sheth stated that he moved into his home two years ago and purchased an existing two story home. Also, the trees had been planted by his adjacent neighbor prior to his moving into his home. When the public notice came to him that Dr. Kaabipour was building a home, he had a heart attack and was hospitalized. He said that none of the messages left were forwarded to him during his illness. When Dr. Kaabipour contacted his wife, she advised him of his heart attack and that they could not respond at that time. Dr. Kaabipour informed his wife that the house was going to be built with or without their permission and that it appeared as a threat. His wife informed Dr. Kaabipour that they would be happy to work with them. She also advised Dr. Kaabipour that she had no objection to a second story addition as long as did not impact her family's privacy. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Commissioner Kurasch felt that this was a neighbor problem based on the height of the home and the nature of how the homes are situated. However, with the small addition she was not sure how many windows could be changed or how practical it would be. The idea of adding landscaping was a good suggestion. She recommended that the two parties get together so that they can come up with an agreeable plan or to come up with something that would be amenable to both parties. As the house already exists, she did not see the impact as being greater. Commissioner Waltonsmith stated that she would support the project. However, she was concerned with Dr. Sheth's privacy for his young teenage daughters. She recommended that both parties start thinking about landscaping that would provide some privacy. She said that she PLANNING COMMISSI�_A MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 34 - could not vote against someone's addition when the addition fits within the design of the existing house. Commissioner Jackman stated that she could understand Dr. Sheth's privacy point of view. She said that she was surprised that Dr. Sheth had not already installed some of the landscaping to ensure more privacy. She recommended that stakes be used to identify how high a tree would need to be to ensure privacy for both parties, using evergreen trees that would ensure privacy all year round. She said that she would vote to deny the appeal. Commissioner Patrick stated that she appreciated Dr. Sheth's concern for privacy. However, in reviewing the pictures submitted, she said that she could not see through the windows from Dr. Sheth's house to Dr. Kaabipour's home and vice - versa. She did not see that the addition would increase or decrease any of the issues. She recommended that Dr. Sheth install trees, landscaping or fencing in order to preserve what Dr. Sheth feels is appropriate for his family and not necessarily rely on a neighbor to do so. She stated that she would be voting to deny the appeal. Commissioner Page stated that he also has two young daughters and that he understood the need for privacy. He said that he viewed the pictures provided and visualized the views that would be from Dr. Sheth's house. He felt that staff s condition relating to the installation of trees would provide the proper screening. He requested that staff ensure that the trees to be planted are fast growing, full canopy specimens and that they are of a height that are considerable. He stated that he also would deny the appeal. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with all the comments expressed this evening. She said that she owned a home in which a very small house was built behind hers. All of a sudden, the home was torn down and remodeled with the construction of a two -story home. She said that every window focused on her family room, bedroom and hot tub. She also felt that her privacy was gone. However, she did everything that she could to her own backyard by planting redwood trees to protect her privacy and worked with the neighbors behind her who moved into the home to plant redwood trees, resulting in good cover and seclusion. However, in this case, she noted that Dr. Sheth moved into a home with a preexisting situation. She did not believe that the Commission can do anything about this and that she did not believe that the addition would make the situation any worse than what already exists. She said that Dr. Kaabipour allowed the Commission to go through his home and that the Commission looked at Dr. Sheth's home from the windows, the deck, and from upstairs and that the Commission could not look into Dr. Sheth's windows. She hopes that this gives Dr. Sheth some satisfaction and that she hoped that the two parties, together or separately, plant more trees on the properties as there is an ideal location that runs between the two pieces of properties to plant trees. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO DENY THE APPEAL, APPROVING AR- 99 -008. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSENT. Dr. Kaabipour stated that he would work with Dr. Sheth regarding installation of trees. PLANNING COMMISSI,,,A MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 35 - DIRECTOR ITEMS - Request for modifications to a previously approved project: DR -97 -043 - Massihpour, 18590 Avon Lane Director Walgren presented the staff report and informed the Commission that the request is to modify the exterior materials of a new home that is under construction, approved by the Planning Commission previously. He identified the major changes as follows: elimination of the horizontal wood siding with the use of a stucco exterior with a stone veneer; altering the architecture slightly to a more contemporary design. Staff believes that the wood siding was approved for a reason, noting that this is a rural part of Saratoga where this type of home is more appropriate. Staff felt that the home should be built per the approved plans. Chairwoman Bernald stated that it was agreed upon earlier by the Planning Commission that it is not the Planning Commission's custom to open the public hearing for Director's items. Therefore, the Commission will not be receiving any testimony this evening. The Commission will be recognizing the staff memo and responding. IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION TO CONCUR WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND DIRECTED STAFF TO FOLLOW WHAT THE COMMISSION PASSED IN THE PAST WITH THE INSTALLATION OF WOOD SIDING. Appointment of Planning Commission Vice -Chair Director Walgren recommended that the Commission appoint a new vice - chairperson. COMMISSIONER PATRICK MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY CHAIRWOMAN BERNALD, TO NOMINATE COMMISSIONER PAGE TO SERVE AS VICE - CHAIR. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSENT. - Appointment of Bicycle Advisory Committee representative Director Walgren presented the staff report. He indicated that this is a city standing committee that meets as needed but not more than four times a year, meeting approximately one or two times a year. The committee reviews development proposals and bicycle facility issues. Chairwoman Bernald noted that a representative from the Public Safety Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission also sits on this committee along with a Public Works Department staff member and two community representatives. Commissioner Waltonsmith indicated that her husband is a bicyclist. PLANNING COMMISSI�, .J MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 36 - BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSION APPOINTED COMMISSIONER WALTONSMITH TO SERVE ON THE BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Consideration of minutes of May 12 and May 26 meetings at June 9, 1999 meting due to absence of Minutes Clerk Director Walgren informed the Commission that the May 12 and May 26 meeting minutes will be made available for the Commission's June 9, 1999 meeting due to the absence of the Minutes Clerk. COMMISSION ITEMS Chairwoman Bernald welcomed the new Commissioners on board and wished them good luck. She recommended that the new Commissioners speak with staff if they have any questions that can be cleared up before the meetings. COMMUNICATIONS Written City Council Minutes for Regular Meeting of April 21, 1999 - Planning Commission Notices for Regular Meeting of May 26, 1999 Letter to Planning Commission from Marjorie J. Burnett dated May 3, 1999 Staff correspondence copies to Planning Commission ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING There being no further business, Chairwoman Bernald adjourned the meeting to Wednesday, May 26, 1999, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28, 1999 Civic Center, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairwoman Bernald called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Roll Call: Present: Commissioners Kaplan, Murakami, Page, Patrick, Pierce, and Chairwoman Bernald Absent: Commissioner Martlage Staff: Associate Planner Bradley, Assistant Planners Ratcliffe and Pearson Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - April 14, 1999 On a motion by Commissioners Pierce /Kaplan, the Commission approved the April 14, 1999 minutes with the following amendments: Page 5, paragraph 6, line 4, replace the word =,,414*1� with outside and last sentence, replace the word r-A€rtse with the word refute. Page 13, paragraph 2, line 4, replace the word belie € with believe and line 11 amended to read: "...accepted Commissioner Martlage's point that 4 the chimney does add another nice element..." The motion carried 5 -0 -1 with Commissioner Patrick abstaining and Commissioner Martlage absent. Oral Communication Planner Bradley informed the Commission that a letter was received from Marcia Benson, Benson's Antiques, complaining about individuals who use the front of her business to park their bicycles and yet do not patronize her business. She requested that bicycle racks not be placed in the curb areas. She said that she is displeased that benches are being placed on the curbs, blocking access to individuals. Ms. Benson further complains that trash is overflowing. Ms. Benson notes that there is not one handicapped parking space placed on the street and recommends that a handicap parking space be installed in every block. She further requested that parking meters be installed to limit parking hours to customers, as the worst offenders are the merchants themselves, many parking in the street all day. She asked if the police department can issue more tickets for street parking. She complained that grand opening signs are being left up for months on end. Planner Bradley informed the Commission that staff will be notifying the code enforcement officer about these issues of concern. No other comments were offered. Report of Posting Agenda Planner Bradley declared that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on April 23, 1999. PLANNING COMM ISSIO1, .,41NUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 2 - Technical Corrections to Packet No technical corrections to the packet were noted. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. F -98 -005 & V -99 -004 (503 -75 -020) - HENRY, 21801 Congress Springs Lane; Request for Fence Permit approval to enclose more than 4,000 square feet of a rear yard. The site is 3.3 acres and is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 5/12/99 IN ORDER TO BE RE- NOTICED TO INCLUDE VARIANCE REQUEST). COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM i BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER MARTLAGE ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. UP -97 -004.1 (393 -01 -024, -025, -026, -027, -028, & 393 -02 -003) - STARBUCKS, 12960 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road; Request for modification to an approved Use Permit for a 1,160 sq. ft. space by expanding the restaurant into an additional 440 sq. ft. of the existing Argonaut Shopping Center. The modification application includes a request to allow outdoor seating without additional parking spaces. The property is located within a Commercial Neighborhood zoning district. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Planner Bradley presented the staff report. She informed the Commission that staff has determined that the four additional parking spaces to accommodate the outdoor seating would not be necessary as the busiest hours of the business would be the early morning hours when many of the other shops in the center are closed. She indicated that the aggregate parking of the shopping center was sufficient. She said that noise, litter and traffic have been the primary concerns of the surrounding neighbors. Staff has determined that the additional seating will not have a noticeable impact on traffic and that noise should be kept within the confines of the buildings exterior arcade and that litter will be kept clean by the employees. In addition, the resolution of approval contains a condition pertaining to litter removal. If any of these issues become a problem in the future, the Planning Commission always has the authority to impose further restrictions on the business. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the use permit. She clarified that staff has been informed by the applicant that no coffee roasting is to occur at this location. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. Drew Padilla, applicant /project architect, stated that lie would answer questions relating to the architectural features, handicap accessibility and code compliance. He said that the nature of the extension of this permit is to provide for a greater amount of square footage than was previously provided in an earlier review of the use permit as well as to provide for outdoor seating. It was his belief that the addition of outdoor seating at this particular shopping center will help vitalize not only the sidewalk landscape underneath the arcade, but also the relationship of the store to the parking lot. The nature of the work being done to the shopping center is one that would encourage an aggregate use of the parking spaces as well as providing a more pleasant pedestrian environment. Commissioner Patrick said that in looking at the plans, the additional square footage to be added is almost equal to the new outdoor seating area which is being taken from the original plan. PLANNING COMMISS1Oi . _MINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE -3- Mr. Padilla informed the Commission that there may be a misinterpretation on the plans. The actual increase in square footage is occurring to the rear of the space. He said that the project is approximately the same square footage. He confirmed that tables, chairs and lounge chairs are proposed outside of the building and that it is proposed to move the bathroom and kitchen further back on the Blauer Drive side. He said that he expects patrons to enter through an entrance provided by the shopping center which will be retained as a secondary means of egress. Lisa Trexler, speaking for Mary Bogdanovich, 20391 Blauer Drive, stated that her home is the first house past the shopping center. She stated that she strongly objects to Starbucks so close to the residential area and for the complete disregard to the peace and quiet of the residential neighborhood. She is speaking from the perspective that the city recognizes that this is a commercial operation located against a residential area and that the residents will experience a burden that is not felt by others in the city. The area residents will have an operation that begins at 6:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m., both quiet times when there is to be a lot more traffic. She said that new activities are being proposed with Starbucks and Blockbusters, both of which will produce traffic that will spill into the neighborhood. She felt that this was an inappropriate action against the neighborhood. She felt that Starbucks belongs in the center where it would not bother the neighbors, closer to Safeway which stays open 24- 11ours. She felt that it was a mistake to have approved the use on the corner. She said that both Blauer Drive and Regan Lane will be experiencing a great increase in traffic, some vehicles making a -turns to get onto Highway 9 or to avoid the stop light, winding their way out through the neighborhood. She said that the neighbors were led to believe that Starbucks was to locate somewhere in the middle of the shopping center and asked when this location was changed? She asked if an appropriate traffic analysis has been conducted as an EIR would have projected a traffic pattern? She requested to see the traffic analysis. She said that the Starbucks' location was unacceptable to her. Chris Hawks, 20390 Blauer Drive, stated that he was disappointed to have to return to the Commission to readdress this issue. He said that he was beginning to wonder if he made a mistake when he moved his family to Saratoga as lie moved to Saratoga for the quite residential neighborhoods and the feeling of family, community and neighborhood. Anyone who has had the opportunity to look at the shops that were located in the shopping center had a clear idea of what sort of retail behavior existed (i.e., family oriented shops such as a barber shop, shoe repair, dance studio, travel agency with normal hours of operation.) If it is being stated that this is an acceptable location for Starbucks, he felt that a huge disconnect exists. He felt that Starbucks is a drastically different operation from all the other retail businesses that have been in this location. He noted that the request before the Commission is a conditional use permit and that the Commission has the right and responsibility to determine if this particular use at this particular location is appropriate. He said that the neighborhood is not excited about seeing a Starbucks locating in the shopping center as there are concerns with traffic impacts to Blauer Drive. He felt that locating Starbucks at the center of the shopping center would be a more appropriate location. He expressed concern with the items listed in the staff report as follows: 1) If staff does not believe that there will be additional traffic, why is the business being expanded? He did not believe that a business would expand if there was not going to be additional traffic associated with the expansion. 2) Staff is recommending approval of signage for the business even though the applicant did not include signage as part of the application. He felt that a three foot, internally illuminated 30+ foot above ground sign has to be the highest illuminated outdoor sign in Saratoga without being requested by the applicant. 4) The nearest residence is located 100 feet from the outdoor arcade and will result in a noise impact to the residents. 5) The resolution states that the use is not materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity and that appropriate conditions have been placed on the project. He expressed concern that a Starbucks, located 160 feet from residences, would impact damage property values, especially if there is outdoor seating available from 6:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m. He stated that PLANNING COMMISSION ._,MINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 4 - another site has always been available for this use. This is the third time that area residents have come before the Commission and that it would be a fourth time for the signage issue. He noted that Starbucks started in the middle of the shopping center and that it has incrementally moved its way down the shopping center. He felt that there should be a time that the city stands up and state that area residents matter too. He encouraged the Commission to consider the area residents concerns this evening. Bill Mullen, 12960 Regan Lane, stated that he originally understood that Starbucks was to be located in the center of the shopping center. He said that at that time, it was not pleasing but that it was a tolerable situation. He said that the latest communication is that it is to be located at the end of the shopping center and that it is to be expanding its footprints, raising significant issues. He expressed concern with the following: 1) noise impacts associated with outside seating, changing the nature of the neighborhood; and 2) safety concern for the neighborhood and the community, specifically on Regan Lane as this is as shortcut to the shopping center. He said that the expansion would result in the attraction of individuals outside the neighborhood who would like to by pass Saratoga Avenue. He expressed concern with the safety of young individuals in the neighborhood and evening walkers as the neighborhood has no sidewalks or lighting. He felt that Starbucks would increase the traffic pattern and increase the safety risk to the neighborhood. The lack of addressing this concern is extremely short coming. He felt that the city has taken the neighborhood and significantly changed the climate and the atmosphere that most individuals paid a tremendous amount of money to acquire. Mark Kocir, 12795 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, stated that he has been a long time resident of Saratoga, being a resident before the shopping center was built. He said that lie did not support a Starbucks in Saratoga, noting that there is not a business that looks like it in the Village. He felt that this use belongs on Lawrence Expressway. He was advised that the proposed hours of operation were 6:30 a.m. to 11:0 p.m. He felt that the hours were too long as this is a residential neighborhood, even though a commercial strip zone is located in this area. He said that residents do not want cars coming in and out of the shopping center. He informed the Commission that "kids" hang out at Safeway and the parking lot, often times resulting in the police being called to the shopping center. He felt that once Starbucks establishes a foothold similar to Safeway, they would request a 24 -hour operation. He felt that the city was forgetting that this is a residential neighborhood based on the renovation of the Argonaut Shopping Center. Denise Levy, 12915 Regan Lane, stated that she also attended several meetings relating to the shopping center. She stated that her main concern was that of her seven year old who rides her bike to school with her father. She also has a fourteen year old son going to school. The atmosphere of having Starbucks on the corner is a nightmare to her. She felt that the middle of the shopping center would be more conducive location for Starbucks as it would be more pleasant than looking over the office buildings on Blauer and into the bedrooms of residential homes. She found that putting people outside, on sidewalks adjacent to residents would be a noise impact to adjacent residents. She stated her opposition to the request as she felt that there were better locations in the shopping center. She also expressed concern about the traffic and the safety of area children /residents. Bruce Prestwich, 20244 Blauer Drive, felt that the use permit was a big mistake, noting that Starbucks was denied at the Village. He said that he was lead to believe that Starbucks was to be located in the middle of the shopping center. He requested that the Commission deny this location and that the use be approved at another location where families and children would be subjected to the traffic associated with the use as Blauer Drive is already experiencing problems with traffic and speeding cars. Lisa Traxler, 20390 Blauer Drive, stated her opposition to the expansion and outdoor seating of the Starbucks Coffee Shop. She said that her sons' and her foster child's bedroom window face the shopping PLANNING COMMISSIOl, .,IINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 5 - center. She expressed concern that the outdoor seating would give individuals the opportunity to observe her children. This condition was unacceptable and unsafe for her family. She said that the prior businesses in place before the shopping center was renovated closed well before 11:00 p.m. and did not infringe in the enjoyment of her yard in the evenings. She felt that Starbucks would be better located closer to Safeway where traffic, noise, and litter would not be an impact to neighbors. She felt that a new traffic study was warranted for the outdoor seating. She said that 15 parking spaces of 33 are proposed to the Blauer side of the building. Marcella Mahern, real estate manager for Starbucks, clarified that this application is for an amendment to an existing conditional use permit. The conditional use permit was granted for the site on this exact corner. When the landowner mentioned to Starbucks that there would be an opportunity to lease a bigger space, Starbucks took advantage of this fact because it wanted to create a store that had a nicer environment where additional components could be added to make the business more comfortable to its customers. The addition of outdoor seating was to go in with the overall vision of the shopping center to make it an inviting place where residents in the neighborhood would come and enjoy the outdoors. She did not believe that there would be a drastic increase in either traffic or seating capacity of the store. She sees Starbucks as serving individuals who are already passing by the shopping center on their daily commute or coming from the neighborhood. She said that she was not aware of the misconception that Starbucks was planned to be closer to Safeway. When the redevelopment of the shopping center was brought to Starbucks attention, Starbucks was offered the same space that it was originally offered. Therefore, there was not an alternative to Starbucks. She asked if the sign criteria was proposed to be modified this evening? She stated that Starbucks' sign will be in conformance with the sign criteria. Planner Bradley clarified that the sign program for the shopping center is up for review this evening, mainly to address the colors proposed at the end of the agenda. Paul Smith, Starbucks district manager, informed the Commission that Starbucks has systems in place in all of the stores where there employees collect trash on frequent intervals. At the last hearing, it was stated that someone will walk outside the store at least three to four times a day picking up trash. He clarified that the hours of operation are 5:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., opening at 6:00 a.m. on weekends. Commissioner Bradley clarified that the resolution before the Commission is identical to the one previously approved by the Commission with the exception of the requested modifications. Rhonda Rigenhagen, community relations manager for Starbucks, addressed the issue of noise and stated that it is just as important for Starbucks that this be an enjoyable environment for its customers who are also their neighbors. She said that noise has not been an issue with existing stores. She said that only 2 stores out of 200 in northern California have had some on going problems with noise, one relating to heating /air ventilation. Starbucks managers try to be responsive to concern or complaints relating to noise, trash or other issues in the neighborhood. She encouraged anyone who has problems to contact the store manager. If there is an issue and if it is not addressed to their satisfaction, that either Paul Smith or herself be contacted and that they would make sure that the issues are addressed. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she was instrumental in the last use permit review to get a commitment from Starbucks to police the grounds for trash. She stated then and states now that she feels that there is some laxity among the employees in performing this chore. She clarified that a use permit exists that would allow Starbucks to locate in the shopping center and that this is not the issue before the Planning Commission this evening. She said that the Commission expects that Starbucks will honor this part of the agreement because she will be watching to make sure that it is honored. PLANNING COMMISSIO1. _AINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 6 - COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN /PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Commissioner Pierce stated that he grew up in the Argonaut area, living there for 20 years and his parents for 40 years. He said that he was familiar with the area and that he knows the shopping center quite well. He said that the Argonaut Shopping Center has been an on -going issue in his tenure on the Commission. The Commission has also dealt with Starbucks several times, having approved the conditional use permit for Starbucks for the shopping center following the public hearing. It was his belief that this is a good use for the shopping center and stated that he voted for it before and that he would be voting for it again. He said that he has observed several Starbucks in the greater San Jose area. He said that he was aware of Commissioner Kaplan's concern about trash. He felt that Starbucks was a well run organization and that it would be a credit to the city of Saratoga and to the shopping center. He stated that he understood the neighbors' concerns, acknowledging that the residents purchased their property knowing that they were buying property adjacent to a major shopping center in Saratoga. He felt that this was an appropriate use and that he would be supporting it. Commissioner Page said that this is his first review of the Starbucks' use permit. He said that he has visited several Starbucks and that he has observed and watched to see the operation as lie knew that the use permit would be coming up. In reviewing the minutes of the last use permit hearing, there were a lot of questions whether there would be the addition of an outdoor seating area. He felt that the building overhang would deter some of the noise. He strongly recommended that signage be approved that would respect the neighbors. He also recommended that direction be given to the police department to patrol the area a little more in the beginning to ensure that the use stays friendly to the neighborhood. He stated that he could support the use permit knowing that the use permit can be called up if there are issues of concern. He said that lie would be watching the use permit very closely. Commissioner Patrick concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioners Pierce and Page. She stated that various degrees of presentations have been made by the Starbucks' corporation representatives. She stated that she has observed a Starbucks near her office recently that installed outdoor seating because she had questions about what it would do to traffic near the area as it is located adjacent to an elementary school. She also observed the cleanliness and the noise factors. She stated that the noise factor was not an issue. She was not sure why people drinking coffee would be expected to be noisier than people in general. She stated that she would support the request because what the Commission is dealing with is a relatively minimal expansion in the square footage which should not impact the neighborhood. She felt that the outdoor seating is a nice addition to Saratoga and that it might make the shopping center more user friendly. Commissioner Kaplan stated that the reason a Starbucks was not approved at the Village was because there was not adequate parking in the Village and for the safety issue associated with the corner lot. She said that a use permit was granted to the Starbucks Corporation to use this location. The issue before the Commission is whether additional interior space and outdoor seating will be approved at the perimeter. She felt that individuals would meet quietly, talk, and visit. She noted that Safeway is a 24 -hour establishment, serving a need. She said that Starbucks will not be opened 24- hours. She felt that citizens need a place to meet and that she felt that this is a minimal addition to the existing use permit. Therefore, she could support the request. Commissioner Murakami noted that from some of the testimony received from the neighbors, they had an idea that the proposed use was to be located at the middle of the shopping center. He said that some of the earlier plans may have depicted its location in the center of the shopping center. However, when the PLANNING COMMISSIOi. _aIINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 7 - Commission voted on the use permit last time, its location was clear at its present location. He was sorry that the neighbors did not notice its location at the time of the approval of the use permit. He concurred with his fellow Commissioners that the use permit was examined closely and that it would continue to be monitored to ensure that the business complies with the conditions to mitigate neighbors' concerns. He stated that he would also approve the request. Chairwoman Bernald stated that this is a difficult decision because she has seen how emotionally the neighbors are and that she understood their concerns. She said that it would be an ideal situation for the city to have a community area where it could have its young children meet, a community area where the City could make sure that the children can gather. However, given the fact that the neighbors are so emotional about this issue, she would be voting against the request. She informed the public that should the amendment to the use permit be approved, they would have 15 -days to appeal the decision to the City Council. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. UP- 97- 004.1. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -1 WITH CHAIRMAN BERNALD VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER MARTLAGE ABSENT. 3. UP -93 -008.1 (503 -24 -072) - BLUE ROCK SHOOT- CUTLER/WHITE, 14523 Big Basin Way; Review of a Use Permit approved on December 14, 1994 to operate a restaurant on Big Basin Way with coffee roasting below the restaurant. The Planning Commission has requested this permit be called up for their review to re- evaluate the hours of operation and coffee roasting. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Bradley informed the Commission that two letters were submitted this evening. One letter is from the business owner of Tiger, Tiger, Fine Decorating Gifts stating that the roasting of coffee beans drive her customers out as they are curious as to what is on fire. The smoke that comes into the shop makes the business owner's eyes water and leaves the order on the merchandise. It was requested that the offensive smoke and smell stop. Another letter was received from the business owner of Exclamation Point indicating that several customers have noticed and complained about the odor from coffee roasting during business hours. Classes are offered several days a week in which an individual could be at the business five hours at a time. The letter states that the smell from coffee roasting is pervasive. It was stated that the business would be in favor of a ban on coffee roasting in the Village area between the hours 8:00 a.in. to 6:00 p.m. Planner Bradley indicated that the use permit for the Blue Rock Shoot Coffee Shop is before the Planning Commission to review the conditions of project approval. She said that both staff and Planning Commissioners have received complaints about coffee roasting at the business. Staff recommended that a condition be added to the original resolution to limit roasting to the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (overnight). She informed the Commission that the City has the authority to levy a fine of $250 per day if future violations were to occur. Commissioner Pierce asked how the coffee roasting hours were derived? Planner Bradley responded that staff tried to consider when most of the downtown business would be closed except for the restaurant uses and would have the least impact on the businesses and the neighbors. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 8:35 p.m. Mitchell Cutler, partner at Blue Rock Shoot/Saratoga resident, stated that lie was unclear why he was present this evening. He said that he was requested to be present to answer any questions which the Commission may have. He stated that he had conversations with Community Development Director Walgren who explained the concerns of a couple of residents about coffee roasting. At the request of PLANNING COMMISSIOI..MINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 8 - Commissioner Pierce, Mr. Cutler explained the process for roasting coffee as being a process where the green coffee beans go through a roaster. The chaff from the particular matter of the beans goes out into the air through an exhaust vent. He said that typically, the business burns once or twice a week and that the roasting process would take approximately two hours. He informed the Commission that the hours of operation are 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 -11:00 p.m. He indicated that the business currently roasts its coffee in the evening at the request of Community Development Director Walgren approximately a year ago. He indicated that he was surprise to be in attendance this evening to address roasting coffee beans in the daytime as coffee roasting is not occurring during the daytime hours. Commissioner Patrick stated that assuming that coffee beans are only roasted in the evening, from the operation of the business perspective, what are the most convenient or conducive hours for roasting coffee beans? She asked if there was any reason why the odor in the atmosphere is different from any other coffee shop? Mr. Cutler responded that Community Development Director Walgren requested that coffee roasting occur after 5:00 p.m. Therefore, roasting of coffee beans occurs between 6:00 -8:00 p.m. .He indicated that coffee roasting is exactly the same as the roasting that takes place at International Coffee, indicating that International Coffee's method is entirely by fire where the Blue Rock Shoots' roasting is electrically conducted. Therefore, it was a different way of achieving the same end result. He said that it was interesting to see that the International Coffee business was not on this evening's agenda to restrict their roasting coffee hours. Commissioner :Patrick stated that she has smelled coffee beans roasting from Blue Rock Shoot during the daytime in the past year. It was her observation that there is a particular odor from the Blue Rock Shoot that is different from other coffee shops. She stated that it may be attributed to a different degree of roasting doneness or another factor. Commissioner Kaplan stated that the issue of roasting coffee beans has been on going. She stated that the Commission has before it three letters from Mr. Walgren to Mr. Josh White. The Commission also has a list of when complaints were made, indicating that roasting was currently being conducted at 3:30 p.m. She stated that she has to assume that individuals in the Village whose eyes and noses are burning are not making the complaints up and that the Commission has to rely on the complaints received. She informed Mr. Cutler that the reason he was requested to be present this evening was due to the fact that the Commission continues to receive complaints. Mr. Cutler informed the Commission that lie has been forwarded the letters sent by Community Development Director Walgren. He has discussed these letters with Mr. White and Mr. Walgren. At the time of discussion, there was an agreement that Blue Rock Shoot was not to roast coffee during the daytime and that roasting would only at night. It was his belief that the letters being received by the Commission are coming to the Commission for other reasons and not specifically to the roasting issue. He felt that the city had unhappy neighbors in the Village and that they were looking at this as a vehicle to limit his business. Chairwoman Bernald informed Mr. Cutler that she is a neighbor of the Blue Rock Shoot. She indicated that she has been in the downtown area at 3:00 p.m. and has personally experienced Blue Rock Shoot's roasting. She was in the vicinity on Thursday, January 28, 1999 at 3:35 p.m. at which time her eyes started to water and that she became uncomfortable. She stated that she could not detect the smell at the time due to a cold. She was informed by an individual that the Blue Rock Shoot was roasting coffee again. She became aware that her eyes had been burning due to the roasting of coffee beans. She stated that she has been in the vicinity at other times after Blue Rock Shoot had roasted coffee. She has received indications from other individuals and she has received photographs indicating that coffee is PLANNING COMMISSIOi— v1INUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 9 - being roasted during the daylight hours as smoke can be seen and it obliterates Big Basin Road. She stated that this issue is not something personally against Mr. Cutler because of his neighborliness or lack thereof but that it is because coffee has been roasted. She stated that she also observed coffee being roasted on the following dates: Friday, August 14, 1998, 3:00 p.m.; Wednesday, August 19, 1998, 4:30 p.m.; Thursday, August 27, 1999, 4:45 p.m.; Wednesday, September 2, 1998, 4:58 p.m. Josh White, Blue Rock Shoot, informed the Commission that he conducts all coffee roasting for Blue Rock Shoot. He stated that the allegations are false. He said that he spoke with Mr. Walgren approximately a year ago. Since that time, lie has not roasted during the daytime. He stated that he comes in at 3:30 a.m. to roast coffee so that lie does not have to roast during the day. He also indicated that he does roast in the evening hours. He personally guaranteed that there is to be no roasting during the daytime. Tracy Cutler, Blue Rock Shoot, stated that the coffee roasting issue was initiated by one neighbor in particular who has a dislike for the Blue Rock Shoot business and who has been harassing the owners for the past six years. She indicated that there have been many run ins with this particular individual who originally rallied up the neighbors to say something about the coffee roasting. Since the business owners have been advised that the coffee roasting was bothering individuals, the business changed its coffee roasting operations. She stated that there is a personal issue going on and felt that there was something deeper going on than just the smell of coffee. Chairwoman Bernald read into the record a letter received from Judy and Don Colter stating that business owners in the Village have indicated that they and their customers find the odor of coffee roasting very offensive with its smell lingering in their stores long after the smoke disappears. Numerous complaints have been filed with city hall about the smoke and smell clear back to when Mr. Peacock was city manager, noting that nothing has changed. The letter goes on to indicate that current city manager Larry Perlin observed the roasting and yet it continues. The business owners request that the obnoxious roasting stop. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she could not speak about the animosity among the business owners. Given the state of the Big Basin shopping center, she felt that individuals should work together, making something out of this city. The issue before the Commission and over the course of time is the fact that the Commission has received complaints enumerated in the staff report, including a daytime roasting as recently as March 17, 1999 which was not indicated. The Commission is requesting that roasting occur at an hour when it will not disturb individuals. She stated that she personally observed coffee roasting during the daytime. She recommended that the hours for roasting coffee be made later in the evening as individuals are still eating in restaurants at 7:00 p.m. Including the specific hours for roasting coffee in the use permit will put the business owners on notice. If further violations occur, further actions may be taken against the business. Commissioner Murakami stated that he also noticed coffee roasting during the day when lie was at the Village. He felt that identifying the hours for roasting coffee was a good way to solve the problem, monitoring the use more closely. He stated his agreement with the recommended modification to the use Perm it. Commissioner Patrick stated that no one on the Commission wants Blue Rock Shoot to go away. She felt that the way that the business appears to be operating is not noisy or a bad element. She felt that the PLANNING COMMISSION., _,IINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 10 - business was a wonderful addition to the Village, allowing individuals to gather. She stated that she was curious to know why the smoke smell was different from the .International Coffee business. She felt that staffs recommendation would resolve the issue before the Commission, noting that the recommendation appears to be acceptable to the business owners. Therefore, she would support the amendment to the use permit. Commissioner Page stated the he felt that the Blue Rock Shoot was a great business and that he was glad to see that there was a coffee shop where individuals can be quiet and have a cup of coffee. Based on the business owners' testimony that they do not roast coffee during the day, he could support the amendment to the use permit as it would not impact the operation of the business. Commissioner Pierce stated that he did not hear opposition to the amendment from the business owners. Therefore, he stated his support of the amendment to the use permit, restricting the howl of coffee roasting. Chairwoman Bernald said that she concurred with everything that has been stated. She felt that Blue Rock Shoot is a contribution to the downtown neighborhood and that it was an important asset. She felt that individuals appreciate Blue Rock Shoot services in the downtown. She stated that she has personally experienced daytime coffee roasting, noting that she does not have a personal grudge to bare against the Blue Rock Shoot business owners. She stated that she could not speak to the relationship with the other business owners, noting that this is not the issue before the Commission. The issue before the Commission is roasting coffee. She noted that the business owners have indicated that they do not have a problem roasting coffee in the evening. Therefore, what is before the Commission this evening is to set the hours for roasting coffee. Should there be experiences of acrid coffee being roasted, Blue Rock Shoot business owners will be fined once it is brought to the city's attention. Once it is brought to the city's /Planning Commission's attention that coffee is roasting in hours other than those specified in the resolution, the use permit will be called up and that the use permit will be in jeopardy. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. UP- 93- 008.1. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER MARTLAGE ABSENT. 4. V -98 -001.1 (503 -26 -028) - BAGNAS, 14005 Wildwood Way; Request for modification to an approved Variance for side and rear setbacks. The property is 3,572 sq. ft. and is located in an R -1- 10,000 zoning district. Planner Bradley presented the staff report and informed the Commission that staff findings can be made to support the modification and therefore recommended Commission approval of the variance request. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 9:05 p.m. Marilyn Bagnas, property owner, informed the Commission that after she received the building permit to build on the property, she spoke to her neighbors only to find out that a marker of an old fence post that borders the two properties was in error. She stated that she went ahead and used the markers. She stated that she was not required, at time of issuance of building permit, to retain the services of a land surveyor. She recognized that she made an error. Knowing that an error was made, she contacted a land surveyor after being told to stop the project. At this point, the foundation had been poured, noting that the framing has been completed. She was not present to point fingers but to ask the Commission to approve the variance modification on the property as it would be a hardship to do otherwise. PLANNING COMMISSIOi- 4INUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 11 - Commissioner Kaplan asked what rooms /windows are proposed for the back wall which is being pushed into the setbacks? Mrs. Bagnas responded that the kitchen and the dining rooms are designed for the back of the home. Commissioner Kaplan noted that kitchens and dining rooms are heavily used rooms in a house. If Putting a heavily used room where people are going to be for a good portion of the waking day this close to the neighbors, the people there today may not be there in the future nor would the Bagnas family. She expressed concern that it is not known what type of uses would be developed on the vacant properties. She stated that she has seen what happens when an individual builds into the setbacks and violate the codes. She stated that she has a difficulty with the variance request, understanding that the building is framed. She was not sure whether the entire structure would have to be taken down or that there may be a remediation that can be done. Planner Bradley indicated that this is an awkward lot. She said that the longer dimension is the side to side. The front is that portion that faces the neighbors on Wildwood that back up to Fourth Street. The rear is the lot line that is adjacent to the vacant parcel. She clarified the property line which the house is sitting too close to. Norman Payne, licensed surveyor, stated that he performed a foundation survey across the street and found some markers that have been set on a Record of Survey. The problem is that Wildwood Way has been established by Record of Survey and was marked out at a point in time. However, all the lots were never developed by subdivision nor developed by deed. These are deed description lots. To his knowledge, the lots have never been monumented unless done by redwood stakes. He did find the line in question which did not have a fence, only shrubbery. He met with Mr. Bagnas who informed him how he established the property line, showing him the fence corner. He said that the end where the dining room is proposed is within five inches of being six feet. He indicated that the end of the building closest to the property line is where the garage is proposed. He stated that once the landscaping is installed, Mr. Bagnas has requested that he set the property corners and follow the Record of Survey to perpetuate the location of the lot. Everet Killian, 14395 Wildwood Way, stated that he discussed this unique situation with most of the neighborhood and informed the Commission that he was the individual who pointed out the marker as being the fence post. He stated that having the structure close to his property does not bother him as it is only encroaching a few inches on his end. He requested that the Commission approve the request as it is not a problem with any of the neighbors who Ile has spoken to. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the piece of property contiguous to the home can be built upon? Planner Bradley stated that it was her belief that there are two lots owned by one individual that can be developed as a residence(s) in the future with access through Wildwood Way. Mr. Killian informed the Commission that a private street exists and that the property owner of the two lots to the rear had a paper signed several years ago by several residents when it was first closed off because there was a problem with the park. Should the back two lots develop, access would have to be gained either through Wildwood Way or Springer. He felt that this was a decision that would be made by the neighbors. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 12 - COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Commissioner Page felt that an honest mistake was made in this case. However, when he reads from the guidelines from which the Commission has to choose from, it states that things have to be done in a certain order such as hiring a licensed surveyor to survey the lot. He noted that a letter is attached to the staff report which indicates acceptance of the risk if something is wrong. He did not believe that a precedent would be set as anyone else coming before the Commission would be scrutinized. He stated that he would support the variance as presented. Commissioner Pierce stated that in looking at the site, it is located in a nice neighborhood. He felt that the house would be a good addition to the neighborhood. He said that it appears that the applicant was somewhat careless in not following the rules. He asked staff if there was a monetary penalty that could be imposed on the property owner as part of the variance for failing to follow the guidelines? Planner Bradley informed the Commission that the resolution has been conditioned that would fine the property owners $250 per day of violation. The Commission could direct staff to assess the monetary damage and that staff could determine the appropriate number of days for violation. Commissioner Pierce felt that there should be some sort of penalty as the applicant made a mistake and the Commission will be granting an exception. He would recommend that staff be directed to determine the numbers of day that the violation occurred. Planner Bradley informed the Commission that planning staff will review and determine the days of violation with the building department. Commissioner Pierce indicated that he could support the variance with the imposition of a fine. Commissioner Kaplan reiterated her comment concerning what would happen when individuals start moving into small lots and crunching up against their neighbors, causing problems in the future. She said that she was given an incorrect orientation at the site visit as she felt that the home would be abutting the property that has a house on it and could legitimately be impacted by heavy use in both homes. She said that someone will be building on the vacant lots and that they would need to be notified that a variance has been approved so that when their home is built, they know that a home is built close to them. She agreed that a fine would accomplish one not setting a precedent that this is a free ride to a variance, noting that the action took staffs and the Planning Commission's time to review the violation. She felt that the city should be paid back. Therefore, she would approve the variance and a fine as deemed appropriate by staff. Commissioner Murakami stated that he originally liked the design of the house and felt that it was a very nice fit into the neighborhood. Unfortunately for the applicant, they made a mistake even after being warned. He agreed with Commissioners Pierce and Kaplan that the Commission cannot let this mistake slide. He felt that there was enough of a mistake made that needs to be addressed. He stated that he would agree to vote for the variance that was created by the applicants in their error and that he would agree with the decision that the applicants be fined for making this error. He stated that he would support the Commission's recommendation. Commissioner Patrick stated her disagreement with the comments expressed. She stated that unfortunately, on these small lots, the commission deals with inches. The Commission has individuals PLANNING COMMISSIOir AINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 13 - coming before the Commission begging for inches. Now, people are stating that it is only a couple of inches and that it is not a big deal. She acknowledged that it was a couple of inches in some areas but felt that they should be given back if they were only a couple of inches. She stated that she is opposed to individuals continuing to build on their homes once they become aware that there is a problem, resulting in the homeowner coming before the Commission stating that it would be a hardship to make them tear down the structure. She opposed two people coming before the Commission begging for the inches and being aware of them, maximizing what can be done on the lot, later to complain that the home was sited in the wrong area. She felt that the applicants made a mistake. She said that someone was made aware at the design review hearing that the siting of the home was important on this small lot as the Commission went through the siting of the home very minutely. She said that none of the current neighbors object to the variance because the home is further away from them. However, when the vacant lot develops, owners of the vacant lots will be the ones penalized because the home will be closer to them and they will not be able to maximize their home on their lot. She stated that she opposed the variance and recommended that the home be sited appropriately, pursuant to the previous resolution. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioner Patrick. She stated that she has a small lot in another town and that she began to build on it and that she was out of line, being two feet further than she was supposed to be. She had to stop work and redo construction. She knew how this would have affected the neighbors and that for all the reasons stated by Commissioner Patrick, she could not support the variance application. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she was convinced that her first inclination was correct. Once the property owner knew about the mistake, they proceeded at their own peril. She stated that she would support Commissioner Patrick's and Chairwoman Bernald's recommendation of denial. COMMISSIONERS PAGE /PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. V -98 -001.1 WITH AN ADDED CONDITION THAT AN APPROPRIATE FINE IS TO BE ASSESSED. THE MOTION FAILED 3 -3 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: MURAKAMI, PAGE, PIERCE; NOES: BERNALD, KAPLAN, PATRICK; ABSENT: MARTLAGE. 5. DR -99 -004 & V -99 -001 (503 -26 -007) - JAFARI, 20860 Fourth Street; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 3,1.77 sq. ft., two -story residence with a 1,468 sq. ft. basement. The maximum height of the residence will be 21 feet, 8 inches. Variance approval is requested to allow an 8 foot 10 inch second story side yard setback where a 1.0 foot setback is required. Three ordinance- protected trees are proposed to be removed: a Coast Live Oak, a Mexican .Fan Palm and a Monterey Cypress. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Pearson informed the Commission that a letter was received dated April 26, 1999 from the applicant stating that when they submitted the application, they were doing so with the understanding that staff would support the variance. The letter indicates that the applicant was not aware until last week that staff would not support the variance. He stated that the applicant is requesting that the Commission continue the project so that they can work with staff to eliminate the need for the variance. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/.KAPLAN MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO MAY 12, 1999. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER MARTLAGE ABSENT. PLANNING COMMISSIOt, MINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 14 - 6. DR -99 -007, UP -99 -007 & V -99 -002 (397 -24 -007) - DUNCAN, 20211 La Paloma Avenue; Request for Design .Review approval to allow the remodeling /construction of a new 2,396 sq. ft., single -story residence and a detached garage of 601 sq. ft. Use Permit approval is requested to allow the detached garage to be located within a rear yard. Variance approval is necessary to allow an exterior wall to remain only two feet, six inches from a side property line where a six foot side yard setback is required. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Pearson informed the Commission that the applicant may be requesting a continuance on this item but that he did not have the request for continuance in writing. As Planner Pearson was presenting the staff report, Scott Duncan, applicant, requested that this item be continued. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 9:30 p.m. Scott Duncan, applicant, reiterated his request for a continuance for the variance to the next available meeting date. Commissioner Pierce asked if Mr. Duncan would like the opportunity to meet with the Commission in a study session. Mr. Duncan responded that he would like the opportunity to sit down and meet with his neighbors. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI /PATRICK MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO MAY 12, 1999. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER MARTLAGE ABSENT. 7. UP -99 -004 & DR -99 -023 (503 -23 -021) - SIEVERT, 20571 Brookwood Lane; Request for Use Permit approval to locate a 971 sq. ft. garage /cabana with a maximum height of 12 ft. within the rear yard setback of a 15,930 (net) sq. ft. parcel located in an R -1- 15,000 zoning district. A request for Design Review approval for the demolition of the existing 1,820 sq. ft. single -story residence and construction of a new single -story 3,157 sq. ft. residence with a maximum building height of 18 ft. is also proposed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Ratcliffe presented the staff report. She informed the Commission that the project has been reviewed by the City arborist and other city departments. She said that there are a few trees proposed to be removed as part of this plan. Trees No. 4 & 8 are walnut trees that are considered to be in fair to poor health by the city arborist and are proposed to be removed. Tree No. 6, a Monterey Pine, was initially referred to as a fine specimen by the city arborist. She noted that a follow up memo from the arborist who reviewed the tree again and indicates that the tree is showing some signs of distress. Staff is proposing replacement value trees be provided. She mentioned that the plan before the commission has been changed so that tree nos. 1, 2 and 3, the cluster of oaks to the right lower corner against Brookwood Lane would not be impacted and informed the Commission that the applicant has incorporated the city arborist's recommendations regarding the low fence and the posts. She noted that the property is constrained by a very unusual configuration in addition to the trees, discussed. The proposed residence would meet all the current setbacks and floor area requirements unlike the present residence which intrudes into the side and rear setbacks. She informed the Commission that the applicant has worked with staff on the material board and the design in order to utilize colors and materials that would integrate the home well within the setting. Staff feels that the design of the residence meets all the necessary findings and therefore staff can support the design review application. The application is also requesting a use permit to allow the garage /cabana three feet from the rear property line with a maximum height of 12 feet. Staff feels that given the topography of the site as well as the step slope of the adjacent property, PLANNING COMMISSIOt, .✓IINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 15 - the use permit would have minimal, if any, impact on the adjacent neighbor. Staff feels that the design is compatible with the proposed residence and that staff can support the use permit. Commissioner Page asked if a staff member approves the ISA certified arborist who will assist in the pruning of the trees? Planner Ratcliffe responded that a certified arborist will submit a letter to the city who will be doing the pruning work. Commissioner Patrick noted that the Commission does not have plans for the cabana but that it appears that it is to include two bedrooms. She asked if there was a likelihood from where it is situated that it is going to be residential in nature. Planner Ratcliffe responded that if the cabana was to be used as residential, it would have to have some sort of bathroom and kitchen facility which would not be permitted. The Commission could add a condition to the resolution that the cabana is not to be used as a secondary residents and that a bathroom and kitchen facility is not to be added to the structure. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the cabana and garage are being built into a rear setback, and asked why is it being considered a use permit instead of a variance request? Planner Ratcliffe responded that this can be considered through a use permit process as long as a garage or accessory structure if it is encroaching the rear yard setback. When an accessory structure intrudes upon a side yard setback, it would require a variance. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 9:38 p.m. Randy Sievert, applicant, concurred with staffs recommendation. He informed the Commission that his architect was not present this evening. Commissioner Murakami referred to the roof plan and asked if the structure is to have an opening in the middle of the house? Larry Hall, project manager, informed the Commission that the middle of the home is designed to have a flat roof in the middle of the home. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE /BERNALD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Commissioner Patrick stated that given the unusual configuration of the lot and the intrusion of trees on the lot that this may be the only appropriate siting of what the applicant is attempting to do. She did not believe that the request was implausible nor incompatible with the neighborhood. Therefore, she stated her support of the request. Commissioner Murakami agreed that this was an unusual lot and that the home seems to be designed to fit the lot. He felt that the design was appropriate and matches the neighborhood as much as it can. He felt that the trees have been addressed very thoroughly. Therefore, he stated that he could approve the request. Commissioner Page concurred with the comments expressed by his fellow Commissioners. Commissioner Kaplan concurred that the lot is constrained. PLANNING COMMISSIOi. ,✓IINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 16 - Commissioner Pierce stated that he could support the project. He said that the Commission was shown a nice rendering at the site visit. If he had not seen the rendering, he would have been confused about the stained accent. He said that the rendering looked very nice and that he felt that the home would be a welcome addition to the neighborhood. He stated that he could support the request. Chairman Bernald concurred with the comments as expressed. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVED RESOLUTION UP -99 -004. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER MARTLAGE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -99 -023. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER MARTLAGE ABSENT. 8. DR -99 -002 (517 -20 -015) - KLINE, 20121 Hill Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 1,800 sq. ft. single -story residence and construct a new two -story 4,253 sq. ft. residence with a maximum height of 24 ft. on a 22,651 sq. ft. parcel located in an R -1- 20,000 zoning district. Planner Ratcliffe presented the staff report. She said that a 36" tree noted on the plans was not addressed in the arborist report and that the proposed construction does not come within 10 -12 feet of the tree. The existing house to be demolished comes 10 -12 feet of the tree. She noted that there is an existing shed that is close to the oak tree. Staff has included as a condition of approval that the arborist revisit the site and address the demolition of these two structures and that the applicant follow the arborist's recommendation as far as demolition and tree protection measures. She informed the Commission that the property slopes down from Hill Road which would further reduce the size and bulk of the home from neighboring residences. She indicated that the concerns that staff has had from the beginning is not the objection to the architectural style of the home as it is well thought out. Staff has concern whether the architectural style is appropriate for this neighborhood as the neighborhood is largely older single story, horizontal wood shingle homes. She said that there are two homes on the historic registry located on the same block. Staff has had some concern about the finding that the home is compatible in size and bulk with the rest of the neighborhood. She indicated that a letter from the applicant was attached to the Commission's packet as well as a petition signed by some of the neighbors in support of the house. She stated that the home does satisfy the zoning requirements in terms of allowable floor area, minimum setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage. Staff feels that the material board presented is a rather pale, creamy yellow and suggested that the color material board be altered to reflect darker, more natural earthtone colors. Commissioner M.urakami referred to the rear elevation and asked if a lot of time was spent modifying the original proposal? He asked how many homes were on Hill Avenue, noting that only one person who signed the petition resides on Hill Avenue and that the rest of the residents reside on Mendelsohn or Bonnie Brae Lanes. Planner Ratcliffe stated that the rear elevation has not substantially changed since the initial application. The elevations that changed are the front elevations to give it an articulation versus having a straight, flat wall. She informed the Commission that there are approximately 15 homes within the one block area bordered by Mendelsohn, Bonnie Brae and Montalvo. In response to Commissioner Kaplan's question, she indicated that one of the historic homes is located on the same side of the street of Hill Avenue, two doors down. The other historic home is located on the opposite side of Hill Avenue and it is a flag lot. PLANNING COMM :ISSIOi. MINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 17 - Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 9:50 p.m. Norman Kline, applicant, requested Planning Commission approval of the design review application as it will become his family's residence. He informed the Commission that the existing home is 49 years old and is in poor condition following many years of neglect and that the neighbors consider it to be an eye sore. He requested approval of a two story French Chateau design. He informed the Commission that he provided all neighbors with a copy of the exterior elevations before the Planning Department received them. The neighbors were uniformly pleased with the design of the home, none expressing an objection to the design. He stated that lie would agree to change the color pallet to a brownish beige (earthtone color). He submitted drawings that further articulate the design. He did not believe that the house would be a big presence from the street and that Ile designed the home to be compatible with the homes two to three blocks around the home and described the styles of homes immediately surrounding his property. He said that the biggest concern of the neighbors was not having monstrous walls. The neighbors wanted the walls stepped down three to four feet, preferring no fence walls at all to keep the open space feel of the backyard. He distributed pictures of a similar design for the Commission's benefit and addressed privacy to be provided with the proposed foliage. He stated that lie was concerned with tree preservation, noting that all mature trees are to be retained. He felt that the home is compatible with the existing neighborhood and that he would protect the neighbors' privacy. He stated his concurrence with the conditions of approval as stated by staff. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE /PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Commissioner Pierce stated that he liked the design and felt that the neighborhood would be able to sustain this design as there is a mixture of designs in the neighborhood. He said that the home is not as big as some of the other homes. While it was a little more mass oriented than the surrounding homes, he felt that the home would fit in. He stated that he likes to see variety in home designs in neighborhoods and that he would support the colors being muted and that he could support the project. Commissioner Page concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioner Pierce. He felt that it was a great design and that he liked the style of the home. He felt that it was a neighborhood of lots of choices and that the applicant may be setting the trend for future neighborhood designs as this is not a transitional neighborhood but one with many opportunities and styles. He stated his support of the project with muted colors to be worked out with staff. Commissioner Patrick felt that it was a very nice design. However, she did not believe that the design was compatible with the neighborhood. She felt that the homes in the neighborhood were contra the pictures shown by Mr. Kline. She said that the two -story element did not bother her. It was the style that bothered her and the lack of the use of wood siding. She stated that she could not support the project based on incompatibility, even though it is a lovely design. Commissioner Kaplan agreed that this is a French Chateau design. However she was not sure if this design was appropriate on Hill Avenue. She felt that the home was lovely but that she did not care for the yellow brick chimney and felt that the copper barrel dormer may be a little too much. In terms of compatibility, she did not believe that the design fits in with the neighborhood. She acknowledged that there were big homes in the area but not in the immediate neighborhood. She did not believe that this home was right for this location as it does not contain the wood elements seen in other homes. Therefore, she could not support the design. PLANNING COMMISSION ..✓LINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 18 - Commissioner Murakami stated that the French Chateau style incorporates a squareness in design. He did not have an objection to how the home was designed or the way it looks. He felt that the lots in the neighborhood were large enough and spread apart far enough that the home would not stand out. He felt that some of the older homes in the neighborhood would change over the years and be redesigned. After looking at the design more closely, he stated that he could vote to support the project. Chairwoman Bernald stated that she liked the design but expressed concern with the copper gutters. Commissioner Patrick stated that if the copper gutters are not treated or sealed, they would leach into the soil. Chairwoman Bernald recommended that a condition be added that would require that the copper gutters be sealed so that the concern about leaching is mitigated as a safety precaution. Otherwise, she stated that she could support the project. She agreed with Commissioner Page that this is not a transitional neighborhood but one of many opportunities and styles. Therefore, she could approve the application. COMMISSIONERS PAGE /PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR -99 -002 WITH THE ADDITION OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1) COLORS TO BE MUTED PER STAFF'S APPROVAL AND 2) COPPER ELEMENTS TO BE TREATED /SEALED. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -2 WITH COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN AND PATRICK VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER MARTLAGE ABSENT. 9. APPEAL (503 -15 -041) - WONG, 21252 Chadwick Court; Appeal by the applicants of an administrative denial of an accessory generator structure. The site is 2.8 acres and is located in a Hillside Residential zoning district. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Bradley presented the staff report. She said that staff has determined that the location of the generator was inappropriate due to the impacts to the visible hillside and due to the history of controversy over the site and the fact that grading activity and retaining walls were required by the Planning Commission to be kept to a minimum on the hillside. Therefore, staff denied the applicant's request. The applicant felt that the proposed location of the generator structure to house a 23 kilowatt emergency generator was a reasonable request to attenuate sound and to screen the generator, resulting in an appeal to staffs denial. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission uphold staffs denial and that the applicant be requested that the applicant work with staff to choose a more appropriate location on the site. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing. Rosemary Wong, applicant, referred to page 18 of the handout distributed to the Planning Commission this evening and a letter from Community Development Director Walgren that states that the accessory structure meets all minimum code requirements and that the accessory structure would not normally require public notification. The letter further states that he could not prevent her from requesting something that would otherwise be permitted by zoning ordinance. She requested Planning Commission approval of the accessory structure on her property. She displayed a foil that depicts the location that she and staff agreed would be an appropriate location for the generator as the front portion of the home is limited. When she first presented the plans to Planning staff, approval was given by staff and that grading commenced on the site to install the emergency generator. It was at that time that the Starks PLANNING COMMISSION— vIINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 19 - generated a complaint about grading of the hillside and wanted to know what was going on. The plans were discussed with Planning staff who then felt that she could come up with a better design. She said that there was no reason to redesign the accessory structure and recommended that an accessory structure be used to hide the emergency generator. Because of the slope of the hillside, she felt that very little of the accessory structure would be seen. This was a viable alternative as it would lesson the sound of the generator housed within the accessory structure when it goes off. It would disappear into the hillside and be a part of a continuing structure of her home. Any retaining walls to be built would be hidden into the hillside and would also be hidden by the accessory structure. She noted the location of the Starks' property in relationship to her property. She distributed a letter from the property owner located between the Starks and Chadwick Court stating support of the request before the Commission. Also, page 24 of the packet is a letter from a property owner located on the other side of Chadwick Court in support of the accessory structure /emergency generator. She noted that these two neighbors have the largest property line adjacent to her and are in support of her project. She requested Commission reconsider staffs denial of her project. Harry Wong, co- applicant, referred the Commission to page 25 of the staff report, a letter from the Starks in response to Director Walgren's letter. The first paragraph addresses the past history of this item and that the second paragraph addresses the present home. He said that tonight's meeting is not to address the present home but to address the accessory structure which does not require Commission approval. He felt that lie has been harassed for three years, causing nine months of delay. He did not appreciate being accused of selling electricity back into the grid (page 15 of the staff report). He also did not appreciate the Starks sending a letter to the City Council, circumventing and accusing the Planning Commission as having lied and being unethical. It was his belief that lie is here today not for the accessory structure but that the Starks are using this podium to continue a seven year battle with the Planning Commission. He recommended that the Starks and the Planning Commission settle its differences outside and not make them pawns of intermediary problems. He requested Commission support of the request. Mrs. Wong informed the Commission that she could not inform them as to the generator's kilowatts but that if it is to run full power, it will only run 24 hours. She said that the diesel component is a separate unit in the same location. Planner Bradley informed the Commission that the information provided by the Wongs indicate that this is to be a 23 kilowatt generator. Commissioner Murakami said that lie was not sure why a generator of this size was needed. He asked if this generator is going to be used during a power outage? He said that it was strange to see a structure of this size on a hillside. Mrs. Wong responded that the emergency generator was to be used during a power outage. She informed the Commission that two electricians advised her of the kilowatts necessary to serve her home during an emergency. Chairwoman Bernald indicated that her husband operates a radio station in Africa. She spoke to her husband about this issue and that he indicated that he felt that a 10 kilowatt generator would suffice for the size of the home to provide heating, lighting and electricity. Therefore, she expressed concern with the size of the generator. Commissioner Kaplan also expressed concern with the excessive size of the generator. She said that she has a generator approximately the size of a micro wave oven on her back porch. She said that the micro wave /oven size generator was more than enough to keep her home warm, intermittently, when there is a PLANNING COMMISSIOi. MINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 20 - power outage. She stated that she could not imagine why, during a short period of power outage, would necessitate the use of a television, etc. She felt that a generator should be used for an emergency to provide lighting and to keep a house warm. She asked why this size of a generator was needed? Mrs. Wong responded that she received two different opinions from two electricians, both indicating that the 23 kilowatt generator was necessary to service the size of her home. She stated that she went to look at different homes of similar size and found that the homes have even larger generators. She chose to go with this smaller generator. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the original landscape plans indicate approval of a six foot deep crypt on the hillside? Planner Bradley informed the Commission that the landscape plan is displayed on the board. The landscape plans depict a pathway and small stairs going down to the winding paths. To her knowledge, the trench was dug without benefit of building permits. However, she could not state for sure that permits would be required as generally, anything over 50 cubic yards up to a depth of two feet, requires a grading permit. She indicted that the area was covered when she visited the site. Commissioner Page stated that he stood in the excavation and that it was approximately ten feet wide and a depth of approximately four feet. Based on the information provided by Commissioner Page, Planner Bradley confirmed that excavation of this size would require a grading permit. Bob Stark, 21247 Chiquita Way, stated that he just read the Wong's letter and that it upsets him greatly. The letter portrays he and his wife as being unreasonable. He stated that lie did not have anything against the Planning Commission, staff or anyone. He was just trying to protect his environment. When he moved to Saratoga seven years ago, he and his wife reviewed the original house plan on the Wong's property, noting that the plans are nothing that is seen today. He said that the Wong's letter illustrates why this could become a big problem as they do not consider him his neighbor. The location of the accessory building is sited so that his home gets all the negative impacts of the building. He said that sound carries through the hills and valleys. He expressed concern with sound and views and requested that the Commission deny the request. Daisy Stark, 21247 Chiquita Way, indicated that the planning of the Wong's home commenced over four years ago and ever since this time, the neighbors have been meeting with the Planning Commission every single year. She said that the Planning Commission approved the house design even though five neighbors objected to its approval. The neighbors did not believe that they would have to come before the Commission again because the home would be built according to approved plans and conditions. Shortly after the plans were approved, the Wang's started to make changes and now they want to add a structure. She stated that she can understand minor changes but felt that these were major changes. She said that neighbors share backyards, thus the need for neighborhood planning. She felt that new homes are suppose to blend in with existing homes and maintain the existing environment. She felt that the generator structure imposes on hei directly in terms of sound, sight and emission. She indicated that she is a mechanical engineer, working on generators all the time. She did not believe that this was an emergency generator for a normal household. She is aware of what acoustics can and cannot do. She felt that when the generator is used, the entire neighborhood would wake up. She requested that the Commission deny the appeal. PLANNING COMMISSIOIN ,MINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE -21 - Ranjeet Pancholy, 21215 Chadwick Court, indicated that he is the property owner located at the bottom right side of the map. He said that the proposed location of the generator is not directly in his line of sight. He respected the Won 's desire to have a generator as it is a perfectly normal request. He also understood the Stark's concerns. He recommended that a compromise be achieved with the approval of a smaller generator or that the generator be relocated to an area that would be less obtrusive. Lou Basile, 15216 Cooper Avenue, San Jose, builder of Mr. and Mrs. Marcinkowski's home located between the Wong's property and Mr. Pancholy's property, informed the Commission that the Marcinkowskis wrote a letter to the City and hoped that it made it into the Commission's packet. The letter lends their support to the addition proposed by the Wongs. They felt that with staffs assistance, it will be done in good taste and that with mitigations can resolve problems that may exist. He said that the size of the generator will be determined by the load. He did not know whether 23 or 10 kilowatts would make that much of a difference to the visual impact. He noted that the Wongs were trying to tuck the accessory structure into a hill and make it part of the landscaping. He said that the exhaust will be less as there will be less pull and the noise mitigation raised can be handled. He said that lie has not been requested to design a generator in any of the homes that he has built. Luanne Nieman, 13217 Padero Court, addressed the process to which the neighbors have come tonight. She objected to the fact that grading was done on the weekend. She said that she was able to hear the grading even though she was not able to see what was going on. She said that grading also occurred during the winter months and that the neighbors were assured at the time that the illegal grading was done that there would be no grading after November 1 and that there would be no grading through the winter months until about March or April. She felt that it was unusual that there was digging on the hill on the weekend in January and February. She did not even realize that the proposed structure was being built until she received the appeal notice which occurred while she was out of town. She said that she was lucky to be able to review the project today, after the fact. Planner Bradley clarified that staff sent notices to the immediately adjacent neighbors to this property that would be most impacted because this was a staff level decision. Mrs. Nieman stated that the area residents hear everything that goes on in the hill and that this emergency generator would impact her. Mrs. Wong responded to the sound issue and stated that placing the emergency generator in the accessory structure attenuates the sound to that of a leaf blower. To place it outside in a location recommended by staff would result in the generator being sited at the top of the driveway at the top of the hill. This would be louder in sound even with a sound attenuator attached to it. The Fire Department's preference would be to place the generator inside the structure for safety and sound reasons. As far as the emissions, she hopes that she will never have to use the generator except to fire it up to keep it running. She stated that she is environmentally aware that all kinds of mitigations will be performed to not pollute the environment. When originally graded, it was graded to provide enough space to attach a sound attenuator to keep the sound down. Even though it was going to be buried in the hill, it had a rolling type roof on top of it. She said that the hole seen yesterday by the Planning Commission at the site visit is not the depth that the actual structure would be on the hillside. COMMISSIONERS PAGE /MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Commissioner Page asked if staff knew what the original cut and fill of the house (total). PLANNING COMMISS1Oi, .AINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 22 - Planner Bradley responded that the driveway cut was 58 cubic yards, the residence cut was 550 cubic yards and driveway fill of 1,188 cubic yards and residence fill of 22 cubic yards, noting that the cut and fill exceeded the 1,000 cubic yard recommended limit. Commissioner Kaplan informed the Wongs that the Commission went inside the home and congratulated them on their beautiful home. She felt that this has been a long and rancorous project. She could not see a reason for a crypt with a generator on this hillside. She is familiar with the sound bouncing around the hills. She felt that this generator would have a tremendous impact on the neighbors. She stated that she did not like the fact that this much digging occurred without a permit. She felt that a generator could be accommodated under the house or under the deck located on the backside of the home. Therefore, she could not support the request. Commissioner Murakami felt that the site was inappropriate for this size of a generator. If this was a flat lot in a regular neighborhood, he felt that the generator would be acceptable. However, at this location, it would be viewed. He felt that the generator could be moved to another location, away from its proposed location. He understood that the generator would not be used often. However, when a generator of this size is fired up, they are noisy. If this is a diesel generator, it would emit a smell that is not pleasant and that the Wongs will need to be careful where the generator is placed. He felt that the Wongs have the right to have a generator, but not in this location. Commissioner Patrick stated that living in the hillside is different from living in flat areas. She suspected that once the generator is fired up, it will be at a time that individuals use their fireplaces, noting that everyone can smell a fireplace in a hillside due to the difference in air currents. Lights and noise can also be seen and heard more distinctly in the hillside. She stated that she would be more comfortable with the application if the generator was to be placed closer to the Wong's garage /retaining walls as it would be less obtrusive to the neighbors. It was her belief that she would be able to hear the generator even though her home is several hills over. Therefore, she was not inclined to approve the location of the generator. Also, she was not thrilled with the digging that occurred on the hillside as it was her recollection that this area of the hillside was fairly sensitive to slides. She said that it was unfortunate that an open hole has been dug in this area. She felt that the Wongs should be more concerned about the area around the beautiful trees, noting that people are driving under the trees, thus compacting the dirt around the trees. She did not believe that the tree protection fencing was up at all times. Commissioner Page stated that the Commission visited the yard area of the property to try and find an alternative location for the generator. Because the Wong's property is on a hillside, lie felt that the residents around the Wongs were immediate neighbors. He felt that the sound would be a great impact. He agreed with the comments that the smoke would also be an impact. With the additional cut and fill that would be required, he did not believe that it was appropriate to make another exception. Commissioner Pierce felt that the question before the Commission was whether or not it should approve the structure at its proposed location. He said that there was no question in his mind that the generator Should not be approved where it is proposed as it is too much of a dramatic affect to the area, to the neighbors and to the beautiful hillside that the Commission worked so hard to save. He said that there are other issues to consider such as whether a generator of this size was needed. He personally did not believe that a generator of this size was needed. PLANNING COMMISSION .,tINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 23 - Chairwoman Bernald concurred with the comments expressed by her fellow Commissioners. She felt that it was a shame that this much cut was done for the generator and that she did not believe that a generator of this size was needed. Therefore, she could not support the appeal. Planner Bradley stated that per yesterday's site visit and the concerns raised regarding the trees, staff contacted the city arborist. She informed the Commission that the city arborist will be visiting the site. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE /PATRICK MOVED TO DENY THE APPEAL. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER MARTLAGE ABSENT. DIRECTOR ITEMS No director items were noted. COMMISSION ITEMS IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION NOT TO RECEIVE PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON THE COMMISSION ITEMS. DR -97- 027.1. (397 -22 -030) - HARKEY, 20385 Park Place; Request for modification of an approved Design Review application to allow the door of the detached garage to face the alley. Planner Pearson presented the staff report and indicated that a use permit was approved in conjunction with the design review for the home on Park Place. The use permit was required for the garage to be placed within the rear yard setback. The original proposal had the garage door perpendicular to the alley with a curved in driveway with a 90 degree curve for cars to be able to travel from the alley into the garage. Following construction, the builder realized that the grade changed that one would experience stepping out of the back door area to the driveway. The applicant decided to locate the garage door directly facing the alley to avoid having a slope turning driveway. The applicant provided a letter from the Saratoga Fire Chief noting that "no parking" signs would be required to be posted along the alley. This would eliminate the problem of potential cars parking in the alley that would prevent access to the garage. He informed the Commission that he has spoken with the fire chief who has indicted that he may relax the requirement for the "no parking" signs but that this is something that would need to be worked out between the fire district and the public works department. The fire chief is mainly concerned that an 18 foot wide access way is maintained. He said that there are several letters in the Planning Commission's packet from the neighbors objecting to the modification of the use permit due mainly to the concern of the limited visibility of cars coming in and out of the garage. For this reason, staff recommends that the Commission deny the request to modify the use permit. The Commission also has a letter dated April 28, 1999 from the builder's arborist verifying that the fencing around the oak tree at the front of the property is back up and the problem of debris being stored under the oak tree has been taken care of. He indicated that the city arborist will be visiting the site to inspect the fencing. Commissioner Page stated that Mr. and Mrs. Schuppert stopped by this evening to express their concerns. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the removal of the fencing was a violation of the terms and conditions of the approval? If so, is there a daily penalty that would be assessed? Planner Pearson responded that a penalty is a standard condition on all resolutions. PLANNING COMM ISS101...IINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 24 - Commissioner Page stated that there was much discussion in the letters regarding the height level of the alley /back yard elevations. He asked if this elevation is proposed to change? Planner Pearson responded that the alley elevation is not proposed to be changed. He indicated that the pad of the garage is lower than the alley and said that the alley is on a slope. If the cars are to come straight out of the garage directly onto an alley, there is less of a grade change versus the location where the driveway has been approved as there is more of a grade change. Commissioner Kaplan said that the Commission drove through the area yesterday and stated that she did not understand the problem as this is a small alley. It made more sense to have individuals back onto an apron off the street than it is to back directly onto what seems to be a smaller depth, backing onto a fence, opposite the garage door. She did not see a reason to change the design. Commissioner Patrick agreed with Commissioner Kaplan as the Commission studied this project in depth. She did not see a reason to change it. Commissioner Murakami felt that the issue should have been raised at time of design review and have the change in design incorporated at that time. He felt that it was inappropriate to change it at this time. Commissioner Pierce agreed with the comments expressed. Commissioner Page felt that this was an opportunity to install some greenery instead of cement. However, in light of the pandora box that this would be opened, he recommended that no changes be approved. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with the comments expressed by her fellow Commissioners. NO ACTION TAKEN. REVISED SIGN PROGRAM - ARGONAUT SHOPPING CENTER; Request to modify the sign criteria and colors for tenants at the remodeled Argonaut Shopping Center. Commissioner Kaplan asked if there were other drawings than those provided to indicate what the signage will look like? She asked how bright the internal lighting is to be? Planner Pearson informed the Commission that the project architect has not provided any renderings of the particular sign design. He stated that the applicant has broken the information into sections for the anchor tenants, the pad buildings and the rest of the tenants. All of the stores with the exception of Longs and Safeway, are proposed to have individual letters that are metal on the front and sides, internally illuminated that will shine out the back side of the letters. The letters are to be spaced approximately an inch away from the wall. The two colors proposed are black forest (green) and cranbrook for all the non national tenants. The applicant is requesting the discretion of designating certain tenants as national tenants and that the national tenants would be allowed to use their own corporate colors. Chairwoman Bernald asked if this request was a great departure from the city's sign ordinance? Planner Pearson responded that the revised sign program complies with the city's sign ordinance as the sign ordinance addresses size and location of signs. PLANNING COMMISSION - tINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 25 - Commissioner Murakami asked if any indication has been given as to how many national tenants are going to locate in the shopping center besides Safeway, Longs, and Starbucks? Planner Pearson responded that they have not. Planner Bradley said that the sign color is a matter whether the Commission would like to see a variety in color or whether the Commission wants more uniformity in color. She indicated that no neon signs would be allowed and that all signs would be individual can, internally illuminated signs. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she would like to see some consistency in the colors of the signs as the building has enough color. She expressed concern with giving the landlord the discretion of calling a business national versus a local business. She did not see a need to change the sign program. Planner Bradley informed the Commission that the sign ordinance does allow logos to be different than the approved colors and that they would provide a variety in color. Commissioner Patrick felt that the applicant should have learned by now that "suggested tenants" should not be indicated on the plans as this is where they got into a problem with Starbucks. She said that the question would be which businesses are national and which ones are not. She said that she has a difficulty in allowing the landlord to determine this carte blanche determination. She felt that the city's sign ordinance was clear enough that the logos of businesses with established logos can use different colors. Therefore, she was not sure if she wanted to change this. It was her recollection that the Commission has not approved the color scheme for the signs and that the applicant was to return with the proposed colors when they were selected. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she would like to see colored renderings or pictures that would provide the Commission with a sample sign that contained the colors proposed. Commissioner Page recommended that the circular Starbucks logo on Blauer not be illuminated to address the neighbors' concerns. Planner Pearson brought to the Commission's attention that the back side of the fourth page contains a memo from Community Development Director Walgren dated October 10, 1997 stating that sign colors were left up to staff. He indicated that Mr. Walgren designated the four sign colors from the color board from the shopping center itself. Chairwoman Bernald concurred that if there is to be any signs to be located on the Blauer side of the shopping center, that they not be illuminated. Commissioner Kaplan stated her support of the colors identified in the Commission's packet (plum, suede, rose and jade). Commissioner Page did believe that anything that reflects light should be approved. He felt the colors proposed and the light on them may be alright. IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION THAT NO INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED SIGNS ARE TO BE ALLOWED ON THE BLAUER SIDE OF THE BUILDING. SIGN COLORS TO BE PLUM, SUEDE, ROSE AND JADE AS IDENTIFIED BY STAFF. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 26 - Appointment of Bicycle Advisory Committee representative. Commissioner Patrick recommended that this item be continued to the Commission's next meeting so that the new Commissioners can participate in this opportunity. IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION TO DEFER THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT MEETING TO ALLOW THE NEW COMMISSIONERS THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE ON THIS ITEM. Commissioner Kaplan recommended that staff re- notice the election of a new vice chair since the current vice chair has been removed from office. Chairwoman Bernald noted that tonight, the City is saying goodbye to four of its Planning Commissioners: Commissioners Murakami, Kaplan, Pierce and Martlage. Together, they represent over 18 years of planning commission experience. She stated that Commissioner Murakami was thoughtful, considerate, insightful and dedicated Commission member who carefully analyzed plans, treated applicants with respect and made new members feel welcome and supported. With his departure, the Commission looses its resident historian. In Commissioner Kaplan, the Commission has had an ever vigilant watch dog who has made it her mission to protect trees and keep Saratoga free of illegally parked trucks and trailers and unsightly abandoned appliances. As a result of her determination and dedication, the City of Saratoga instituted a trend setting fireplace ordinance which will keep the air cleaner for all Saratoga citizens. She has taught new Commission members to be direct and frank and to do battle for just causes. With Commissioner Pierce, the Commission had a born arbitrator and negotiator who has worked continuously to have the Commission explore all sides of an issue and find the best possible solution. All Coin inissioners and applicants alike have benefited from his soft spoken and polite manner, his dedication, his consistency and his legal purview. In Commissioner Martlage, the Commission had a talented caring member, who with her artistic background and sensitive eyes has taught the Commission about balance and beauty, architecture and aesthetics. She stated that it has been a please to serve with these four special individuals. While the Commission come from different backgrounds, live in different neighborhoods and have different view points, the Commission has worked well as a team. The Commission has agreed to disagree, debate and investigate, question and vote and then move on. She stated that the Commission and the community will miss these four Commissioners and thanked them. Commissioner Kaplan stated that it has been a privilege to serve as a Planning Commissioner. She stated that she wanted to serve as a Planning Commissioner because she firmly believes that everyone has a civic responsibility and felt that the city has benefited in some regard. She has personally benefited on serving on a commission where a few individuals have rotated through the Commission, indicating that they are the finest people who reside in the city. She felt that this Commission in particular has been a great group. Another part of her personal satisfaction was the privilege of working with planning staff. She was sorry that Community Director Walgren was not present this evening. She wanted him to know that she appreciated the professionalism and dedication of planning staff under this tutorage. She said that it was unusual to have a majority of new commissioners coming in with no experience and that they have a lot to learn. She felt that in three to four years, they will become comfortable with their position as a Planning Commissioner. Until then, they can expect to spend three to four hours per packet, if not more. She felt that this was critical and that it was also critical that they attend the land use visits. Decisions will be made that are very important to individuals but that in the giant scheme of this world, they are insignificant. She recommended that the new Commission do the best job that it can but that it. PLANNING COMMISSION. _.iINUTES APRIL 28, 1999 PAGE - 27 - She urged the citizenry to sit up and take notice also that demographic changes are occurring. She urged the citizenry to keep its eyes open, participate and be good citizens. She thanked everyone for the opportunity to serve the community and wished everyone well. Commissioner Murakami also thanked staff and stated that it has been a pleasure working with staff. He said that he would have liked to have said goodby to Community Development Director Walgren tonight as he has worked with him seven and a half years. He stated that this is one of the best Commissions that lie has worked with. Even though it may not agree on everything, it is very civil on how it conducts itself and that there is always a good working relationship. He noted that things change and things go on. He said that lie will miss the comradeship he had with the Commission and wished the Commission luck. Commissioner Pierce stated that it has been an enjoyable three and a half years for him to be involved with staff and the various commissions he has worked with. He said that the Commission has been wonderful people and staff has been great. He acknowledged that it takes time to serve as a Planning Commissioner but that it is a rewarding experience knowing that you are doing something to help the conununity. He felt that his experience on the Park and Recreation Commission has also made him a better citizen of Saratoga and thanked the city /community for this opportunity. Planner Bradley informed the Commission that on May 19, 1997 the City Council will be presenting proclamations to the four outgoing Commissioners. COMMUNICATIONS Written Minutes for City Council Meeting of April 7, 1999 - Notices for Planning Commission Meeting of May 12, 1999 - Chairwoman Bernald noted that a letter was received from Ellis and Barrett, a professional law association regarding the Lau property. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING There being no further business, Chairwoman Bernald adjourned the meeting to Wednesday, May 1.2, 1999, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk CITY OF SARATOGA :PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 1999 Civic Center, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting Chairman Pierce called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. Roll Call: Present: Commissioners Bernald, Kaplan, Martlage, Murakami, Page, and Chairman Pierce Absent: Commissioner Patrick Staff: Director Walgren Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - March 24, 1999 On a motion by Commissioners Bernald /Kaplan, the Commission approved the March 24, 1999 minutes with the following amendments: - Page 3, paragraph 2, line 6, replace the word "rewsed" with "reissued." - Page 6, Paragraph 4, line 4 amended to read: "She concurred with the cleanup effort, including the removal of the upholstered furniture..." - Page 6, Paragraph 5, line 2 amended to add the following sentence: "...support the design until clarifications were made. The clarifications presented tonight cleared up the issues..." - Page 9, last paragraph, line 10, replace the word ";' with "variance." - Page 13, Paragraph 2, line 2 amended to read: "...felt that saving tree #16 may be a nuisance for the pool maintenance but noted that the tree was there first... - Page 18, paragraph 4, line 4 amended to read: "...to improved his presentation as far as the drawings were concerned as they were of a bad quality. The motion carried 6 -0 with Commissioner Patrick absent. Oral Communication No comments were offered. Report of Posting Agenda Director Walgren declared that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on April 9, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet Director Walgren indicated that there were no technical corrections to the packet. PLANNING COMMISSIOi..etINUTES APRIL 14, 1999 PAGE - 2 - CONSENT CALENDAR 1. DR -98 -067 (517 -13 -012) - BYRNE, 15001 Bohlman Road; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new two -story 5,522 sq. ft. residence with a maximum height of 26 ft. on a vacant 2.4 acre (net) parcel in a Hillside Residential zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 5/26/99 AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT TO ALLOW NEW PROPERTY OWNER TIME TO REVISE PLANS) COMMISSIONERS PAGE /BERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 1 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSENT. 2. S -99 -005 (517 -36 -009) - HAKONE GARDENS, 21000 Big Basin Way; Request for Sign Permit approval to construct a new 18 sq. ft. non - illuminated monument sign at the intersection of the park's driveway with Big Basin Way. The site is 16.5 acres and is located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. COMMISSIONERS PAGE /BERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 2 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 -1 WITH CHAIRMAN PIERCE ABSTAINING AND COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. SM -99 -001 & F -99 -001 (503 -75 -010) - JEPSEN /GUERRETTE, 21756 Congress Hall Lane; Request for Site Modification permit to construct a pool with associated hillside grading, and Fence permit to construct a fence enclosing 12,938 sq. ft., in a zoning district that limits hillside fencing to no more than 4,000 sq. ft. Director Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that the hillside modification is necessary to give the Planning Commission and the neighboring property owner a chance to review the proposal that would substantially alter a hillside. The grading is necessary to accommodate a yard play field and a swimming pool. The pool is to be located in a slope of approximately 27 %, approaching the maximum permitted by slope, noting that no development is allowed in slopes of 30% or greater. Given the unique location of the property and the fact that the pool itself would be on a side of the hill that would not be visible from any off site views and can only be seen partially through a tree line from a single residence that is well beyond the property, he indicated staffs support of the site modification request. Regarding the fencing enclosure request, lie informed the Commission that the two findings necessary to approve more than 4,000 square feet of fencing are: 1) the fencing is screened by terrain and /or vegetation; or 2) the fencing is necessary for safety purposes. In this case, staff finds that the first finding can be made. The proposal to fence in 12,000 square feet of the property is less than 10% of the overall site and will be screened by a very dense oak tree canopy line and the hillside terrain. Staff felt that both applications can be supported with the conditions contained in the resolutions which includes a very extensive landscaping perimeter screening plan in addition to the landscaping that was required per the house approval. In response to Commissioner Kaplan's question, Director Walgren stated that the property is approximately 130,000 square feet in size and that of the 13,000 square feet of fencing enclosure, less than 10% of the total site area is proposed to be fenced. He indicated that this is not a finding relative to the code section. PLANNING COMMISSION, ✓ 1NUTES APRIL 14, 1999 PAGE - 3 - Commissioner Bernald asked if the retaining walls would ever exceed five feet in height? Director Walgren informed the Commission that a five foot limitation has been included in the condition of approval. The proposed fence has been designed and shown on the plan not to exceed five feet in height. Therefore, the retaining walls would not be allowed to exceed five feet in height. Commissioner Page asked if a geotechnical clearance was necessary for construction on the hillside? Director Walgren clarified that the subdivision initially required a geologic review. The pool construction and associated grading also requires further geotechnical review. He indicated that the geotechnical review has been included as a condition in the resolution of approval. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. Lynn Winterbotham, landscape architect, stated that the site presents a number of challenges given the slope and the existing vegetation. He identified the location of the swimming pool, lawn and terrace areas that were desired for the rear yard. He stated that lie tried to site these items along the contour of the site to minimize grading. Regarding the question relating to the retaining wall, lie said that they are to be no greater than 3.5 feet in height. The swimming pool was located in an area to minimize its visibility, to take advantage of the western sun, and to access a changing room /bathroom accessible from the lower level of the house. He said that he tried to push the fence below the oak line to minimize its view. The area to be fenced is less than 10% of the site. Therefore, he did not believe that there would be an impact on the natural environment of this area. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she was not convinced that putting the swimming pool on a 27 degree slope makes more sense than siting it on a level area, directly behind the house with no requirement for a retaining wall or the need for a geotechnical report. Mr. Winterbotham said that he studied the flat area referenced by Commissioner Kaplan. He said that there are some things that are very appealing to siting the swimming pool in the area proposed. The desire to include a level lawn and play area caused him to move the pool to the proposed location. He did find that flat area to be suitable. Commissioner Martlage inquired as to the purpose of the fence? She said that given the terrain, she did not know why a fence is required. Mr. Winterbotham said that a cover for the pool is not being proposed. The owner has a dog that they would like to be able to let outside. The fence is also proposed for safety to allow small children to use the play /lawn area. Commissioner Page inquired as to the proximity of the oaks to the fence. Mr. Winterbotham responded that the fence would not be under the canopy of the oak trees but that the fence would be shielded by the oaks. He said that the fence would be located well below the top of the trees. He said that the fence is located approximately 15 feet below the level area. Commissioner Kaplan expressed concern with the materials chosen. She asked if the Commission has required wrought iron fencing in the past? Director Walgren informed the Commission that the more common fencing seen in this type of applications is the open wire, wood frame fencing. He said that both open iron wood frame and open wire fences have been approved. The proposed fencing material has not been approved as much as the other types of fencing material. Commissioner Bernald said that she has never seen wrought iron and redwood materials mixed together. Director Walgren said that the redwood post design would look more like an open wire style fencing which integrates the use of wood. PLANNING COMMISSIOi, MINUTES APRIL 14, 1999 PAGE - 4 - Mr. Winterbothan informed the Commission that he proposed vertical pickets to minimize the opportunity for individuals to scale over the fence. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI /BERNALD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:49 P.M. Commissioner Page felt that the site modifications to the pool and play area as proposed is a creative use of the land. He appreciated the fact that the applicant kept the retaining wall to 3.5 feet. He said that the fence was something that concerned him when he looked at the drawings due to the amount of square of footage that it encompasses. As he drives around Saratoga, especially the hillside districts, he is seeing more areas being covered by fences. This means that wildlife would have to go somewhere else or perish. However, with the explanation of where the fence is sited on the topography has helped a lot. He did not believe that too much of the fence would be viewed from the road or from any other home. Therefore, he stated that he could support the application. Commissioner Martlage stated her concurrence with the comments expressed by Commissioner Page. She felt that the site modification is a logical choice. She stated that she was still bothered by the fence. She said that in the past, the Commission has approved fences and that it has regretted it later. She was not sure whether this was the best choice for the open land for the reasons identified by Commissioner Page (i.e., wildlife that comes through the natural migration patterns). She stated that she was less inclined to support this aspect but that she understood the aesthetic concerns and felt that it was a good design. Commissioner Bernald also stated that she had concerns and continues to have concerns about fencing in the hillside areas and altering the migration routes of wildlife. Considering the size of the property, the terrain, and the amount of open space, she stated that she would be supporting the fence request. She stated that she could also support the site modification plans this evening. Commissioner Murakami agreed with Commissioner Bernald. He felt that this was a reasonable request based on the size of the lot and the usable area that the property owner is trying to encompass with the fence. As long as the landscaping is done properly, he could support the application. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she could not support the fencing as she felt that too much fencing is being proposed. In addition to the fencing being requested, the applicant is also proposing to enclose the pool area. Moving the pool to a flat area, one could properly enclose the pool with a fence. She did not believe that the fence material chosen goes along with some of the previous exceptions granted by the Planning Commission. She said that in many areas, the planning commission has required the open wire fencing material so that it is less obtrusive, visually. For the reasons stated, she could not support the request. Chairman Pierce indicated that he could support both requests before the Planning Commission. He felt that the fencing issue is one that will not go away, will continue to be a problem, and that the commission will see it in other cases. He felt that it was much easier to approve the fencing in this case versus other cases that the commission has seen. He felt that the commission will have to deal with this and perhaps the City Council will have to come up with new guidelines. COMMISSIONERS MARTLAGE /PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. SM -99 -001. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER KAPLAN VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSENT. PLANNING COMMISSIGI, _,IINUTES APRIL 14, 1999 PAGE - 5 - COMMISSIONERS PAGE /BERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. F -99 -001. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -2 WITH COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN AND MARTLAGE VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSENT. 4. SD -99 -001 (503 -20 -061) - WANG, 20520 Verde Vista Lane; Request to subdivide a 41,793 sq. ft. lot into two lots of 29,057 sq. ft. and 12,736 sq. ft. The property is located in an R -1- 12,500 zoning district. Director Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the commission that the lot split meets the general plan, density, lot size, and zoning ordinance requirements for this zoning district. The city arborist reviewed the proposal as the site is heavily wooded with pine trees and coast redwoods and cork bark oaks. There are several trees that are located within the proposed envelopes that have been categorized as either fine to excellent specimens. While the trees would not be approved to be removed as part of the map, it has to be noted that when home applications are developed for the site, several of the trees would have to be removed to accommodate home construction. He stated that conditions in the resolution require that the significant trees be retained on site, noting that it would be impossible to retain a.11 trees on site and still provide two building envelopes for the two parcels. Based on the parcel's conformance with the general plan and zoning standards, staff is recommending approval of the parcel map with the condition that the home applications, no matter what size homes are being proposed, return to the Planning Commission as a regularly noticed public hearing and reviewed by the city arborist to ensure that as many trees can be protected on site as possible. Commissioner Bernald disclosed that she spoke with Eric Morley. She asked if staff was requesting that the Commission make a subjective decision? Director Walgren said that the application is subjective in the sense that the planning commission needs to find that the proposed subdivision will ultimately be compatible with the overall makeup and character of the neighborhood. He indicated that this application is not affected by Measure G. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she also received a phone call from Mr. Morley. Mr. Morley informed her that he sent letters to the neighbors, that Ile negotiated with the neighbors to the rear (McMahans), offering to install trees to mitigate what the McMahans feel are invasions of their privacy. She stated that she received a notice for her property and that she is outside the statutory 300 feet and well beyond the city's bonus notification area. As such, she does not have to nor will she refute herself on this item. Commissioner Page stated that he was also contacted by Mr. Morley. Mr. Morley informed him that he was working with the McMahans to come up with an agreement on the pine trees. Chairman Pierce stated that he also spoke with Mr. Morley and that his discussion was similar to those mentioned by the other commissioners. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 7:57 p.m. Eric Morley, representing the property owners, requested approval of a two lot subdivision for the ultimate purpose of building two single story homes. He indicated that one home is to be occupied by the Wang family and the other home by their in -laws. He informed the Commission that the Wang family requested that he send a letter to any neighbor who was adjacent to and may view the property. Said letter was sent to 18 neighbors and that he has met with four of the six neighbors that abut the property. PLANNING COMMISSIOi..AINUTES APRIL 14, 1999 PAGE -6- He spoke to the Lee family located to the east of the property who raised concern about drainage. He informed Mrs. Lee that drainage has been addressed, that it will be discussed further at the design review stage and that a solution would be presented at that time. The McMahans have raised concerns regarding views, privacy and potential noise associated with the tennis court being proposed. He clarified that the tennis court application and permit is an administrative review and approval. He indicated that the tennis court would require an extensive landscape plan. He has committed to work with staff and the McMahans on specific size, location and species of trees to be planted to ensure that the McMahans retain their privacy. He said that the Wangs have expressed concern with the two story home behind them and its interface with their single story home. He felt that there is mutual work being proposed at the design review process. He stated his concurrence with staffs recommendation. He informed the Commission that Mr. and Mrs. Wang have spent a great deal of time working on this plan and purchased the property for themselves, their families and the proposed uses. He requested Planning Commission approval of the two -lot subdivision. Mary Lee, 20675 Verde Vista Lane, informed the Commission that she was contacted by Mr. Morley. She said that she has more concerns than just the drainage on the lot. As an eleven year resident of Saratoga, she expressed concern that the subdivision is being presented as a quarter acre lot and that it is not consistent with the spirit of the neighborhood. The placement of a quarter acre lot does not consider future living space and expansion possibilities for this particular piece of property which does not fit into the complexion of the neighborhood. She said that there are several trees that exist on the site that have been designated for removal that provide privacy. She said that she has spent a lot of money taking responsibility for drainage on her property. She has discovered that the majority of the water problem is coming from the runoff from this particular piece of property. She requested that the property owners take responsibility for correcting tills problem. She also requested that she be provided with a copy of the drainage plan before the work begins. She informed the Commission that the parcel is on septic. She asked how the two additional single family homes would impact the existing sewer system? Jim Lee, 20675 Verde Vista Lane, stated that it was his belief that the quarter acre lot was designed to share amenities with the other family, (i.e., pool and tennis court). He does not believe that this is in keeping with the spirit of the neighborhood. He recommended that the acre lot be subdivided as half acre lots. He informed the Commission that lie has a .49 acre parcel. Director Walgren said that both lots would be required to hook up to sanitary sewer. He said that the city encourages property owners to hook up to the sewer system to get properties off of septic systems. Bob McMahan, 13654 Verde Vista Court, informed the commission that he resides behind the subject property. He said that he also spent a lot of time trying to find property before finding this property and that he shares 170 feet of property line with the existing lot. He said that Mr. Morley also spoke with him this afternoon. He felt that it would be in the spirit of the neighborhood to subdivide the property evenly down the middle. He felt that a 30,000 square foot lot and a 12,000 square foot lot have a lot of issues. If divided equally, similar sized structures can be built to blend in with the neighborhood. He felt that the 30,000 square foot lot would allow for a lot of accessory structures to be built on the property, including a tennis court which he does not support. Rebecca McMahan, 13654 Verde Vista Court, also recommended that the parcel be subdivided down the middle. She felt that the large L- shaped lot lends itself to undesirable structures right next to her property such as the tennis court. She also expressed concern that this section of the lot would not be maintained because it is not visible from the owner's home. She said that she is very interested in preserving the tall trees visible from her second story window and the trees behind her lot. She had been PLANNING COMMISSIOi, .✓IINUTES APRIL 14, 1999 PAGE - 7 - searching for a home for three years until she found this dream home due to the existing trees. She read into the record a letter that was sent to the Wangs offering to purchase the portion of the land surrounding the trees. She stated that the arborist has indicated that the Monterey trees may not be in the best condition. If the trees cannot be saved or if they are at the end of their life span, she requested that similar tall trees be planted to restore her dream home. She stated that redwood trees would be an acceptable replacement tree(s). Mr. Morley addressed the drainage plan and stated that the he would take full responsibility for drainage issues. He said that the future homes would connect to the sewer system. He indicated that the four trees located to the rear of the property are proposed to be retained. The two trees behind these trees are proposed to be removed. He said that six trees are in fair to marginal health. If the McMahans prefer, he would propose to retain all four trees. If the McMahans prefer that they be removed and replaced with redwood trees or any other species that meet their specific interest, he has agreed to work closely with the McMahans on exactly what they would like to see in terms of size, height, species and location to make sure that the interface works well. He said that the Wangs are requesting that the subdivision before the commission be approved as opposed to the 50150 lot split. Commissioner Murakami asked Mr. Morley if the lots were split exactly in half, could the owner still put the tennis court in between two properties? Mr. Morley stated that he did not know whether this would be allowed as you would have a tennis court straddling two property lines. Director Walgren responded that even though the two properties are owned by the same owner, you could not straddle the tennis court between the two properties. Commissioner Martlage asked if Parcel A remains at 29,000 square feet, could it be further subdivided at some point because it would conform to the zoning district? Director Walgren stated that further subdivision would conform in area but that physically, the lot could not meet the width, depth and frontage standards for the remaining L -shape lot that would be created. Mr. Morley informed the Commission that the applicant would agree to a condition that would preclude further subdivision, if necessary. He agreed that given the configuration of the lot split, further subdivision could not occur. He clarified that the accessory structure is controlled by an impervious coverage floor area ratio and that this would be calculated in the design review application. Commissioner Martlage asked if the parcel could legally be divided into three parcels with the third parcel running the length of the back. She also asked if the tennis court could be built if it were on a separate parcel? She said that she wanted to make sure that the property could not be further subdivided at a future date. Director Walgren stated that he did not believe that the parcel would be able to meet the width and depth standards even though it would meet the mathematical area requirements. He indicated that you could not have accessory uses such as a tennis court on a parcel by itself. It would have to be an accessory structure to a residence. Mr. Morley said that the Wangs would be more than willing to do what is necessary to make sure that more than adequate screening is provided. COMMISSIONERS PAGE /BERNALD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:20 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSIOI..rIINUTES APRiL 14, 1999 PAGE - 8 - Commissioner Kaplan said that a couple of issues have been raised. She said that she walks this neighborhood frequently. She said that this is not a neighborhood that has large lots, swimming pools or grandiose things. Once the Horticultural Foundation moved out and homes got built, any sense of open space was eliminated. She expressed concern with the configuration of the two lots and knowing that it was to be a two - thirds /one -third lot split. She said that the trees were the most outstanding feature when You walk past the property. She acknowledged that there were very good, exceptional specimen trees located all over the property. It would be her first choice to build a nice home and retain the open space. She did not feel that the lot split being proposed is compatible with the neighborhood. She said that it did not matter who would reside in the homes as it is not known from one year to the next if the property owner would sell the property. She felt that the tennis court in the back would impact six separate properties that are clustered close together and would be an imposition to the neighbors. She stated that she would not support the lot split as presented. If the lot is to be subdivided, she recommended that it be split down the middle to make it a compatible and comparable in size to that of the neighborhood. Commissioner Murakarni felt that the neighbors have raised a lot of good points and felt that some of these concerns have been addressed by staff. He felt that the property owners have the right to subdivide their property even if the lots seem irregular. If you look at some of the flag lots that are located to the right of property, there is not a uniform feel to this particular section of the neighborhood. He stated that he understood the neighbors' concern of not seeing an evenly split lot but that he also understood the legal part of this decision. With the lack of easements or covenants precluding any type of split of this nature, he stated that he would approve the two -lot subdivision as presented. Commissioner Bernald felt that this is a very subjective decision that has to be made. She felt that ordinance -wise, this parcel can be split and that all laws support it. However, she felt that Measure G was passed because individuals did not want to see carving out of pieces of areas. She felt that Area B guidelines have stated that this area has to be conforming in terms of density consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. She stated that she was very concerned with the beautiful specimen trees as they are a special part of the neighborhood. She did not believe that splitting the lot down the middle would protect the trees and therefore could not use the trees as an argument one way or the other. She felt that the neighbors' desire to see the parcel split down the middle is the most reasonable request that she has heard. She felt that it can be and should be supported. She expressed concern with carving out a quarter acre and leaving another parcel where the city would have two homes that will exceed 8,000 square feet when combined together. For this reason, she could not support the lot split this evening. Commissioner Martlage concurred with everything that has been stated. She felt that this was an unfortunate situation. She felt that the best case scenario would be to split the lot down the middle and move the homes out of the way of the trees. She noted that legally, the parcel can be subdivided. She agreed that splitting the parcel down the middle is the best use of the land. Commissioner Page stated that he took a mathematical look at the trees that were slated for removal as this was a concern to him based upon the initial pad definition. He calculated that 60% (20 of the 30 trees) of the exceptionally good trees are slated for removal. He expressed concern with what the end result might be and felt that there was room to work with. Another concern was with the frontages. Splitting the parcel in two pieces, would result in having two homes with very short frontages. He understood that the ordinance allows this lot split configuration. However, he felt that the property owner would go through a lot of expense to make two homes fit that may not end up fitting in with the neighborhood. He said that at this time, he could not support the subdivision as presented. PLANNING COMMISSIOi..- ✓IINUTES APRIL 14, 1999 PAGE - 9 - Chairman Pierce disagreed with the comments expressed. He felt that the Lees' lot and the flag lot behind them are similar to the lot being reviewed this evening. He stated that he does not support flag lots. The Commission is faced with the fact that there will be a couple of lots with 90 foot frontages. The way that the subdivision is proposed with the bigger lot encompassing the redwoods is an advantage as it gives the property owners more space to work with. He felt that the redwoods were the trees most valuable and that they should be saved. Regarding the pine trees, he noted that they are in a terrible condition. He felt that the proposed subdivision was the most efficient use of the space if two families are to use a pool and tennis court without duplicating these accessory structures, one that he was supportive of it. He did not believe that splitting the parcel down the middle would accomplish anything more than just making one lot bigger than the other and potentially allowing a bigger house on the other lot. Therefore, he would support the application as presented. When it comes time to review the actual design of the homes, the Commission can take a look at the tennis court or any other structures as part of the design review process. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that the Commission would not be able to prevent the installation of a tennis court once the subdivision is approved. Director Walgren informed the Commission that had the applicant come in a month ago prior to submitting an application for a tentative parcel map, the tennis court would have been an administrative approval. Its location would met the city's minimum standards and could have been approved subject to an arborist review and evaluation of the two pine trees that would have to be removed. Now that the city has the tentative parcel map before the Commission, the Commission can place a condition on the map that stipulates that no tennis court shall be approved on Parcel A unless approved by the Planning Commission. Chairman Pierce stated his support of the review of a tennis court by the Planning Commission as part of the design review process. Commissioner Page asked if a condition could be included that indicates that certain trees or a percentage of the exceptional and very good trees have to be retained? Director Walgren informed the Commission that a condition has been included in the resolution that states that the applicant shall prove to the Planning Commission that they are retaining as many of the exceptional and good conditioned trees as possible, subject to design review consideration. Commissioner Page agreed with Chairman Pierce that it should be indicated that the redwood trees are to be retained. Chairman Pierce said that the proposed resolution has been conditioned to require that the applicant make every effort to save the redwood trees. Director Walgren noted that the suggestion of splitting the parcel down the middle and moving the pads towards the back of the parcel would work toward preserving more of the trees up front, including the redwood trees. Commissioner Kaplan felt that ultimately, the lots would fall into two separate families and that they were not going to remain the same. She felt that this would create a conflict. Commissioner Page recommended that this item be continued to a study session. PLANNING COMMISSION ..,IINUTES APRiL 14, 1999 PAGE- 10 - Commissioners Kaplan, Bernald, Martlage and Page supported a lot split down the middle as it would preserve the trees the best. Commissioner Murakami and Chairman Pierce stated their support of the subdivision application as presented. Director Walgren stated that if a motion was made to approve the application as submitted, the motion would fail on a 2 -4 vote. A second motion would then be made to approve the map with a condition that the dividing line go directly down the middle of the parcel and that all future homes and accessory uses on the property shall be subject to planning commission review and approval. He informed the Commission that should the Commission continue this item to a study session, the earliest date that it could be scheduled would be May 12, 1999. Commissioner noted that the Commission makeup may be different at that time. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD /KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. SD -99 -001. WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: DIVISION OF THE LAND IS TO BE A 50/50 LOT SPLIT; ALL FUTURE HOMES AND ACCESSORY USES ON THE PROPERTIES SHALL RETURN AS A DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW /APPROVAL; AND WHEN DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATIONS ARE SUBMITTED, DRAINAGE SHALL BE COLLECTED AND BROUGHT TO THE STREET ON VERDE VISTA TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -2 WITH COMMISSIONER MURAKAMI AND CHAIRMAN PIERCE VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSENT. 5. DR -98 -058 & V -98 -020 (503 -26 -015) - HOYT, 14471 Springer Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to remodel and add 422 sq. ft. to the existing first story and add a 695 sq. ft. second story to an existing 1,218 sq. ft. residence. There is an existing detached 371 sq. ft. garage on site. Total proposed floor area is 2,706 sq. ft. The site is a 7,500 sq. ft. (net) parcel located in an R -1- 10,000 zoning district. Variance is required to allow an undersized garage, when a two -car garage is required. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Director Walgren presented the staff report and informed the Commission that in order to maintain the existing non conforming setback, a variance is necessary. Prior to this application be submitted, the applicant received building permits to convert the accessory structure back into a two car garage, not being aware that the city has minimum interior dimension requirements for a garage. Staff finds that the special circumstance is the fact that the building exists, is bounded by an existing pool and patio and bounded to the back by a deck and jacuzzi structure. Staff feels that it would be considered a hardship to break out a significant portion of the building to widen the garage by three fee which would also require modifications to the pool. Regarding the design review application, he noted that the application is a major renovation of a single story portion of a building and includes a second story addition. The architectural style is changing significantly from the current building that exists to a more mission or Mediterranean style building. Staff has reviewed the plan and finds that the necessary findings can be made, for the most part, with regards to the building's height, protection of views and privacy on adjoining properties. It also meets all minimum zoning ordinance standards. Regarding the architectural style, one of the early concerns that staff discussed with the applicant is the vertical appearance of the right side elevation of the building. Working through plan revisions and understanding that the parcel is only 50 feet in width, you are left with only a 30 foot wide envelope to work with, resulting in a fairly vertical elevation along this side of the building. He said that the design can be supported as presented to the Planning Commission, recommending that the roof tile be modified to reflect a shake roof that is PLANNING COMMISSIOi..✓IINUTES APRIL 14, 1999 PAGE - 11 - prevalent in the Springer Avenue tract to the north of this property in order to achieve a greater architectural compatibility with the established neighborhood. Commissioner Murakami asked why the upper addition is more to the right of the structure? He asked if it was due to the low bearing nature of the structure or was it due to the limits in square footage that limits the size, width and square footage, resulting in a design of this manner? Director Walgren responded that the design of the upper addition to the right hand side most likely was to take advantage of the low bearing wall and for simplicity of design and construction but that it is also relative to the fact that the property owner has a 30 -foot wide envelop to work with. If the parcel was 100 feet in width and the building could be spread out, the design would not result in a vertical wall. Commissioner Murakami felt that if the addition was centered, it would still look odd. Commissioner Kaplan referred to the right elevation and noted a wide chimney. She asked if it was a gas or wood burning chimney? If gas burning, she asked why a chimney was needed? She said that one of the chimneys would have to be non wood burning. She did not know why you need a chimney with a spark arrestor was needed. Director Walgren clarified that a wood burning fireplace is proposed in the living room. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she agreed with Commissioner Murakami that the building appears to be skewed to the right and that it is not balanced. She requested clarification as to the flat structure with the small arched window above it. Director Walgren responded that it is a cantilevered room element that comes off of the master bath on the second story and accommodates a sink and two linen closets. This is a means to get a little extra square footage off of the second floor by pushing out beyond the wall line. He said that the chimney does not need to be as big as it is designed and that it can be reduced. Commissioner Page inquired as to the height of the existing structure? Director Walgren responded that the existing structure is very low, approximately 14 -15 feet in height. Commissioner Bernald said that at the site visit, the applicant mentioned that she wanted a more Spanish feel to the design. She asked if there was a compromise on a tile material that could be a flatter tile that would be more in keeping with the Spanish or Italian style home that staff would feel meets the applicant's request and yet be compatible with the neighborhood? Director Walgren stated that going to a flat tile, particularly one that simulates a wood shake roof, would alter the architectural style. A flat tile could be installed and not change the architecture at all. It is staffs recommendation to utilize a historical architectural style that was prevalent in Saratoga in the late 1800s and early 1900s. He said that there are a large number of Mediterranean style homes throughout Saratoga, particularly in the Villa Montalvo and the valley areas. He said that the Mary Springer tract was one of the earlier subdivisions within the boundary of Saratoga. It is an area that has a large stock of older, earlier homes, noting that the neighborhood is very homogenous and that redevelopment has been consistent with the existing design. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 8:47 p.m. Dee Bettinger, 766 Garland .Drive, Palo Alto, representing the applicants, distributed a letter from Clark Hoyt dated April 13, 1999, apologizing to the Commission for not being able to attend this evening's meeting due to a previous business commitment. She informed the Commission that she is not the project architect but that she had the authority to answer for the applicant. She indicated that Mr. Hoyt PLANNING COMMISSIO- MINUTES APRIL 14, 1999 PAGE - 12 - agrees to change the fence and move the deck into the side. He also willing to work with colors that would be more compatible as suggested by staff. Mr. Hoyt is requesting that the Commission allow him to use the barrel tile roof as there were several homes in the area that have this similar tile. It is also being requested that the variance be approved as it would be a hardship to move the pool. Commissioner Kaplan asked about the necessity of having a large fireplace for a gas apparatus which does not require a fireplace nor a spark arrestor. She said that she was aware that the City Council agreed with the Planning Commission over the years to attempt to make the homes in the neighborhood relatively compatible. The Commission is very sensitive to neighborhoods such, as this one where the city has seen a great deal of remodeling of the old neighborhood craftsman -wood style. She felt that the proposed design is out of keeping with the compatibility of the neighborhood. She said that the garage issue is not a problem but that the style of the house does not reflect the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Bettinger informed the Commission that this is the design that the property owners chose for their home. She said that the home is very limited in terms of square footage to be added due to the size of the lot, setbacks, etc. Commissioner Bernald stated that the fireplace was her major concern. Commissioner Page asked how one enters the house with the new design? Ms. Bettinger said that entrance to the home would be through the French door located to the rear of the home. COMMISSIONERS KAPLANIBERNALD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:54 P.M. Director Walgren clarified his response to Commissioner Kaplan's earlier question by stating that staffs position is that the overall design, massing and profile of the building is compatible with the neighborhood. It is just a matter of modifying the details and materials to a simulated wood shake roofing and replacing the solid stucco walls with a wood slat - railing detail. These architectural details will bring the building into compatibility with the existing neighborhood. He said that staff was not suggesting a significant redesign. Commissioner Bernald noted that there is some concern with what has been presented to the Commission this evening and whether the Commission can move forward with the design given the fact that the applicant still wants a style that would continue to speak to stucco and to the rounded tile roof. Chairman Piece recommended that the Commission get a sense of how it feels regarding the design. If the Commission does not support the design, the Commission can consider continuing this item to a study session. Commissioner Martlage stated that she liked the design and agreed with staff that the massing and the scale is nice. However, she was bothered that the design would be of a stucco home next door to another stucco home. She expressed concern that the neighborhood would become a stucco village. She agreed that the details and finishes need to be changed. She stated that she liked the chimney because architecturally, it gives the elevation a lot more articulation and a lot more depth and interest. The only element that she did not like is the window. She stated that she liked the design and the asymmetry of the design and felt that it was sensibly done. She stated that she was very concerned with the stucco wall and the porch and that she was glad to see that they are no longer an issue. She recommended that a little more detail and refinement be done to the design. PLANNING COMMISSION. MINUTES APRIL 14, 1999 PAGE - 13 - Commissioner Page also felt that it was a good design and that it was appropriate. However, when he drove through the neighborhood and visited the site several times before tonight's meeting, he was concerned with the way the home is located on the hill when he goes from Fourth Street to Springer Avenue. He noted that the home is at an elevation higher than some of the other homes. Adding another eight feet to the height of the home would make it stand out, making it more incompatible with the neighborhood. He suggested that consideration be given to looking at wood or shingles as roofing material instead of the stucco and the Spanish style roof. As an alternative, you could locate the upper right side element to the left hand side of the home. This will give the home a little more depth. However, this may not take away from the problem coming down Springer Avenue towards Fourth. It was his observation going up the hill that the design would be too bulky. He liked the property but he did not believe that the home was appropriate as designed. He felt that modifications to the design would address his concerns. Commissioner Bernald agreed with Commissioner Martlage and felt that it was a delightful design. She felt that the design just needed a little tweaking. She said that when the Commission drove through the neighborhood, the Commission only saw two other barrel tile roofs in the neighborhood, one being far away and the other down the street. She did not believe that when you speak about this nearby neighborhood, that these two homes can be included. She said that she was comfortable with keeping the design as proposed. She found the front entryway charming and stated her support of it. She liked the details and pop -outs that occur in the design. She liked the arches and the play in the design. She felt that a roof design can be found that would be compatible with the home. Therefore, she would support a change in roof material and tweaking the colors as there were no architectural design elements that she would want to see changed. She expressed concern with the use of a large spark arrestor. However, she accepted Commissioner Martlage's point that the chimney does add another nice element. She felt that it would be a hardship to ask that anything more be done to the garage. Therefore, she could support the variance. Given the constraints of the lot, she noted that the Commission has granted variances similar to this one in similar neighborhoods before. Therefore, it was her belief that the Commission could grant the variance. Commissioner Murakami concurred with Commissioner Bernald. He stated that he did not have a problem with the basic style of the home and stated that he liked the design. The concern that he had was that of the structural integrity regarding the upper addition. He said that there was a logical explanation as to why the design was laid out this way. He agreed that the red tile roof would stand out too much, especially if a Spanish style roof material is used in this neighborhood. He stated that he could support the variance as it is logical to expect the garage to be in its position, especially in this neighborhood. He stated that he was prepared to approve the application with staff input on the smaller details. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she previously expressed her views regarding the proposed style of design. She felt that the neighborhood requires a more craftsman style design. She did not believe that inclusion of details on a wall would change the basic feel of the home. She stated that she would not support the design on the basis of compatibility with the neighborhood. Regarding the variance request, she felt that the findings can be made to support it. In response to Chairman Pierce's question, Director Walgren felt that the design could be tweaked to use a wood shake or a simulated wood shake roofing, eliminating some of the stucco finished guard rails with a wood slate railing, adjusting the color scheme from peach pastel color to more earthtone colors, consistent with the roofing style to lend it to a craftsman style. PLANNING COMMISSION . vHNUTES APRIL 14, 1999 PAGE - 14 - Chairman Pierce stated that he liked the design and its layout. He did not believe that a Mediterranean design fits in with the neighborhood. He felt that this is a very unique and wonderful neighborhood. As long as the design can be made compatible, he could support the application. COMMISSIONERS MARTLAGE /BERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -98- 058 WITH THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED BY STAFF (i.e., CHANGE IN ROOFING MATERIALS, FINISH, COLORS, TRIMS). THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER KAPLAN VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS MARTLAGE /PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. V -98 -020. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSENT. 6. DR -98 -069 (397 -04 -112) - BHEDA, 14812 Gypsy Hill Road; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new single story 5,780 sq. ft. residence with a maximum height of 21 ft. on a vacant 56,619 sq. ft. (net) parcel in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report and stated that the application is consistent with the conditions of the subdivision. He stated that the building, as designed, meets all minimum zoning requirements in terms of allowable floor area, minimum setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage. Staff also finds the design to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the application. He noted that there is a large healthy coast live oak in the middle of the building pad that has been identified as an excellent specimen tree. He identified other specimen trees to be retained, noting that this is the building pad identified as part of the subdivision. He said that it is unfortunate that a coast live oak is to be removed but noted that a condition has been included to require a replacement value of native trees in the amount of $5,664 to compensate for the loss of the oak tree. Commissioner Kaplan asked if consideration was given to site the home in a different location so that the home does not impact the trees? She said that she did not know how the applicant can install a swimming pool in a sloped area at a later date. Director Walgren said that the swimming pool would be reviewed as a future design review application. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 9:13 p.m. Marty Oakley, representing the applicant, stated that he would answer any questions which the Commission may have. Commissioner Kaplan asked if there was a way to site the home to retain the magnificent oak tree(s). Mr. Oakley responded that it was impossible to come up with a reasonable design to protect the oak tree unless a two story home is built. A two story home would have to be designed to fit between the drip line of the existing trees and would result in a "boxed" design. He indicated that the roofing material is to be of clay tile with the use of charcoal and wheat colors. The stucco is to be a dark, sand color. Natural silvercreek stone is proposed to be used and is to be similar in color as the roof material. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI /BERNALD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:17 P.M. PLANNING COMM IS SIG­ ,MINUTES APRIL 14, 1999 PAGE - 15 - Commissioner Bernald felt that the design of the home was compatible with the neighborhood. She stated that she originally shared Commissioner Kaplan's concern about the preservation of the magnificent oak tree. However she understood the constraints associated with the lot. She stated that she would support the application. Commissioner Murakami concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioner Bernald. He felt that the existing tree is valuable. He inquired about the cost to transplant oak trees? Director Walgren estimated that it would cost over $10,000 to transplant the oak tree(s) but that there were no guarantees that the tree(s) would survive transplanting. Commissioner Murakami felt that it was unfortunate that there was no other way to build the home. Therefore, he stated that he would support the application. Commissioner Page concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioner Murakami. He felt that this was a good design and that lie could support its approval. Commissioner Martlage stated her support of the project. She stated her appreciation of the fact that the applicant solicited the support of the neighbors. Commissioner Pierce stated that lie could also support the application. He noted that the city arborist has stated in the past that even though trees may be transplanted, they may not survive. He said that it was a shame that a magnificent oak tree would be lost. However, he did not believe that there was an alternative. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI /PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -98 -069. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSENT. DIRECTOR ITEMS Selection of new Planning Commission Chairman and Vice - Chairman Commissioners Murakami /Page nominated Commissioner Bernald to serve as Planning Commission Chairperson. No other nominations were offered. Commissioner Bernald was elected to serve as Planning Commission Chairperson on a 6 -0 vote (Commissioner Patrick absent). Chairman Pierce turned over the gavel to newly- elected Chairperson Bernald. Commissioners Kaplan /Page nominated Commissioner Martlage to serve as Vice - chairperson to the Planning Commission. No other nominations were offered. Commissioner Martlage was elected to serve as Vice - chairperson on a 6 -0 vote (Commissioner Patrick absent). - City Council 4/27/99 Adjourned Budget Meeting Director Walgren informed the Commission that a joint meeting will be held by the City Council and the Planning Commission on April 27, 1999 as an adjourned meeting. He said that the main topic of discussion will be the budget. He stated that Chairperson Bernald has been asked to attend the meeting and that the other commissioners are invited to attend the adjourned meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION, wIINUTES APRIL 14, 1999 PAGE - 16 - Status of Planning Commission Appointments Director Walgren informed the Commission that the City Council interviewed 9 applicants for Planning Commissioners, including three commissioners who reapplied. He said that the new commissioners will be seated the first meeting in May. Status of Septic System Abatement Ordinance Director Walgren indicated that a Septic System Abatement Ordinance was prepared, presented and adopted by the City Council. He indicated that the ordinance went to effect last week and that it is to be administered by the Community Development Department. - National APA Conference Director Walgren informed the Commission that he will be attending the National APA Conference during the week of April 26. He will be missing both the City Council and Planning Commission meetings that that week and that Heather Bradley will attend these meetings in his absence. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Martlage stated that she has been serving on the Bicycle Committee for approximately 1.5 years and felt that this position should be passed on to a different commissioner. She nominated Commissioner Page to serve as the Planning Commission's representative to the Bicycle Committee. It was noted that this action would need to be agendized for appointment to the Bicycle Committee. - Commissioner Kaplan addressed the Kosich property located on Saratoga Avenue off of Lawrence Expressway. She requested a status report on what is happening to the landscaping. She said that she drove past the property yesterday and found that it was almost completely overcome with weeds and the fence still has graffiti on it, noting that no one is taking care of this parcel. Director Walgren responded that when the landscaping was installed at the perimeter of the Kosich property, that the plant species purchased were very substandard and that it is not expected that the landscaping will establish very well. Staff has had the arborist review the landscaping and indicated that a notice was sent to the property owner informing them that the planting would need to be redone before the City accepts the subdivision. Commissioner Kaplan asked what mechanism will be used to ensure that maintenance of the landscaping continues? Director Walgren informed the Commission that future maintenance will be the responsibility of the people who reside within the subdivision. There is an assessment requirement that is recorded against each parcel and that monies are being collected. It is just a matter of contracting with a landscape service to make sure that it is done. He indicated that the homeowners would be responsible for hiring a landscape service. If the City continues to have problems with maintenance, the City would notify the neighbors reminding them of their PLANNING COMMISSIO.. .vIINUTES APRIL 14, 1999 PAGE - 17 - responsibilities. If this doesn't work, the city would follow up. Commissioner Kaplan said that the City worked very hard with this area as a gateway property to the city. She stated that it was sad to have the property look in an awful state. COMMUNICATIONS Written City Council Minutes for Special Meetings of March 9 and March 23, 1999, and Regular Meeting of March 17, 1999 Notices for Planning Commission Meeting of April 28, 1999 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING There being no further business, Chairwoman Bernald adjourned the meeting at 9:34 p.m. to Wednesday, April 28, 1999, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 1999 Civic Center, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting -------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairman Pierce called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Roll Call: Present: Commissioners Bernald, Kaplan, Martlage, Murakami, Page, Patrick and Chairman Pierce Absent: None Staff- Director Walgren, Assistant Planner Ratcliffe Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - March 10, 1999 On a motion by Commissioners Patrick /Bernald, the Commission approved the March 10, 1999 minutes with the following amendments: Page 7, paragraph 7, line 9, delete the word fiet. - Page 7, last paragraph, line one amended to read: "Commissioner Bernald said that the City has experienced parking problems near retail autlets shops ... " Page 8, paragraph 3, first sentence amended to read: "Commissioner Page stated that lie was &4i+}g on the fence on this issue ... He felt that an empty store gives apt empt}, negative connotation ... " Page 8, line 2, replace the word g with gjyjag. The motion carried 6 -0 -1 with Commissioner Kaplan abstaining. Oral Communication No comments were offered. Report of Posting Agenda Director Walgren declared that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on March 19, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet Director Walgren indicated that there were no technical corrections to the packet. CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING COMMISS[Oi..- .>INUTES MARCH 24, 1999 PAGE - 2 - 1. UP -99 -003 (517 -09 -015) - FIRST CITY MORTGAGE, 14440 Big Basin Way, #9; Request for Use Permit approval to allow a professional office located at street level and fronting on Big Basin Way. The site is located within a CH -1 (Commercial Historic) zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 3/10/99 FOR REVOTE). Commissioner Kaplan stated that she was absent at the original hearing when this item was considered by the Commission. However, she has reviewed all the material and watched the video and was therefore prepared to vote on this item. Director Walgren presented the staff report and indicated that this item was continued from the Planning Commission's March 10, 1999 meeting. Staff felt that the location was appropriate for this type of use based on the analysis contained in the original staff report. Staff was in support of the proposal. The Planning Commission took testimony and debated on the item. The vote on this item ultimately resulted in a tie vote (3 -3) to approve the use permit, a failed motion. The application was automatically continued to tonight's meeting for a revote upon having a full Commission. He noted that the applicant has accumulated correspondence from various groups in the Village, including the Chamber of Commerce, and other business owners as well as correspondence from the property management company and the business representatives themselves. In addition, the following letters were received that did not make it in time to be included the packet: the property management company (cited difficulties in leasing of space to a purely retail use); Bill Cooper, owner of Bella Saratoga Restaurant (supporting the use to remain at its current location); and Mr. and Mrs. Allen, residents on Oak Street (stated their support of a retail mortgage use in the Village). He informed the Commission that the applicant has requested that the Planning Commission reopen the public hearing this evening to further receive testimony. Chairman Pierce noted for the record that the Commission was also in receipt of a substantial number of documents in its packet, including letters, which the Commission has had the opportunity to read. He stated the Commission's appreciation of receiving this information in advance of the meeting. Commissioner Bernald asked if the applicant indicated whether there was new information that was not contained in the Commission's packet? Director Walgren responded that it was his belief that the applicant feels that there is new information in the material submitted that they would like to present this evening that they were not able to present at the first hearing. Chairman Pierce asked if there was a motion to reopen the public hearing? No motion to reopen the public hearing was made. Commissioner Kaplan noted for the record that the Commission read the information submitted to it. Commissioner Patrick noted that this body was the Planning Commission and not the City Council, which was inaccuracy that was stated throughout the correspondence. She stated that she read through the additional information submitted to the Commission. Director Walgren clarified that the procedure this evening would be such that one of the three Commissioners on the affirmative side of the last motion would move to approve the use permit. PLANNING COMMISSIOi._4INUTES MARCH 24, 1999 PAGE - 3 - Commissioner Page stated that he thought long and hard on this item and that he re- looked at the request as though lie did not know anything about it (new application). He further stated that he read through all of the information submitted, including viewing the video of the meeting. He stated his continued support of the use. He said that in his review of the General Plan, one of the goals contained in the Land Use Element is the encouragement of economic viability of Saratoga's existing commercial areas and their accessibility by residents. He felt that having filled spaces with traffic is absolutely core to this issue. He stated that he also reviewed the Land Use and Zoning codes and found that in Chapter 2, items 4 and 5 of the Village Plan talks about professional financing prior to the revision of the Village Plan. It talks about the heart of the Village being retail with the exception of professional financial uses. it was noted that the professional financial uses at street level, while being desirable uses for the community, can interrupt the pedestrian flow that is one of the Village's attractions. He felt that the intent of the new plan was to discourage or limit any interruption of pedestrian flow. The Plan goes on to state that almost all buildings in the heart of the Village directly abut sidewalks, noting that the only break in the uninterrupted flow of the commercial building frontage was the large parking lot directly abutting Big Basin Way. He felt that this was a preexisting, non - conforming condition. The regulations allow the consideration of a conditional use permit in certain situations. Until the shopping center is torn down and built directly on the frontage of Big Basin Way, he felt that the city could take whatever action is appropriate. The new Village Plan talks about the fact that before they can offer anything the only thing that could not be regulated was the number of the professional and financial buildings or office -type businesses within the Village. He did not believe that the Commission would be setting a precedent should the use permit be approved. He felt that the Commission can review and evaluate the use within the shopping center as a preexisting, non- conforming use. The Commission can evaluate each similar request to determine a balance between retail and office space uses. He stated his support of the use based on everything that lie has read and the documents that have been provided to the Commission. Commissioner Martlage stated that to ask First City Mortgage to move out at this point would cause a hardship that they did not anticipate. She felt that First City Mortgage went into this agreement in good faith. Although she agrees that the City does not want commercial establishments on Big Basin, she felt that in all fairness to First City Mortgage, that the Commission should respect the lease until it expires and that it is made clear to the management company that the Commission would not recommend that the lease be reissued as the area is zoned commercial. She stated that she did not want the applicant to suffer at the hands of the management company. Commissioner Page suggested that the Commission require that the applicant install a window display that would encourage foot traffic to or around the location and not interrupt pedestrian flow. This would create a better avenue to approve the use. Commissioner Bernald stated that she supports businesses in a vital downtown. She said that the Village Plan, after great citizen input, was adopted for a good reason. She stated that she values the retail nature of Big Basin Way and felt that it was important to continue to send a message that the city needs a retail /commercial mix that is spelled out in Ordinance Section 15- 19.050. She stated that she could not support the use permit this evening. Chairman Pierce said that in reading the documents contained in the Commission's packet, a suggestion was made that the Commission felt that First City Mortgage had done something wrong. He said that the Commissioners did not believe that First City Mortgage did anything wrong. He said that it was a matter of what the city's mandate is. He felt that the mandate was to improve retail businesses in Saratoga. He felt that the community wants a stronger retail base in Saratoga to make it a vibrant downtown community. He encouraged First City Mortgage to appeal the decision to the City Council should their PLANNING COMMISSI0i,- ,4IINUTES MARCH 24, 1999 PAGE - 4 - request be denied this evening and let the City Council make a decision regarding this issue as it is an important issue. If there is a problem filling space in the Village, does the city want to bend the rules a little and allow less retail type of establishments and more business establishments? He said that he did not want to make this decision as this decision needs to be made by the City Council as it is in their purview and not in the Commission's purview. He felt that the Commission had to follow the law. Therefore, lie would be opposing the use permit request. COMMISSIONERS PAGE /MARTLAGE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. UP -99 -003. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -3 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: KAPLAN, MARTLAGE, PAGE, PATRICK; NOES: BERNALD, MURAKAMI, PIERCE. Chairman Pierce noted that a speaker card was submitted to address item 1. However, as there was no public hearing on the matter, no one was allowed to address the Commission, including the applicant. 2. DR -98 -009 (389 -28 -007 - SAGHEZCHI, 13762 Serra Oaks Court; Request for Design Review approval to convert an existing 462 sq. ft. garage to living area and add a new garage and a 453 sq. ft. second story to an existing 2,990 sq. ft. residence. The property is 14,450 sq. ft. in an R- 1- 12,500 zoning district (CONTINUED TO 3/10/99 AT APPLICANT'S REQUEST) Director Walgren presented the staff report and stated that this request is also a continued public hearing. He said that at the last Commission meeting, concerns were raised primarily around the design of the building. The Commission felt that the second story was too much of a box imposed on top of the existing home. As a result, the end product would look like a box, imposed on top of an existing home. The Commission directed the applicant to work to try to center the addition better onto the existing home and balance it in a manner that would truly make it look like a two -story home, integrated with the existing home. A concern was also expressed by the Commission regarding the amount of driveway surface and felt that the expanse of driveway area and turnaround could be reduced. The Commission directed the applicant to reduce the amount of paved surface and to provide a greater degree of landscaping at the front of the property to help it integrate better to the cul -de -sac. He said that staff has reviewed the revised plans and found that they are in compliance with all minimum zoning ordinance standards (i.e., building height, setback, lot coverage). He noted that the driveway area has been reduced and the addition has been centered and better- integrated with the existing home. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the revised plans subject to the conditions contained in the resolution. He said that one item to be addressed is the balcony element off the front elevation of the master bedroom as it does not match or integrate with anything that exists on the cul -de -sac. Commissioner Murakami noted that the Commission's objection was the fact that the design was centered over the garage, and not its boxy appearance. Commissioner Patrick stated that she had a difficult time following the revised plans. She asked if two balconies are proposed? Director Walgren clarified that one balcony is proposed in the front elevation. Commissioner Page referred to sheet A -3, the south elevation that depicts a peaked roof. He noted that the other picture of the roof depicts the roof as the same height. He requested clarification. Director Walgren responded that the middle elevation shows the horizontal span that is seen on the west elevation with a note that proposes a building above it. He said that the peak jets up and is the main expanse of the master bedroom addition. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSIOi AINUTES MARCH 24, 1999 PAGE - 5 - Max Peyvan, project architect, stated that he followed the Commission's comments from the last hearing. He said that he tried to centralize the second floor addition to tie it to the existing building and make it more harmonious and compatible with the existing building. He said that the exterior color and material would match the existing structure. He noted that additional landscaping has been introduced. Commissioner Page said that sheet A -2 shows a bay window on the south side of the second floor. He asked where it could be seen on the south elevation? Mr. Peyvan said that the bay window is proposed to be located in the middle of the first floor. Commissioner Martlage clarified that in viewing the plans, a bay window on the second floor is not proposed. Commissioner Patrick asked if the applicant has a problem with the elimination of the design detail of the balcony located in the front? Mr. Peyvan requested that the balcony be retained because it is a nice view from the balcony towards the hills. He said that the balcony is not facing a neighbor's backyard nor infringing on anyone's privacy and it is facing the street. If required to be removed, he would install a dormer window, continuing the hip roof setback to the edge of the building facade. Commissioner Murakami stated that he liked the improvements made. He asked if some of the drawings were drawn freehand? Mr. Peyvan responded that some of the drawings were drawn freehand as it is a technique used in his presentations (a more artistic presentation compared to more advance technology of an auto cad system). Commissioner Kaplan stated that when the Commission made its site visit, it was apparent that the property had been neglected as there was a car half buried. She asked if the site was to be cleaned up or whether the Commission could make it a condition of approval to have the property owner remove the "junk" out of the yard? Director Walgren stated that the city can require cleanup of the site to a certain degree. If the car is not currently registered, it can be required that the car be removed from the property. Commissioner Bernald also expressed concern with the condition of the site. She said that it was her belief that at the last hearing, someone indicated that the property was an abandoned site. Dr. Saghezchi, property owner, stated that the car being referred to by the Commission is a classic car. He stated that lie is planning to sell the car and that it would be removed from the site once sold. Commissioner Kaplan stated that the car contains a lot of debris and dirt. She requested that the area be cleaned up. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/MARTLAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:03 P.M. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she has no problem with the balcony as she felt that the end result of the process will prove some of the critics wrong. She felt that architects can go back, at the Commission's request, and design a nicer project for the applicant and the neighbors. She felt that the end result was much more becoming and that it does not look like someone dropped a second story on top of the first story with no connection to the house. She stated that she had a difficult time with the artistic drawings as it was not one that the Commission was accustomed to. She would support the request and recommended that a condition be added that would stipulate that the debris on the property is to be removed. PLANNING COMMISSIOi— AINUTES MARCH 24, 1999 PAGE - 6 - Commissioner Murakami said that the changes made by the architect were an improvement. He felt that if you look at the freehand drawings more closely, you get a clearer picture of what the architect was trying to depict. He stated that he did not have a problem with the balcony up front as he did not see an invasion of privacy associated with it. He felt that this was a definite improvement over the previous submittal and therefore, he could approve it. Commissioner Bernald agreed that the redesign was an improvement over the previous plans. She was glad to see that the second story was now centered. However, she finds the quality of the plans make it difficult to determine the extent of the remodel. She felt that there were a lot of narrow elements being presented and that the overall design and massing is poorly designed compared with other homes in the neighborhood. She indicated that she resides in a neighborhood similar to this one and that if she was a neighbor, she would be present this evening speaking in opposition to the design as she did not believe that it was compatible with the neighborhood. Therefore, she indicated that she could not support the application. Commissioner Patrick felt that the redesign was compatible with the neighborhood at this point. She liked the idea of the landscape strip in the driveway. She stated that a major concern of hers was the massive driveway. She also expressed concern with the storage of the vehicle with flat tires, etc., siting in the rear yard. She felt that the massing in the middle was much better, more appropriate and compatible with the neighborhood. She did not believe that the balcony in the front would be used often. Therefore, she did not believe that this element would create a problem with the neighbors. She stated her support of the redesign. Commissioner Martlage said that the redesign is an improvement. She said that the diagrams presented were difficult to read and felt that the perspective was off. She stated that she would have appreciated traditional, to scale drawings in addition to these conceptual drawings, as she found the perspective distracting. She concurred with the cleanup effort, including the removal of the upholstered furniture located on the front porch. Given the improvements, she stated that she could support the application. Commissioner Page stated that he had a hard time studying the drawing and that he was not prepared to support the design until clarifications were made. The clarifications presented tonight cleared up the issues. He felt that the redesign provides more balance, eliminating the tower look. He agreed that the landscape strip is a good addition. Therefore, he could support the application. Chairman Pierce also stated his support of the project. He said that he had some reservations about the balcony located in the front. However, he agreed that it adds an architectural element that is acceptable. Therefore, he stated his support of the project. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -98 -009. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER BERNALD VOTING NO. 3. UP -99 -001 (389 -15 -014) - MALONE, 18761 McFarland Avenue; Request for Use Permit approval to construct a new 528 sq. ft. detached garage three feet from the side and rear property lines. The applicant also proposes to convert an existing, attached 264 sq. ft. garage to living area. The site is 10,000 sq. ft. and is located within an R- 1- 10,000 zoning district. The maximum height of the new garage will be 12 feet. PLANNING COMMISSIO AINUTES MARCH 24, 1999 PAGE - 7 - Director Walgren presented the staff report. He indicated that the staff report contained a letter from an adjacent neighbor behind the property expressing concern that the setback rules were being waived in this case. He clarified that the application is not a request to encroach into setbacks, noting that accessory structures such as detached garages, guest homes or artist studios are allowed to be located in rear yard setbacks subject to a conditional use permit. He said that staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit, finding that it would bring the property into conformance with the city's two car garage parking requirements. Commissioner Kaplan asked if an explanation was given for pushing the garage so far back from the house as to be almost useless as a garage? Director Walgren responded that it was his guess that the reason the applicant chose to locate the garage to the rear is to maximize the amount of useable rear yard area versus having the garage located in the middle of the rear yard. Commissioner Page noted that there were no trees on the property, thus no arborist report. However, the property contained a large eucalyptus tree located directly behind the proposed garage. He asked if the tree would be impacted with the construction of the garage? He recommended that a condition be included that the tree be protected to ensure that the tree is not impacted. Director Walgren stated that the tree could be impacted to a degree. He said that as long as the building was not going into the canopy of the tree, there should not be an impact to it. He said that staff would agree to review any impacts to the tree. Commissioner Patrick inquired as to the required front setback for a garage to be built closer to the street? Director Walgren responded that there would not be enough room to locate the garage in the front without a request for a variance to encroach into the twenty -five foot minimum setback requirements. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 8:14 p.m. Robert Malone, applicant, stated that lie wants to utilize as much of the backyard as possible. Therefore, he did not want to site the garage in the middle of the backyard but to locate it in the back corner to allow him use of his lot. He stated that he shares the concerns expressed by Ms. Baker about privacy and the character of the neighborhood. He said that he wanted to keep the house consistent with the cottage -style design and that he did not want to site the garage in the front. He did not believe that the garage was sited too far back on the property. Commissioner Bernald asked if Mr. Malone gave any consideration to removing the existing driveway that will go up to the area that is to become the study so that he can provide additional greenery in this area? Mr. Malone responded that he did given consideration to removing the driveway but that he has not solidified what he wants to do. He said that he would like to either remove all of the driveway that goes Lip to the new study area and have the driveway curved around to the back. (remove part if not all of the driveway). He agreed to install greenery in front of the study so that it would not look like a converted garage. COMMISSIONERS PAGE /MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:17 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSIOi. ,✓1INUTES MARCH 24, 1999 PAGE - 8 - Commissioner Bernald understood that Ms. Baker was not present this evening. She indicated that the Commission drove by Ms. Baker's home and found that she did a beautiful job in the remodel of her home. She said that she could support the project as it is the least intrusive option that gives the property owner the best use of the property. She felt that it was better than having a second story home and felt that it was much in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Therefore, she could support the request. Commissioner Murakami concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioner Bernald. He stated that he liked the old -style garage to the rear because it takes the cars off the street and off the driveway. He also stated his support of the use permit request. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she has a problem with the location of the garage because it requires a greater expanse of driveway. If the existing drive is not removed, she stated that she would not support the approval of the use permit. She asked what type of landscape screening is proposed along the long driveway area as this would be a use that would be new to the adjacent neighbor? She recommended the removal of the existing driveway to reduce the amount of hardscape in the front of the house. In response to Commissioner Kaplan's concern, Director Walgren stated that a condition could be added to stipulate that a planter area is to be incorporated into the plans along the right property line of the site up to the area where the driveway narrows to eleven feet. Removal of the existing driveway could also be added as a condition of approval. Commissioner Kaplan stated that the request would be reasonable if these two conditions were incorporated into the resolution of approval. Commissioner Page agreed with the comments expressed by Commissioner Bernald. He stated that he could support the project with the condition that the existing driveway be removed as the project would fit in and that it is compatible with everything seen in the neighborhood. Commissioners Martlage concurred with the comments expressed. Commissioner Patrick also concurred with the comments expressed. She said that she has given thought to siting the garage in alternative locations and that she has determined that it would be difficult to site the garage anywhere else. She stated that she could support the application subject to the removal of excess pavement. She recommended that consideration be given to the use of turf to break up some of the driveway. Commissioner Pierce stated that he could also support the use permit. COMMISSIONERS MARTLAGE /PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -99 -001 WITH THE INSTALLATION OF A THREE -FOOT GREEN PLANTING AREA TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF T14E PROPERTY AND THE REMOVAL OF THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). 4. DR -98 -065 & V -98 -021 (517 -20 -017) - MOYLES, 20201 Hill Avenue; Request for Design Review to remodel and add 2,382 sq. ft. to an existing non- conforming three -story 4,270 sq. ft. residence. A 198 sq. ft. pool house is also proposed. Variance approval is requested to expand an existing third -story element of the main residence and to exceed the 26 ft. height limit. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 24, 1999 PAGE - 9 - Existing height of structure is approximately 34 ft. and will remain unchanged. The site is 1.95 acres and is located in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Planner Ratcliffe presented the staff report. She informed the Commission that the original home was constructed in the 1920s with an addition occurring in the 1940s. Therefore, the application was referred to the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) and that it was reviewed by said Commission on March 9, 1999. She indicated that the HPC placed the residence on the Heritage Resource Inventory. HPC commented that the present proposal was sensitively designed, that it was compatible with the unique architectural style of the original residents and that they supported the application. Planner Ratcliffe said that there were several ordinance protected trees on site, noting that the arborist also reviewed the application. She informed the Commission that the staff report did not contain an explanation of existing trees that were referenced in the resolution of approval. She stated that staff was concerned about the driveway and its impact to tree #21, a large deodar cedar located on the eastern corner of the lot. The original driveway construction was closer to this tree as well to two trees on the adjacent lot located to the east. The applicant redesigned the turn around so that it does not affect tree #21 and the cedar tree located on the adjacent lot. Staff is also concerned with trees #2, #3 and #4 located on the west side as a path is proposed underneath these trees. She indicated that the arborist has stated that trees #3 and #4 are infected by the turpentine beetle. Tree #4 was stated to be a hazardous tree and that it would need to be removed. She indicated that after the site visit, the applicant informed staff that they would not propose the pathway along this side of the structure and that they intend to retain trees #2 and #3. She said that the paragraph missing from the staff report addresses trees #16, #17, #18 and #24. Tree # 16, a coast redwood, is located adjacent to the decking of the pool. She said that at the site visit and the reviewing of grading plans, it is apparent that tree #16 is not located within the decking of the pool but that it is located on the slope going up to the proposed driveway. Trees #17 and #18, located by the hammerhead, will be lost due to driveway construction, noting that the arborist has indicated that they are infested by the turpentine beetle and should be removed in any event. Tree #24, a palm, will also be lost to driveway construction. She indicated that the arborist believes that the remaining 30 trees on site can be protected and maintained if all the recommended tree protection measures are diligently implemented. She stated that the arborist's recommendations have been incorporated in the conditions of approval. Regarding the trees proposed for removal, Planner Ratcliffe stated that staff had incorporated a condition of approval that replacement value trees be planted. She recommended that this condition be amended in view of the fact that trees #2 and #3 are to remain. This would result in the replacement trees having a value of $13,656 with a deposit of $9,673 for tree protection. Planner Ratcliffe addressed the architectural design. She said that staff finds that the design of both the main residence and the pool house is sensitive to the existing residence and maintains the architectural theme. She felt that the design is compatible in bulk and height with the neighborhood and is sensitive to the surrounding environment. She addressed the variance request. She said that the addition calls for new construction exceeding 26 feet of the maximum height limit, noting that the existing structure is 34 feet at its highest point. Any addition exceeding 26 feet requires variance approval. The majority of the addition is 1,757 square feet and is located on the first and second floor of the residence, below the 26- foot height limit. The remaining 625 square feet of the addition to the main residence is in addition to the non- conforming third story and requires variance approval to incorporate the addition. Staff had concern with the portion of the proposed addition that would require a variance as it is a three -story structure. Staff struggled with the desire to maintain the existing architectural integrity of a historically significant house adhering to the zoning ordinance and yet allow the reasonable development of the property which is double the size of properties in the area. After careful consideration, staff feels that it can make the findings to support the variance in that the existing historically significant, non- conforming structure PLANNING COMMISSION 14INUTES MARCH 24, 1999 PAGE - 10 - constitutes a special circumstance. The approval of this proposal and the floor area involved would prohibit future subdivision of the property and would also assure that the structural integrity of the home would remain. Staff recommended Commission approval with the change of the replacement value of the trees and the tree protection bond. Commissioner :Kaplan expressed concern regarding the subdivision issue. She asked if at a future date the pool and pool house were leveled, would the remaining property support this size dwelling? She noted that the Commission discussed the fireplaces with the architect at the site visit, noting that a wood burning fireplace was not a concern. Commissioner Patrick asked if there was any way that tree #16 could be saved? She asked if grading is necessary for the driveway that requires the removal of tree #16? Planner Ratcliffe responded that with the grading proposed, tree #16 would not survive. She felt that it may be possible to reduce the size of the driveway approach, pulling it back from tree #16, using a retaining wall instead of grading along the tree to protect it. Planner Ratcliffe said that even if the pool house was removed, this would result in 6,652 square feet of allowable floor area. In order to create two lots of at least 40,000 square feet, the allowable floor area on the lot where the house is currently located would be at a maximum of 6,120 square feet. This would be less than what is being proposed, even without the pool house. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 8:36 p.m. Virginia Fanelli, 16 Linden Avenue, Los Gatos, requested approval of the variance and design review for the proposed addition. She informed the Commission that the applicant bought the large lot to meet the future needs of a growing family. She said that the applicants gave careful consideration to two different alternatives. The first alternative was to remove the existing, unique home and build a new home with a floor plan that would meet the needs of the family in a cost affective manner. The second alternative was to expand the existing home. The first alternative would have resulted in a much more efficient use of the floor space and the upper lot space, leaving the applicant with the potential of subdividing the lot in the future. Expanding the existing home with its many preset structural and design elements meant much less efficient use of the floor space in order to incorporate all of the elements that the property owners wish and yet maintain its historic design with no further subdivision possible. The applicants have agreed to retain the existing home, preserving it, making the needed repairs and expanding it without the potential for subdividing the lot. The home was built in the 1920s and sited high on the site, resulting in a three - story element to the rear. The 1940s addition continued the original three story design element. Both the existing home and the previous addition were done before the City of Saratoga was incorporated and that it met the county standards in place at the time. She said that the proposal before the Commission removes the architecturally inconsistent addition that was built in the 1940s and creates an addition which carries the original design throughout the structure. The existing historically significant non- conforming structure constitutes a special circumstance in that the applicant could not reasonably add onto the structure and maintain architectural integrity without a variance. Ms. Fanelli informed the Commission that the neighbors who attended the neighborhood meetings and those contacted by Mr. Moyles were supportive to the proposed addition as they saw that it protected their privacy and maintained the significant landscaping on site. She stated her agreement with staffs findings for both of the applications with the exception of the requirement to replace the trees that will be removed during construction. She said that the landscape plans will be redrawn to remove the pathways PLANNING COMMISSIOIN vIINUTES MARCH 24, 1999 PAGE- 11 - so that trees #2 and #3 will be preserved. Trees #4, #17 and #18 have been found to be infested with beetles and are in declining health. Even if there was to be no construction, these trees would be lost eventually. The only healthy trees to be removed during construction are trees #16 and #24. Tree #24 is a palm and is not native to this area nor does it complement this style of home. Tree #16 is a redwood tree and is located adjacent to the pool area. Even though it is impacted by grading, the applicants feel that it has an adverse impact of sunlight and the upkeep of the pool and patio area. Mr. Coate addressed 28 significant trees on the site in his report. She noted that there are numerous orchard and small ornamental trees on site. She informed the Commission that the applicants do not wish to replace the five trees that will be removed during the construction process due to the large number of trees already located on site. Additional trees are not needed for privacy and would further reduce the already limited, unshaded area of the property. She requested the elimination of the condition that asks for replacement trees for the five trees that are to be removed as the existing 28+ trees are efficient /sufficient for the site. Commissioner Page asked if construction access would cause the removal of some or all of the orchard trees? Sergio Ramirez, project architect, stated that Mr. Coate provided direction regarding the location of fencing in order to protect the major trees. He indicated that Mr. Coate was not concerned with the walnut trees of the orchards because most are diseased, old and have not been taken care for many trees. Therefore, some of the orchard trees are proposed for removal. He said that the property owners would be using the bottom portion of the property to access the construction area and to stock pile materials. He said that he would be very careful to follow Mr. Coate's advice, including the installation of a fence. Commissioner Patrick stated that she was not convinced that tree #16 has to be removed for the pool. She felt that there was enough space in the orchard area that was not covered by trees where the pool could be sited. Mr. Ramirez informed the Commission that tree #16 is not located in the pool area but that it is located on the slope. He said that redwood trees typically have drippings that stain. In addition to this, redwood trees tend to drop leaves in the winter that would get into pool systems and plug them up. Therefore, it is not a practical tree to have near a pool. Commissioner Kaplan expressed concern with the excess building proposed on the third level. She said that there is a lot of space being placed on the upper level (four bedrooms proposed on the upper level). Mr. Ramirez informed the Commission that no modifications are proposed to the front of the home and that the three existing bedrooms are to remain. He clarified that bedroom 3 is located in the front. He identified the areas to be added, noting that terraces are being added (14' x 23' in size). He said that being old, the home has some characteristics of older homes. He said that the home has a narrow staircase that is critical for the structural part of the home. He expressed concern that the three -foot narrow staircase may create some problem due to a fire. A reason to include the decks is that it offers exits that are easily accessible by the fire department and would present an element of safety. He said that he tried to balance the elevations by having the decks located over a screen porch that is to be preserved. Commissioner Bernald stated that she would like to see tree #16 preserved and recommended that credit be given for the Monterey Pines that are going to die. She asked if there was a credit compromise that could be reached regarding these two issues. Mr. Ramirez agreed that a compromise could be reached PLANNING COMMISSIOi� ,vlfNUTES MARCH 24, 1999 PAGE - 12 - regarding Commissioner Bernald's recommended compromise. Ms. Fanelli recommended that a condition be added that stipulates that tree #16 is to be retained and that no replacement trees would be required for the diseased Monterey .Pine trees. Should the applicants not agree to this condition, they have the opportunity to appeal this condition. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD /MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:51 P.M. Planner Ratcliffe read into the record a letter received from Wendell and Gertrude Hammond, 20200 Hill Avenue, stating their support of the request. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she did not see a condition included in the resolution that would stipulate no parking under the trees. She requested that this become a standard condition to be boiler - plated and included in future resolutions. She said that she was not happy with the vast expansion of the upstairs. She did not believe that a 20' x 14' terrace was needed for safety. She felt that there were other ways to get out of a home during an emergency and that there are several items that are provided for safety that would not require this much space. She stated that she likes old spaces and the use of screen porches. However, when she looks at the renderings, she felt that the design was vast and huge, finding it to be too much home and no longer a nice little 1920s house. What is being proposed is a great big modern home with some old fashion dressing. She recommended that newly planted oak trees be installed to replace the old diseased trees. She expressed concern that at a future date, this large home would be on a smaller lot with the possibility of a future subdivision. She further stated that she did not like the third story element. Commissioner Murakami said that upon first viewing the drawings of this proposal, he was also skeptical. He felt that the architect did a good job in balancing the design proportionally. He said that he did not like the three story effect. However, he understood staff analysis of the non- conforming structure. The lot size is a factor as it is a large two -acre parcel. As long as there is no possibility of future subdivision, lie felt that the structure itself would be allowable in this situation. He noted that the Historic Preservation Commission has approved the addition onto the original structure and that they feel that the design of the home has been kept in tack as far as the original structure is concerned. Regarding the trees, he understood the Commission's point of view regarding saving tree #16. He would support replacement trees on the lower portion of the acreage. As long as there is a consensus of the Commission of what can be done relating to retaining /replacement of trees, he could support the request. Planner Ratcliffe clarified that trees #4, #17, #18 and #24 are diseased and that tree #16 is the only healthy tree proposed to be removed. Commissioner Bernald recommended that tree #16 be retained. She felt that it was important enough to retain tree # 16 that she would recommend that the applicant be given a break. She stated her appreciation that the character of the home would be kept and felt that the addition retains the character of the home. She also appreciated the fact that the lot was kept in tack and the relocation of the new driveway in order to retain the trees in this area. She felt that the design was innovative, beautiful and that she was pleased to see that the historical structure is to be maintained. She felt that the design is balanced and that it would be an asset to the neighborhood and to Saratoga. PLANNING COMMISSIOi. �vIINUTES MARCH 24, 1999 PAC:F - 1'2 - Commissioner Patrick acknowledged that this is an existing three story home. However, she noted that the front is not a three -story home. The front is a modest home and she did not believe that the addition changes this fact. The front of the house gives the perception of a low profile home and that due to the grading and the way it is situated on the lot, it is not an interfaced type house. She felt that the terrace on the side is a well - thought out plan. She felt that to state that the terrace is proposed for safety purposes is stretching the point somewhat. However, she felt that the terraces are nicely designed and that it would not be a bad use of an existing structure. She felt that the rear addition only improves the rear area. She recommended that tree #16 be retained as it is a beautiful tree and that it would be a loss if removed. She would support Commissioner Kaplan's suggestion that the Bonnie Brae side has some oak trees planted to help buffer some of the three story element from this side. She said that replacement value for the diseased trees is not a major issue to her if tree #16 is to remain and that additional oaks are planted. Commissioner Martlage stated her concurrence with the comments expressed by the Commission. She felt that saving tree 416 may be a nuisance for the pool maintenance but noted that the tree was there first. She felt that the design was sensitive to the existing structure. She felt that the design was well planned and that she would like the home even more when it is completed. She appreciated the fact that the scale, mass, the design has been sensitively approached. Commissioner Page also concurred with the comments expressed. As the style of the house was not . changing, he did not believe that there would be an impact to the neighborhood in terms of compatibility. He appreciated the fact that the private open space to the rear is to remain. He recommended that additional trees be planted because it would buffer the look of the three story element. He appreciated the fact that the applicant has accommodated the arborist's recommendations. Anything that can be done to save tree # 16 would be supported. Chairman Pierce stated that he liked the design /its layout and felt that it would be a nice improvement. In approving a larger design, the city would preclude the development of the lower property which is advantageous to all of the neighbors and would provide a buffer of the three story elevation. He did not know how the city could require tree placement that the arborist recommends be removed because they are diseased trees. He stated that he would be opposed to the diseased tree replacement. He stated that he would agree to the preservation of tree #16 and encouraged the applicant to plant a few oak trees on the lower portion of the property. Commissioner Bernald stated that a tree friend of Commissioner Kaplan has stated that smaller native trees do better upon being transplanted. She did not believe that in suggesting that a couple of oaks be planted, that the applicant would be putting out a tremendous amount of money. She felt that this suggestion would satisfy some of the concerns of the commission. Commissioner Kaplan said that she is not recommending replacement of trees size for size but that the applicant should be required to provide some replacement trees. Director Walgren stated that the arborist's recommendation is just that, a recommendation. He felt that it was valid to consider the health of the trees and the number of existing healthy trees on site that would be retained. He also felt that it was a relevant point to consider the value of some of the trees relative to the context. He felt that it would be a reasonable compromise to require a few small container native oak trees at the base of the property as a small fraction of the $20,000 original replacement cost. PLANNING COMMISSIOIN MINUTES MARCH 24, 1999 PAGE - 14 - Chairman Pierce noted that the commission previously approved a 6,500 square foot home with a 3,000 square foot basement across the street, noting that there are big homes in the neighborhood. He stated his support of the project. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD /PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -98 -065 WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS:. RETENTION OF REDWOOD TREE #16; PLANTING OF A COUPLE OF SMALL BOXED OAKS AT THE LOWER PORTION OF THE SITE PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND NOT TO REQUIRE THE TREE REPLACEMENT VALUE, RESULTING IN A CHANGE IN THE REPLACEMENT VALUE AND BOND; THERE IS TO BE NO PARKING /STORAGE OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL UNDER ANY OF THE EXISTING TREES; AND THE PATHWAY CURRENTLY PROPOSED UNDER TREES 42, #3 AND #4 IS TO BE REMOVED. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). COMMISSIONERS BERNALD /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE V -98 -021. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). 5. DR -98 -024 (517 -22 -093) - LEXMAR DEVELOPMENT, 15180 Piedmont Road; Request for Design .Review approval to demolish an existing 3,147 sq. ft. two -story residence and construct a 4,704 sq. ft. two story residence with a maximum building height of 26 ft. from natural grade on a 1.07 acre site. The site is located in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. Planner Ratcliffe presented the staff report. She informed the Commission that an issue is the narrowness of the driveway, being 18 feet wide in some areas. The Fire department requires a 14 -foot wide driveway with one foot shoulder on each side. She informed the Commission that the Fire department has agreed to live with a 14 -foot wide driveway without the shoulders, resulting in the redesign of the driveway to impact as few ordinance trees as possible. She indicated that extensive tree protection measures have been incorporated in the resolution of approval, including the city arborist's review and approval of construction grading and retention of the existing driveway. The new driveway is to be constructed over the existing driveway to minimize impacts associated with tearing up of the old driveway. A requirement of the project is that a project arborist is retained to supervise all tree protective measures and any work that pertains to trees at risk. She said that the residence itself does not present any impacts to the trees as it is proposed to be built on the existing building pad. She identified the condition of the trees and addressed the arborist's recommendation relating to tree protection measures for the various trees on site, identifying which trees are to be removed /preserved. She clarified that the arborist mentions fencing off of a dirt access road to discourage storage of equipment and noted that this area is not located on the subject property. Staff feels that such fencing is not required or needed. The arborist also makes mention of the possible demolition of the pump house. She said that this structure is not a part of the project and is not proposed to be demolished or altered in any way. Based on the physical constraints of the parcel and in conjunction with the fire department requirements, staff felt that the proposed driveway configuration, with the changes noted, meets the fire department requirements while preserving to the extent possible the existing trees and allowing access so that the site can be developed. The total value for the trees is $11,816. Staff has conditioned the approval on the replacement value trees being provided. The total value of the retained trees that may be impacted is $66,832 and that a protection tree bond is included as a condition of approval. Planner Ratcliffe informed the Commission that staff received a letter from the adjacent neighbors to the west, Mr. and Mrs. Negiu, regarding the proposed driveway entrance. She stated that the existing driveway extends onto the adjoining parcels both on the west and east side. While there is an existing PLANNING COMMISSIOl'N MINUTES MARCH 24, 1999 PAGE - 15 - easement /right of way on the east side, there is no such easement/right of way located on the west on Mr. Negin's property. Staff conditioned the approval of the project on the applicant obtaining an easement allowing ingress /egress or realigning the driveway entrance to the east which would allow access via the existing easement. On March 17, 1999, staff received correspondence from Dr. Lampros, adjacent neighbor to the east, raising several questions and concerns. She felt that several of these questions and concerns have been addressed subsequently in the staff report and in the conditions of approval. In looking at Dr. Lampros' letter, lie notes that it is not known whether there is a right of way on the eastern side of the property. She said that staff has reviewed a title report that refers to an egress /ingress right of way, used by the existing driveway. Despite concerns that staff has with the driveway, staff feels that it has tried to make a compromise to allow fire department access to the project. Staff finds that the proposed residence is designed to conform to each of the policies set forth in the city's residential design handbook, satisfies the findings required in city code and satisfies all other zoning requirements. Therefore, staff recommends Commission approval of the application. In response to Commissioner Murakami's question, Planner Ratcliffe responded that a significant amount of time was spent on the driveway issue. Commissioner Bernald inquired about the pump house and asked if there is a dirt way that goes to the pump house that does go over this particular property that is the subject of tonight's application? Planner Ratcliffe responded that the right of way goes right by the pump house. It was her belief that it is used by the Water District. Planner Ratcliffe informed the Commission that Dr. Lampros objected to some of the arborist's recommendations regarding tree #4 and the trees around the pump house. Dr. Lampros expressed that he did not want any fences blocking the right of way or anything on his property. Director Walgren informed the Commission that the right of way is a reciprocal right of way. and that the pump house is located on the adjoining property. However, the applicant's site plan seems to indicate that it is on its own separate parcel. He said that a fence or a gate could be installed at the edge of the curb on the driveway that would prevent construction vehicles for this project from going back any further that would not obstruct Dr. Lampros' access to his property. Commissioner Page noted that staff recommends that the driveway adjacent to trees #9 and #10 remain at its present location. He asked how long replacement values are kept in place for trees that are lost or damaged due to construction? Planner Ratcliffe responded that prior to final inspection, the arborist inspects the site and evaluates how much of the roots, if any, have been damaged. If damaged has occurred, the property owner will have to forfeit a certain amount of the deposit. Commissioner Kaplan asked if any thought has been given at a staff level and discussed with the applicant of taking this application to a study session to discuss all of the issues that have not been resolved? Director Walgren said that staff has already spent a lot of time on the project, including the location of the driveway. He said that the driveway has to be installed to access the house and that it has to be a minimum of 14 feet to meet the fire district's minimum requirements. The constraints of the driveway are grading limitations, tree protection policies, and protection of the neighbors' properties. He felt that this was the best compromise with the addition of the final measures identified by Planner Ratcliffe. PLANNING COMMISSION wIINUTES MARCH 24, 1999 PAGE - 16 - Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 9:35 p.m. Sam Maliniak, project architect, said that this is the third redesign of the project and that he tried to maintain the existing footprint to achieve a house that works well. In doing so, he found that the existing structure was seven feet into the current setback requirements. It was at this point that it was decided to move the house back, impacting tree #16. He redesigned the house to keep it away 10 feet from the tree per the arborist report. He stated that all the other trees will remain intact with the only problem area being the driveway. He said that he is familiar with mitigation measures that he can incorporate into the design to try and protect the trees at a higher level. Commissioner Kaplan asked Mr. Maliniak if he has given any thought to making the "look" somewhat less Mediterranean on the hill in the middle of trees. Mr. Maliniak responded that the property owner requested that he design a Mediterranean -style house. Commissioner Murakami stated that lie could not make out the west and east elevations and that he needs to see something more in detail. He said that it was difficult to get a good idea of what the design will look like with the renderings presented. Mr. Maliniak clarified that the west elevation is a two -story blank wall, noting that it is broken up with two bathrooms where they pop out with a cantilevered window located at the front. Commissioner Page asked if there were plans to underground the utilities? Mr. Maliniak responded that a utility easement runs across the parcel to the west. He said that it is a requirement of PG &E to underground the lines from the pole down. Dr. Harley Negin, 15172 Peach Hill Road, property owner to the west, expressed concern with the attempt to preserve the important trees up the driveway. He indicated that the proposed road moves upon his property and that he wanted to make sure that the proper easements are obtained before the project moves forward. He also expressed concern with the easement for the PG &E lines that comes across through the back of his property. He said that this would require taking the lines and plowing up the ground. He said that the exact location of the easement has never been well defined and that it may impact trees which have not been discussed to date. He requested that the Commission waive the requirement of undergrounding the power lines. He said that the lines are not seen from the outside and that the only individuals who can see them would be from his home as this is a wooded area. Also, of concern is the clean hole to the sewer line that runs along the edge of the drive. He did not want to have the sewer line ripped up, trenched and moved further west into his property. This would imperil trees #1- 44. He requested a stipulation that the sewer drain will not be moved. Commissioner Martlage asked if the Commission can address the PG &E lines? Director Walgren stated that the code requires that the overhead utility lines be undergrounded. He said that the staff report addressed the concern of the Negins whose property it crosses. He said that the city has flexibility to waive the requirement of undergrounding the utilities if is desired by the property owner, noting that it would not be a detriment to the community because it is not a power line that can be seen from any public view and that it is hidden by many trees on the property. Commissioner Bernald asked if Dr. Negin was going to grant the easement that is needed? Mr. Negin said that the easement would need to be discussed with the developer, noting that this subject has not been addressed to date. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 24, 1999 PAGE - 17 - George Lampros, 15168 Piedmont Road, neighbor to the east, expressed concern with the trenching for utilities discussed above. He said that the city arborist has determined that trenching on the lower driveway will severely impact trees #1- #4. He informed the Commission that trees #1- #3 are located on Dr. Negin's property and tree #4 is located on his property (a 42 -inch tree). The arborist has considered these trees as specimen trees. He expressed concern that the option of trenching down the driveway for utilities has been raised this evening and that this concern has not been addressed in the conditions of approval. He pointed out that the site already has utilities. It also has a sewer easement from his property that goes up to the house. Also, it has utilities (gas line, power supply and phone lines) coming off of Dr. Negin's property that comes off Piedmont Road to this property. He expressed concern with the trenching Of utilities and requested that the utility situation be maintained as they exist to protect the trees. He felt that this was a fair option because it does the least amount of damage to the environment and yet satisfies everyone's needs in this situation. Mr. Maliniak stated that it was his believe that PG &E requires underground service from the property line to the residence. He did not believe that undergrounding is required from the street. If there are poles in the easement, it would drop at the property line. Therefore, he did not believe that undergrounding would impact any trees on the adjacent properties. He said that there are no plans to do any trenching in the driveway. Chairman Pierce asked if the Commission could stipulate that if trenching is required, that it return to the Commission? He acknowledged that these are beautiful trees and that every effort should be made to save the trees. Planner Ratcliffe informed the Commission that staff can condition any undergrounding Of utilities or trenching to be reviewed by the Community Development .Director and the City arborist to the extent possible to mitigate any impacts on the trees. Director Walgren stated that staff will make every effort to save the trees. However, if a utility company is requiring that the utility be upgraded, the city does not have a lot of discretion to tell theirs that they cannot do that. Staff can oversee where the utilities can go and how it is to be constructed. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the pump house is its own piece of property? Mr. Maliniak responded that the civil engineer prepared the survey and indicated that the pump house is listed as being on parcel 2 and that it is not on this property. Dr. Lampros informed the Commission that the property line goes past tree #1 and east of tree #7 and joins in the middle of the dirt road. The property then jogs around the pump house, noting that the pump house is on the applicant's property. He said that the only access to the pump house is through his property and that there is no vehicular access to said pump house. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/BERNALD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:55 P.M. Commissioner Page stated that he likes what lie has seen. He agreed that a tremendous amount of work has been done with the driveway. He felt that all precautions have been taken to protect the trees at the base of the driveway. He acknowledged that tree #9 is a tremendous tree and that it should be saved. He recommended that whatever steps can be taken to preserve and protect tree #9 should be taken. He said that the driveway took away from the design of the home from his perspective. He stated that he likes the design, however, he was not pleased with the materials as he did not believe that a stucco house in this PLANNING COMMISSION, MINUTES MARCH 24, 1999 PAC.P - 1 R - environment is compatible. He said that he did not see a lot of stucco homes in the area but that lie saw more wood material incorporated in the area. He recommended that the design incorporate wood type environment. Commissioner Martlage said that when she looks at the existing structure, anything is an improvement. She felt that the new design is compatible with some of the homes on Piedmont as there are some stucco homes in this area. She would like to see something done that would be sensitive to the environment but that she did not believe that it was completely incompatible with the neighborhood. She agreed that because of the focus on the driveway, the Commission has not really looked at the house design as closely as at is usually does. She supports staffs efforts in preserving as many of the trees as possible. Commissioners Patrick and Bernald concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioners Page and Martlage. Commissioner Murakami concurred with the comments expressed by his fellow Commissioners but stated that he was disappointed with the way that the design was drawn up as it is confusing on certain elevations and that the contours could not be made out. He said that if lie was the applicant, he would try to improve his presentation as far as the drawings were concerned as they were of a bad quality. He said that he would like to see some of the items that Commissioner Page mentioned as he would not want to see this house built all in stucco. He said that lie does not get a good feel for the design in looking at the drawings. He said that he would go along with staffs recommendation regarding the driveway at this time. Commissioner Kaplan concurred with the comments expressed. She said that she did not want to vote on the house as designed as it does not sit well on the site. She recommended that this item return to the Commission. Chairman Pierce felt that everything that can be done has been done for the driveway. He acknowledged that it is a difficult situation as there are constraints associated with the fire access. He said that he likes the design of the home. He agreed that it would be nice to have a more "woodsy" feel up there. However, he noted that there are other stucco homes in the neighborhood. He may not like the use of stucco but that the property owner has a right to have a stucco home if they want. Therefore, lie would support the project as presented. COMMISSIONERS MARTLAGE /BERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR -98 -024 WITH THE STIPULATIONS AS OUTLINED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER KAPLAN ABSTAINING. DIRECTOR ITEMS - City Council /Planning Commission /Heritage Preservation Commission Joint Meeting Saratoga Elementary and Redwood Middle School Updates Director Walgren indicated that more than a dozen letters were received expressing concerns with of the retention of two large eucalyptus trees at the Saratoga Elementary School site. The letters were sent to the school board and copied to the City Council, Planning Commission, Public Safety Commission and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 24, 1999 PAGE - 19 - Heritage Preservation Commission. This was a consorted effort to show support for the retention of the trees. Director Walgren distributed an a -mail memo received from Marcia Farris who requested that the memo be distributed to the City Council and Planning Commission. The memo expressed concerns about protection of the Brookwood neighborhood where she resides in relationship to a couple of home additions that are being processed. He said that the first paragraph of the memo urges the planning department staff to perform site visits for every addition that reaches city offices. The letter further states that she understands that the Planning Commission routinely conducts site visits, but that she understands that staff does not. He clarified that staff performs site visits on all administrative or public hearing applications that are submitted through the Community Development Department. The Planning Commission only conducts site visits on those projects scheduled for a public hearing. March 25th California League of Cities Conference Director Walgren indicated that Commissioners Page and Martlage and he will be attending this conference. COMMISSION ITEMS Request for modifications to approved plans for DR -98 -019; SHAH, 21409 TOLLGATE ROAD Director Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that the applicant is requesting to modify two conditions of approval: 1) use of materials on the building (reduce the amount of stone veneer on the building vs. the plans approved in 1995); and 2) reduce the amount of landscaping initially required at time of project approval. He said that the parcel is a visible hillside lot. When the application was first reviewed in 1995, the stone veneer and the landscaping were both factors that seemed to better integrate and ground the building onto the site. Based on these facts, staff recommends that the project be built as initially approved in 1995. Mr. Shah, property owner, stated that lie purchased the lot last year with approved plans. He requested that he be allowed to reduce the amount of stone veneer to 20 % -30 %. It was his belief that if veneer is installed in certain areas, it would highlight the house and make it look better. if everything is in stone veneer, it would look very prominent, busy and flat. He also requested modifications to the landscape plans for the north side of the house. He said that this area is bedrock and that it is very hard to install trees in this area. Also, this area is very windy. He expressed concern that a hazard exists such that the trees might fall onto the house. He stated that he would like to maximize the back, flat area with the installation of a swimming pool and play area. He said that he would like to preserve the front area as proposed and that he would agree to install additional trees if required to compensate the requested modifications (i.e., elimination of the north and west/back side landscaping). Director Walgren stated that the greatest screening benefit would be to the south and east elevations. Requiring the same quantities of trees to be located on the south and east elevation would suffice if it is truly impossible to plant the trees on the backside of the property. He said that the same number of trees could be accommodated on the site somewhere in the general proximity to the approved plans. Commissioner Patrick stated that it was her recollection that the Commission required a lot of the stone veneer to avoid a stucco -look. She would not agree to change this requirement as a lot of discussion went PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 24, 1999 PAGE - 20 - into the design and the requirement of the use of stone veneer. Commissioner Murakami said that if a natural wood -type surface would be used, he would support the reduction in the amount of stone veneer. As wood material is not proposed, he would not support reducing the amount of stone veneer and would not support the use of stucco. Director Walgren agreed with Commissioner Patrick's statement in that when this application first went through the design review process, it went through one or two hearings and plan revisions to get to a stage that the Planning Commission was comfortable with because the site is very visible. He noted that the current property owner did not go through the design review process. Commissioner Kaplan recommended that staff give the applicant guidance of where the trees can be planted but that the Commission should not change the design review (stone veneer) requirement at this time. IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION TO CONCUR WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Kaplan inquired about the public storage monument sign. Director Walgren reported that a monument sign was approved at this location (not internally illuminated). Commissioner Kaplan requested that staff investigate this issue as she did not believe that it was appropriate to have the sign internally illuminated. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the city has any control of how the frontage of Saratoga High School athletic field on Herriman is to be used? She noted that parking was removed from the street and that the bike lane has been moved right up to the curb. Apparently there are to be signs to state "no parking." She noted that cars are driving over the curb and parking in between the trees. She felt that the value of the trees would be impacted. Director Walgren noted that this is a public right of way. Unless the cars are obstructing a sidewalk, there is nothing specific that states that you cannot park on a dirt shoulder of a public right of way. Chairman Pierce recommended that a letter be written to the school board expressing concern for the safety of the trees with cars being parked underneath them. Commissioner Kaplan asked when the City Council would be interviewing Planning Commissioners? She also asked when the new Commissioners would be seated? Director Walgren responded that the new planning commissioners are intended to be seated at the first meeting in May and that the City Council will conduct its interviews beginning April 7. As there were a large number of commission applicants this year, the City Council will have to conduct interviews in two meetings. He indicated that the election of a new chair will occur at the Commission's next meeting. Commissioner Bernald noted that a representative from the Good Government Group was present this evening and that she hoped that when the representative reports back that she will note that a project that came one night came back this evening and that a better design occurred. The applicant indicated that there was a meeting of the minds and that individuals were pleased with the outcome as it resulted in PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 24, 1999 PAGE - 21 - something that was more beneficial to the community. At one of the previous commission meetings, an architect came before the commission who was not pleased that he was asked to redesign the plans. When he came before the Commission two weeks ago, he practically thanked the commission for the opportunity to redesign. He said that both he and his clients were pleased with the efforts that came as a result of the Commission's request for a redesign. She addressed the letter that appeared in the newspaper. She felt that it would benefit the Good Government Group if the individuals who are concerned continue to follow through with the items because it has been stated that it appears that the Commission is subjective about projects. She recommended that the Good Government Group follow the conclusions. She felt that there are positive /beneficial results for the city of Saratoga. The representative present from the Good Government Group stated that she was pleased with the fact that the design comments presented were positive ones. She said that the Good Government Group understands that criticisms are not action but subjective statements given and that it may be a perception of a judgmental nature more than what the votes indicate. Commissioner Bernald inquired about the pine tree that was removed on Saratoga Avenue. Director Walgren said that a valid permit was issued for the removal of the tree. Commissioner Bernald asked if a hearing date has been scheduled for Blue Rock Shoot use permit. She noted that coffee beans were roasted in the middle of the day on March 17, 1999. Director Walgren informed the Commission that the use permit is scheduled for a hearing on the second Commission meeting in April. Commissioner Page thanked Vice - chairman Bernald for her comments at the City Council meeting and felt that she did a phenomenal job of expressing team work and cooperation of this specific commission. He also thanked Chairman Pierce for his response in the Saratoga News. Written City Council Minutes dated March 3, 1999 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING There being no further business, Chairman Pierce adjourned the meeting at 10:20 p.m. to Wednesday, April 14, 1999, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 1999 Civic Center, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting ' Chairman Pierce called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. Roll Call: Present: Commissioners Bernald, Martlage, Murakami, Page, Patrick and Chairman Pierce Absent: Commissioner Kaplan Staff: Director Walgren Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - February 24, 1999 On a motion by Commissioners Patrick/Murakami, the Commission approved the February 24, 1999 minutes with the following amendments: Page 3, last paragraph, replace the word #fie with flue. Page 7, paragraph 4, second sentence amended to read: He sai4 felt that lie iliqUiFBEl ahPIA 410 the applicant may be trying to increase the ceiling space with the use of a vaulted ceiling_ The motion carried 5 -0 -1 with Commissioners Bernald abstaining and Commissioner Kaplan absent. Oral Communication No comments were offered. Report on Posting Agenda Director Walgren declared that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on March 5, 1999. Technical Corrections to the Packet Director Walgren indicted that there were no technical corrections to the packet to report. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. DR -98 -009 (389 -28 -007 - SAGHEZCHI, 13762 Serra Oaks Court; Request for Design Review approval to convert an existing 462 sq. ft. garage to living area and add a new garage and a 453 sq. ft. second story to an existing 2,990 sq. ft. residence. The property is 14,450 sq. ft. and is located in an R -1- 12,500 zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 3/24/99 AT APPLICANT'S REQUEST). PLANNING COMMISSIOi, ,vIINUTES MARCH 10, 1999 PAGE -2- COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/MARTLAGE MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 1 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER KAPLAN ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. DR -98 -035 (503 -14 -028) - ZHANG /LI, 13612 Vaquero Court; Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 2,574 sq. ft. two -story residence and a 1,020 sq. ft. accessory structure and construct a new 5,417 sq. ft. two -story residence. The site is 34,465 sq. ft. and is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 2/24/99). Director Walgren presented the staff report and informed the Commission that at its last meeting, the applicant was directed to pursue design and material changes to the building and to an incorporate rustic or earth tone colors and material scheme. The Commission also directed that consideration be given to relocating the garage to the side of the residence where the current garage exists to reduce its prominence and reduce the amount of driveway, paving and grading. He informed the Commission that the applicant and their architect decided to redesign the home, noting that the design is much more compact on the property and that it is not as wide and rectangular in design. He said that the driveway area has been significantly reduced. The materials have been modified to use earth tone brick and painted wood siding and wood shake composition style roofing material. Staff finds the project to be compatible with the natural setting of the area as well as the existing homes on Vaquero Court. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the project subject to the conditions contained in the resolution. Commissioner Page inquired as to the amount of cut and fill to be required? Director Walgren responded that the quantities of the cut and fill have slightly increased from the original proposal and that a total of 987 cubic yards of combined cut and fill on the site will be required. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Stephen Clark, project architect, stated that lie took all of the Commission's comments under advisement and decided that instead of trying to manipulate and make minor changes to the existing residence, he redesigned the home. He stated that he reduced approximately 600 square feet of non - countable area and that the residence has been reduced by approximately 700 square feet in total. He said that the whole structure has been compacted and that his clients like the design. By changing materials and looking at the design anew, it has some dynamics that are very nice and in keeping with the area. He said that after the submittal of the redesign, lie may want to manipulate the entry stair slightly. Commissioner Page asked if two chimney /smoke stacks are proposed? Mr. Clark said that one chimney is a false smoke stack, one being used for the gas fire flue and the other one is the true chimney. He said that he has not made a decision as to the roofing material to be used. It will be either a one hour cedar shake, a cement fiber asbestos, or a new concrete tile that has a rake to it that gives it the appearance of a shake. He indicated that the roofing material will be a brown tone. Commissioner Martlage said it was her recollection that when the application was previously considered, the play area was to be eliminated; however, the play area is still shown on the plan. Mr. Clark said that with the previous plan, he was abutting up against the structure. It was not something that lie wanted to maintain because the new structure was so close to the old structure. He said that the play structure is one that the applicant would like to maintain because it provides shelter and has value. However, in the future, when the applicant prepares their master plan for landscaping, it would be removed. PLANNING COMMISS10i, MINUTES MARCH 10, 1999 PAGE -3- COMMISSIONERS BERNALD / MARTLAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:45 P.M. Commissioner Murakami said that this was a difficult lot to work with and stated that he was satisfied with the redesign as it is an improvement to the original design. He felt that the redesign addressed all of the Commission's concerns relating the driveway and the garage. He stated that he could support the approval of the application. Commissioner Bernald concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioner Murakami. She stated that she liked several of the elements being utilized. She was impressed with the short turn around and the quality of work incorporated in the redesign. She stated that she could support the application this evening. Commissioner Page stated that lie liked the redesign. However, he expressed concern with the play structure. He asked if the structure meets the height and setback requirements? Director Walgren said that it would take a careful site measuring to determine if the play structure meets the city's current open accessory structure ordinance requirement. He noted that it is an existing structure and that it would be considered a legal, non conforming structure, even if it was slightly taller. Commissioner Page indicated that the existing play structure was his only concern as it does not seem to blend with the home. He stated that lie liked the redesign and the use of the brick work and the colors. He would recommend that it be taken down but said that he would support its retention should the other commissioners feel that it is appropriate to retain the structure. Commissioner Martlage felt that the redesign of the home was good. However, she expressed concern with an aesthetic problem with the play structure. Mr. Clark indicated that the applicant was willing to eliminate the play structure. Commissioner Patrick said that architect did a very nice job in providing good architecture in the redesign. Chairman Pierce stated that he also liked the design. He said that it was refreshing to see the use of brick. He stated that he could also support the project. COMMISSIONERS MARTLAGE /PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -98 -035 WITH THE ELIMINATION OF THE PLAY STRUCTURE. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER KAPLAN ABSENT. 3. V -98 -022 (517 -14 -038) - THUSH, 15395 Kittridge Road; Request for Variance approval of retaining walls exceeding 5 ft. in height. Retaining walls have already been constructed to a maximum height of 8 ft. The site is 44,431 sq. ft. and is located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 2/24/99) Director Walgren presented the staff report and informed the Commission that upon inspection, the retaining walls that were originally shown to be masonry vertical walls of no more than five feet in height, clearly exceeded the height limit. He noted that the retaining walls, in some areas, were up to eight feet in height and necessitate approval of a variance before the home can be finaled and completed. PLANNING COMMISSION, MINUTES MARCH 10, 1999 PAGE -4- He informed the Commission that the applicants have been cooperative with staff. It was evaluated whether the walls could be reduced in height through steeper grading and other amendments to the property which could not be done due to slope and soils stability reasons. He said that staff attempted to look at this project as though it was a proposal to build new retaining walls and not prejudice this by the fact that it is an after the fact permit. It was his belief that the project could have been designed to be within the five -foot limit if several parallel walls were incorporated into the design. He said that having a few walls exceeding the five -foot height limit would provide a greater aesthetic benefit. He felt that special circumstances are applicable to the property such as the terrain, the steep slope, the configuration of the property coming down to a very steep swale, and the difficulty of accessing the site from Kittridge Road. Based on these circumstances, staff is recommending approval subject to the conditions contained in the resolution, including the requirements that the applicant address unrelated drainage issues that have been raised by neighbors as well as the city's engineering staff. Commissioner Martlage thanked staff for its clarification, including the colored diagrams. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. Sandy Thush, applicant, stated that she could not address the technical issues relating to the retaining walls. She informed the Commission that she and her husband cooperated with the city and that she assumed that the house was being built according to all regulations. She said that she did not realize that the retaining walls were not acceptable. She indicated that the walls needed to be built as designed because this would be the only way that she would have access to the house due to the contour of the land. She felt that the house is an asset to the neighborhood and to Saratoga. As far as the grading issue that was raised, she said that this has been addressed as the drain and the road have been cleared. Commissioner Martlage said that at the site visit, the Commission noticed that interlocking cinder blocks were being used and that it looked like the cinder blocks were facing both directions. She asked if this was being corrected or whether this would be the final product? Ms. Thush said that what was seen is the completed job. She said that she intends to install planting and landscaping to soften the area. Commissioner Bernald said that it appears that the retaining wall has been designed with a flat surface coming down the stairs in addition to the rounded concrete block. She asked if Ms. Thush was going to plant landscaping in the retaining wall along the right side of the stairs? Ms. Thush responded that the area described by Commissioner Bernald is part of a retaining wall and not a planter area. Commissioner Bernald said that the retaining wall does not appear to be a correct application of the retaining wall product (an unfinished job). Norm Stout, Stout Built Homes, informed the Commission that this particular block has only one finished face with the finished side being to the area that the property owners would access up the walkway. Commissioner Martlage asked if a planter box could be built to give the wall a better looking face in both directions? If so, it would allow the property owner to fill and plant landscaping as the current finish gives it a "Lego" appearance. PLANNING COMM1SS10i. ,MINUTES MARCH 10, 1999 PAGE -5- Mr. Stout stated that he would agree to incorporate groundcover and planting to screen the wall. He said that it was unfortunate that this product is made with only one finished face. Commissioner Martlage said that the stones are nice and very sculptural. To intersperse flat cinder block looking stones would be optimistic to think that planting would eliminate the problem. She felt that her concern could be mitigated with a planter box with two sides facing out. Commissioner Page said that there is a letter dated 12 -19 -98 from GeoForensics that talks about some recommendations, specifically a suggestion that based on the use of concrete which is reinforced, it is recommended that the tilted sections of the wall be re- stacked at the top and that the spacing of the steel reinforcement within three feet of the back of the retaining wall be doubled. He asked if this recommendation has been completed? Mr. Stout responded that it was his belief that all of GeoForensics comments were addressed and that he was not aware of anything that was done contrary to their recommendation. Dan Dyckman, GeoForensics, said that the eight -foot section of the retaining wall was located on the first section on the down hill side of the driveway. He stated that the eight -foot section of the retaining wall was necessitated by the fact that it was moved down the hill to save an oak tree and to avoid placing a loose fill in a tight area on top of oak tree roots. Commissioner Murakami asked if Mr. Dyckman's firm is willing to state that the load bearing wall will hold up during an earthquake and hold the dirt back? Mr. Dyckman indicated that the retaining walls were a lot better in sustaining earthquakes than the reinforced cast concrete masonry material for the simple reason that they are flexible. He said that the cost to repair these blocks is substantially reduced versus the more conventional retaining walls. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD /MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:02 P.M. Commissioner Bernald stated that she could support the application as recommended by staff. She recommended that the property owner continue to talk to her neighbors because the site may continue to have problems. She stated that she has no problem with the height of the wall given the constraints of the site. However, she felt that there was a way of making the wall look better. She did not know why the wall could not be brought all the way around so that the back side would not be seen. She felt that maybe once they are filled with dirt, it would solve the problem. Commissioner Page stated his support of the application as presented. Commissioner Martlage concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioners Bernald and Page. She stated that the application is not the problem. However, she would insist on the aesthetics if she was the applicant. Commissioner Patrick concurred with the comments expressed by her fellow commissioners. Commissioner Murakami said that his concern was that of the load bearing capability of the wall as they appear to be stacked bricks. He said that he has seen walls similar to this fall down. .However, if the geotechnical engineer and the contractor are willing to back up their construction and their calculations, he could support the request. PLANNING COMMISSIOi. vIINUTES MARCH 10, 1999 PAGE -6- Chairman Pierce said that he figured out that the eight -foot wall was required due to its proximity to the oak tree. He said that it was unfortunate that so many walls and so much reinforcing of the slope occurred. He agreed that this is a beautiful home that adds to the character of Saratoga and the neighborhood. He said that he could support the project as it appears to have been designed correctly. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD /MARTLAGE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. V -98 -022. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER KAPLAN ABSENT. 4. UP -99 -003 (517 -09 -015) - FIRST CITY MORTGAGE, 14440 Big Basin Way, #9; Request for Use Permit approval to allow a professional office located at street level and fronting on Big Basin Way. The site is located within a CH -1 (Commercial Historic) zoning district). Director Walgren presented the staff report and recommended approval of the use permit subject to the conditions contained in the resolution. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. Sharon Butler, First City Mortgage, stated that she was unaware that there was going to be an issue when she picked out the building space. She said that she dealt with an uncooperative management company who did not allow her business to use a real estate person who probably would have alerted her to some of the problems involved with use permits. She said that at the time that she was bringing this business on line, she had two other offices that she was bringing on line. Due to these factors, things just slipped through the cracks. COMMISSIONER PATRICK / BERNALD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:10 P.M. Commissioner Martlage stated that she was disappointed that things fell through the cracks because timing seemed to be a big issue with securing a business license and installing a business sign. She was hopeful that things like this would not persist. She said that she was glad to see businesses in the Village. With the parking lot located up front, she did not have the issue with the frontage on Big Basin that exists according to the ordinance. Therefore, she could support the request. Commissioner Page stated that he was also disappointed that things were not acted upon. He felt that the planning department made the right efforts in notifying First City Mortgage, noting that things still slipped through the cracks. He said that taking an additional four or five months to tack onto things is more than slipping through the cracks. He felt that it was a stretch to call this use a retail establishment. However, based on its location behind a parking lot, lie could support the use permit. He did not know if this use was the right use for the other existing retail establishments that are located within the shopping center, noting that there was no one present to state that it was not an acceptable use. Commissioner Patrick said that she was initially concerned with this use adjacent to retail businesses. As there has been no comment addressing this concern, she assumed that the surrounding businesses are not concerned with this use. She also agreed that this is more than an issue of falling through the cracks. Because of the use's location, she would concur with Commissioners Martlage and Page but stated that she was unhappy about the situation. PLANNING COMMISSIOi, ,d[NUTES MARCH 10, 1999 PAGE -7- Commissioner Bernald stated that she looked at this request as though it was a new application. She felt that the city needs to encourage as much retail use as it can in the downtown area. She felt that it would be more conducive to retail if the property manager rented to retail users and made an effort to reach out to retail businesses. She said that there are three offices that could have been used for retail and that she would have encouraged the property manager to do so if this was a new application. She felt that this was clearly an office use and that she did not feel that under section 1519.050 that this supports the zoning ordinance. Therefore, she would not be supporting the use. She felt that the city was losing another opportunity for retail space. She stated that the city keeps giving up retail space for apartments, condominiums, and office space. She said that this was a problem that the Commission could not fix. She expressed concern with fixing downtown Saratoga. Therefore, she could not support the application this evening. Commissioner Murakami agreed with Commissioner Bernald's comments. He said that it bothered him that it took so long to apply for this use permit. He commended staff for their detective work. Had staff not found this business, the business would not have applied for the required city approvals. He agreed with Commissioner Bernald that the area should remain retail as it is a retail strip center, noting that this is an office use. He said that he would vote "no" on this application. Chairman Pierce said that he is also opposed to the office use as the code is in place to encourage retail businesses and that the city wants individuals to go into the Village and purchase items. This results in street and foot traffic. He felt that this application contradicts what the ordinance is specifically written for, noting that this center is in the heart of the Village. He did not blame First City Mortgage for delaying their application for a business license. He felt that it was the management company's responsibility to tell users of city requirements, bearing the liability should the mortgage company not be able to secure a use permit. He said that the city wants to encourage individuals to come into downtown Saratoga and to use the facilities in the downtown area. He did not believe that this use is one that would encourage this. Therefore, he would vote against the use permit. Commissioner Patrick inquired as to the difference between this use and a real estate office fronting the street? Chairman Pierce felt that a real estate office fronting the street could be a problem too. He said that the ordinance is clear about encouraging retail establishments such as the gourmet market that opened up recently. He said that he would like to see more of these type of uses. Commissioner Martlage stated that everyone agrees that retail is desired in the Village. However, the fact remains that the area is separated somewhat by the parking lot. She noted that there are other empty establishments in the center and that the vacancies are not healthy for the Village. Commissioner Bernald said that city has experienced parking problems near retail shops, especially around the holidays. She felt that this was an ideal location where you have parking built in for retail on the spot. She did not believe that the property manager was doing his /her job in renting the space as retail. The city has stated for a long period of time that it wants to see a vibrant downtown Saratoga. She questioned whether the city should give up the area to office space just because the property manager failed to do his /her job in seeking new retail businesses. She did not believe that just because two empty spaces exist, that these spaces should be filled with office uses. She felt that it has been mandated by the ordinance that the Village has retail in this area to maintain a vibrant downtown. She noted that the shopping center has been vibrant for some time, except in color. PLANNING COMMISSIOi..,✓IlNUTES MARCH 10, 1999 . PAGE -8- Chairman :Pierce said that the city does not know why the spaces are not rented. The city does not know whether or not the rents being charged are exorbitant or whether retail is not relocating to the center because the property manager is not encouraging retail. He felt that the Planning Commission's decision is to rule on the request based on what the ordinance states. Commissioner Page stated that lie was on the fence on this issue. He said that when he looks at the shopping center, lie felt that this was the Argonaut Shopping Center of the Village. He said that he was not sure which was worse, to have a non- retail establishment or to have an empty store. He felt that an empty store gives a negative connotation. This is what places him on the fence on this issue. Commissioner Bernald asked about the precedent that is being established by giving into office space? Commissioner Page asked if there was anything the city can do to figure out why the spaces are not being leased to retail users? He said that it was obvious that the property manager is renting out the spaces to office use and that he /she is not communicating the right information to renters. Director Walgren stated that based on the result of what the city has accomplished with the three businesses and ultimately getting in touch with the property manager, he did not believe that the city would have this problem in the near future. He said that staff s recommendation was strongly based on this particular location and the fact that the space was located behind the parking lot and not abutting the sidewalk of Big Basin Way. He said that staff informs potential users in prime retail locations that their chances of getting a conditional use permit for office on prime frontage that has direct sidewalk access would be nil. He informed the Commission that the latest news that staff has heard is that the city will see retail activity in the former Ferrari space. He did not believe that a precedent would be set as a conditional use permit is site specific. Commissioner Bernald noted that the Commission is split on its support of the use permit and felt that the Commission was given up its decision making ability to the city council unless a commissioner decides to change its vote. Commissioner Martlage noted that the three commissioners who have indicated their support of the use permit are not giving up the ordinance. She asked what would be the result should there be a split vote? Director Walgren indicated that a split vote is technically a denial of the use permit. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /MARTLAGE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. UP -99 -003. THE MOTION FAILED 3 -3 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: MARTLAGE, PAGE, PATRICK; NOES: BERNALD, MURAKAMI, PIERCE; ABSENT: KAPLAN. Director Walgren clarified that the application would automatically be continued to the next meeting for a revote unless the applicant chooses to accept a 3 -3 tie vote as a denial and appeal this action to the City Council. DIRECTOR ITEMS SD -98 -003 & SD -98 -003.1 - PICETTI, 13650 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road; Request for approval of fencing and landscape improvement plan for Saratoga- S unyvale Road frontage. PLANNING COMMISSION, ,OINUTES MARCH 10, 1999 PAGE -9- Director Walgren presented the staff report. He said that the original subdivision map included schematic details of how the exterior Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road improvements would be built, including a good neighbor wood fence that would be continuous along the entire subdivision to ensure that future homeowners do not install piecemeal fences that would be visible from Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. Also, included was the planting of oak trees with sidewalks meandering between the oak tree. He said that there was a requirement at time of approval that a plan had to be submitted that included details of groundcover, irrigation details, including installation and maintenance. This plan has been submitted to staff in order to attain final map approval. He said that a maintenance agreement would be recorded against each of the four lots to assign responsibility for the maintenance of the landscape perimeter. Commissioner Page said that as he drives down Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and other roads, he does not see lawns but that he sees a lot of fences. He asked if there was a conscious decision to allow the installation of fences versus lawns in order to allow individuals to enjoy their backyards more? He felt that this subdivision was nicely done with the inclusion of a sidewalk and fence, noting that there was one area of grass in a mass of fences. Chairman Pierce clarified that Commissioner Page's concern is that the city is seeing a wall of fences built instead of having some homes front onto roads. Director Walgren said that it has been a conscious decision to have access to homes internal to residential subdivision and not necessarily have homes fronting onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. Commissioner Murakami stated that it was nice to see that native trees and plants being incorporated. Response to Redwood Middle School Initial Study. Director Walgren said that similar to the Saratoga Elementary School initial study, staff is reviewing this initial study document. The Public Safety Commission, City Council, and Planning Commission are all being given the opportunity to review the document. Staff will be composing a response letter for the mayor's signature at the end of the public review period which was originally slated to end March 18, 1999 following the City Council's meeting. He informed the Commission that staff met with the school district's superintendent and their architects this morning. Staff discussed preliminarily what it anticipated the city's responses were going to be. He said that the school district requested this meeting in order to receive early input from the city versus the approach that they took on the elementary school which was to wait for the formal response only to find out that there were deficiencies in the initial study. Based on the meeting held this morning, the school district will be preparing an addendum to the traffic analysis section as neither project included a comprehensive circulation and car queuing analysis that is prepared by a traffic engineer, noting that these are clearly the most significant land use issues associated with the two projects, particularly at the Middle School with cars backing up onto Fruitvale. The school district has agreed to postpone .their action and gave the city a further extension to review the initial study. The school district will be releasing a specific traffic analysis as an addendum to the initial study which will be presented primarily to the Public Safety Commission and the City Council in late March, early April. He recommended that the Commission endorse this effort or provide any additional comments that have not been raised. Commissioner Page said that his comments relate to circulation issues as they seem limited when you consider that 50% more students will be accommodated. He noted that the school district added something in the circulation element that states that the school district and the city will be working together to create a suggested route to school. He asked if the school district was making finds available PLANNING COMM1SS1Oi, MNUTES MARCH 10, 1999 PAGE -10- to the city for this? Director Walgren noted that the same statement was made in the elementary school initial study. He said that the study was deferring mitigation that the school district cannot confirm will or will not be done. He said that this is not acceptable according to the state environmental quality laws. He said that the city was not consulted in the first place. He said that staff will be pursuing something like this with the update of the circulation element this year, noting that it will be approximately six months before a draft document will be ready for public hearing. Topics for 3/23/99 City Council /Planning Commission /Heritage Preservation Commission joint meeting. Commissioner Patrick recommended that there be discussion regarding designating heritage houses in the City of Saratoga. Director Walgren said that the Heritage Preservation Commission will present an overview of their function, their philosophy and their goals and objectives. He recommended that the Planning Commission also provide a brief overview of its philosophy. Commissioners Murakami and Patrick recommended that the new Council Members address their philosophy to the Commission. Commissioner Patrick further stated that the Commission is concerned with the coordination and the gating of Saratoga, including trees. Director Walgren recommended that the Commission present an overview similar to what was presented to the Good Government Group by Commissioner Bernald, Chairman Pierce and staff. He recommended that an overview be presented of what the Commission perceives are its primary responsibilities and its philosophy toward land use. He also recommended that there be an update on the progress of the circulation element, including the distribution of an executive General Plan summary document in draft form. Commissioner Bernald felt that it would also be helpful to hear the Council's philosophy on various issues. Commissioner Patrick said that it would be helpful for the Commission to address its concerns when appeals are made to the City Council. She said that she would be interested in hearing the Council's feeling about signage, including neon signage which has always troubled the Commission. Commissioner Murakami recommended that the City Council provide the Commission their thoughts on land use of the Village Plan. Director Walgren informed the Commission that the Loh appeal was unanimously denied by the City Council last week. He said that he received correspondence from the Good Government Group dated February 15, 1999. He informed the Commission that their observer was concerned about how they perceived a resident was treated. The reference was on the Peck family who removed an oak tree from their backyard to accommodate a detached garage structure. The tree removal was considered by the Planning Commission through the conditional use permit process. He distributed to the Commission his response to the Good Government Group. He said that he has not heard back from the Group so he is assuming that they have accepted and are satisfied with staff's response. PLANNING COMMISSIO,, v1INUTES MARCH 10, 1999 PAGE -11- Commissioner Page asked if the Peck family planted a tree anywhere? Director Walgren stated that staff has a specimen, boxed native oak tree located in the maintenance yard. Staff is looking for a place to plant it in a public area other than city hall. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Page asked if corrected minutes are forwarded to the City Council as he did not note changes to the January 27, 1999 meeting? Director Walgren indicated that Ile would investigate the process. Commissioner Page informed staff that a resident asked him to look into the home located at 13654 Ronnie Way. It was noted that two prefab portions of a home or a classroom are parked in the driveway. He requested that staff look into this issue. Commissioner Bernald asked if the Blue Rock Shoot would be placed on a future Planning Commission Agenda? Director Walgren said that the use permit for Blue Rock Shoot would be tentatively scheduled for the Commission's second meeting in April. COMMUNICATIONS Written - City Council Minutes dated February 9 and February 17, 1999 Notices for Planning Commission meeting of March 24, 1999 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chairman Pierce adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. to Wednesday, March 24, 1999, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED IRMA TORREZ, Minutes Clerk CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1999 Civic Center, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting Chairman Pierce called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Roll Call: Present: Commissioners Martlage, Murakami, Page, Patrick, and Chairman Pierce Absent: Commissioners Bernald and Kaplan Staff: Director Walgren Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - February 10, 1999 On a motion by Commissioners Patrick/Martlage, the Commission approved the February 10, 1999 minutes as submitted. The motion carried 3 -0 -2 with Commissioners Murakami and Page abstaining and Commissioners Bernald and Kaplan absent. Oral Communication No comments were offered. Report of Posting Agenda Director Walgren declared that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 19, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet Director Walgren indicated that there were no technical corrections to the packet. He apologized for starting the meeting a little late this evening and explained that the Commission did come from an adjourned meeting off site, resulting in a group of individuals arriving a few minutes late. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. DR -98 -009 (389 -28 -007 - SAGHEZCHI, 13762 Serra Oaks Court; Request for Design Review approval to convert an existing 462 sq. ft. garage to living area and add a new garage and a 453 sq. ft. second story to an existing 2,990 sq. ft. residence. The property is 14,450 sq. ft. in an R- 1- 12,500 zoning district (CONTINUED TO 3/10/99 AT APPLICANT'S REQUEST) 2. DR -98 -038 (503 -14 -028) - ZHANG /LI, 13612 Vaquero Court; Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 2,574 sq. ft. two story residence and a 1,020 sq. ft. accessory structure and construct a new 5,568 sq. ft. two -story residence. The site is 34,465 sq. ft. and is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 3/10/99 AT APPLICANT'S REQUEST) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- PLANNING COMM ISSIOi,..✓IINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 1999 PAGE - 2 - 3. V -98 -022 (517 -14 -038) - THUSH, 15395 KITTRIDGE ROAD; Request for Variance approval of retaining walls exceeding 5 ft. in height. Retaining walls have already been constructed to a maximum height of 7 ft. The site is 44,431 sq. ft. and is located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. (CONTE U:ED TO 3/10/99 AT APPLICANT'S REQUEST) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 1 -3 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS BERNALD AND KAPLAN ABSENT. 4. DR -99 -008 (510 -02 -018) - WALT, 15247 HUME DRIVE; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 612 sq. ft. addition to an existing 5,506 sq. ft. residence. The proposal includes demolition of a portion of the existing residence and guest house. The Design Review is required because the addition will put the square footage over 6,000 sq. ft. at 6,118 sq. ft. The property is 43,500 sq. ft. and is located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. Director Walgren presented the staff report. He felt that the compatibility findings can be made to recommend approval of the project. He addressed the material's board and noted that a relatively light colored materials board was submitted that normally would be of concern if the project was located on a visible hillside location. However, in this case, staff finds the colors and materials to be compatible with the architecture proposed and should suit the neighborhood well. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the application subject to the conditions contained in the draft resolution. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. Bob and Debra Walt, applicants, stated that they would agree to answer any questions which the Commission may have. Chris Spaulding, project architect, noted a minor change to staffs presentation. He said that it is proposed to use stucco material. He said that he made a conscience decision to try to maintain a status quo in terms of the building (i.e., the two story section is to remain the same with the manipulation of the one story portion of the home). He said that the roof is to be changed from composition shingle to tile roofing material. Commissioner Patrick noted that three fire places are proposed with no indication as to whether they are to be wood or gas burning. Mr. Spaulding clarified that one new fire place would be wood burning while the other two would be gas burning. He said that the two existing fire places would be converted to gas and that the one new fireplace proposed in the family room is to be wood burning. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/MARTLAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC 14EARING AT 7:44 p.m. Commissioner Patrick said that she liked the design and felt that the colors were appropriate for the design. Therefore, she could support the request. Commissioner Page stated that he also liked the design and felt that it would fit in with the neighborhood. Commissioner Martlage concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioners Patrick and Page. She stated that she appreciated the fact that the property owners modified what currently exits, respecting PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 1999 PAGE - 3 - the old structure. Commissioner Murakami stated that he also liked the design and that he was surprised to see that the existing structure was close in size to that of the proposed remodel. He stated that lie had no objections to the proposal. Chairman Pierce stated that he had no objections to what is being proposed. He said that in looking at the color board, there may be a littler concern. However, the Commission drove by another house similar in color and that it was noted that it was appropriate for the design. Therefore, he could support the application. COMMISSIONERS MARTLAGE /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -99 -008. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS BERNALD AND KAPLAN ABSENT. 5. DR -98 -059 (386 -05 -022) - DOLL, 19145 .Brookview Drive; Request for Design Review approval to add a 767 sq. ft. second story addition and a 105 sq. ft. first floor addition to an existing 2,117 sq. ft. single story residence. The maximum height of the finished structure will be 22 feet. The site is 9,375 sq. ft. and is located within an R- 1- 10,000 zoning district. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that staff discussed the fact that the project was going from a wood exterior to a stucco exterior with the applicant, noting that this subdivision was homogeneous in its architectural style. He said that most of the homes in the subdivision are wood sided buildings with wood shake roofing. The applicant agreed to change the roofing material from a composition shingle to a wood shake. However, the applicant is requesting that the project be approved with the stucco exterior finish. He said that this may be an issue that the Commission may wish to discuss further to ensure that the new addition looks as though it was built as part of the original subdivision. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 7:48 p.m. Keith Royster, project architect, informed the Commission that one reason that he did not want to retain the wood siding was to maintain a simple, clean look for the house. Commissioner Patrick said that one chimney appears to be unnecessary in terms of functional purposes. Mr. Royster explained that two fireplaces are located on the first floor, an existing fireplace in the living room and the other fireplace is to be used for a barbecue that has a flue, noting that it is not a fireplace but more of a barbecue pit. Commissioner Patrick noted that the balcony appears to be facing the neighbor's back yard. She asked if there was a way to restrict the view similar to the way the other side's view is restricted by the use of lattice work? Mr. Royster responded that the balcony is located a distance away from the rear property line as well the opposite property line. COMMISSIONERS MARTLAGE /PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:51 P.M. Commissioner Patrick asked if barbecue fireplaces are treated similar or different to fireplaces? Director Walgren responded that barbecue fireplaces are not treated differently than a regular fireplace and are considered a fireplace. It was his belief many architects may not be familiar with the ordinance that PLANNING COMMISSIOIN MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 1999 PAGE - 4 - limits new home construction in Saratoga to a single wood burning fireplace. Commissioner Murakami said that he liked the overall design and felt that it was well balanced. He felt that architect did a good job in placing the addition central to the home. Regarding the balcony concern, he stated his support of staffs observation. If the neighbors have no problems with the location of the balcony, he stated that he would not object to its proposed location. Regarding the issue of the use of wood siding versus stucco, lie said that the Commission noticed that the neighborhood was a very monogamous neighborhood as far as all homes having wood siding except one home. He said that he would be willing to go along with the recommendation of the majority of the Commission on this issue as it is not an absolute situation that he would require. He felt that both floors of the home may look better with the use of wood siding. Commissioner Martlage felt that this was a good design for the neighborhood. However, she stated that the use of stucco bothered her for one simple reason. The reason being is that the existing bedroom wing with the horizontal windows are more accentuated with the use of stucco and would give the home a remodeled appearance instead of making it a better looking home. She recommended the use of wood siding instead of stucco. Commissioner Page agreed that the use of wood siding would be a better improvement if used at least on the bottom floor and that it would minimize the expanse of stucco on the bottom floor. He further stated that he liked the design as it does not give the design the feel of an add on. Commissioner Patrick agreed that wood siding should be used on both floors. If stucco is used only on the second floor, it would give an "added on" appearance. She stated that she has problems with the smoke stack appearing on the chimneys as it gives the architecture an industrial feel on a rural appearing neighborhood. She said that these two issues would need to be changed before she could approve the project. Chairman Pierce stated his support of the use of wood siding. He stated that he did not want to give the design an "added on" appearance with just requiring the use of wood siding on the first floor. He recommended that staff work with applicant to determine the appropriate use of wood siding, whether it is just on the first floor or both floors. Mr. Royster acknowledged that the home has two existing wood burning fireplaces. Director Walgren noted that the majority of the two story homes in the neighborhood that use wood siding do so on both floors. He indicated that the top of the chimneys use a prefabricated metal cap. Chairman Pierce stated that based on staffs comments, he would support the use of wood siding on both floors. He indicated that he could support the chimney tops. COMMISSIONERS PAGE /MARTLAGE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -98 -059 WITH T14E INCLUSION OF A MODIFICATION TO STIPULATE THAT WOOD SIDING IT TO BE ADDED PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER PATRICK VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONERS BERNALD AND KAPLAN ABSENT. PLANNING COMMISSION ,vIINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 1999 PAGE - 5 - 6. DR -98 -066 (389 -16 -003) - SALAH, 13033 Montrose Street; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 3,212 sq. ft. two -story residence with a 1,959 sq. ft. basement and a detached 427 sq. ft. garage. The maximum height of the main building will be 24 feet. The site is 14,330 sq. ft. and is located within an R -1- 10,000 zoning district. Director Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that when the application was originally submitted, it included a request to allow a detached garage structure in the back of the property to exceed the accessory height limit of 12 feet. Staff expressed concern with the proposed height of the building as it is tall for a building of this size and that it would introduce a third architectural roof pitch to the overall design. The applicant agreed to lower the height to 12 feet, resulting in a 4 and 12 roof pitch that matches the main residence. He informed the Commission that staff discussed with the applicant the suggestion of maintaining an even 4 and 12 roof pitch on all gabled and dormer windows to achieve a certain symmetry and roof design. However, the applicant felt that this type of design provides a design feature to the front elevation. Staff finds that the building is otherwise compatible with the adjoining homes and the overall neighborhood. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Ted Salah, applicant, stated that the project was approved six months ago without the exception for square footage. Because of the configuration of the lot (narrow in front and flares out), it was difficult to remove 350 square feet without changing the design of the home. Commissioner Murakami asked Mr. Salah if he was the applicant for the last project reviewed by the Commission? Mr. Salah acknowledged that he was the applicant for the prior design review approval, noting that this is the third design review submitted since the home burnt down. He said that reducing the home by 350 square feet necessitated the redesign of the home. He informed the Commission that the difference in the applications was a detached garage versus an attached garage. He said that the roof pitch design was used to minimize the height of the home at 24 feet. Commissioner Patrick noted that the home is large (5,600 square feet). Chairman Pierce asked if there was a reason to have a 39 -foot distance between the home and the garage? Mr. Salah informed the Commission that he tried to move the garage toward the rear to minimize its impact on the street. Chairman Pierce felt that siting the garage 39 feet away from the home results in the creation of additional pavement. He asked staff if city codes allow the garage to be located closer to the home? Director Walgren responded that the garage could be moved closer to the home (i.e., centering the garage in the rear yard versus the corner of the lot). Director Walgren informed the Commission that the majority of detached garages seen require a use permit to locate the garage to the rear corner. He said that the garage is setback 25 feet from the rear property line is a much greater distance than what is normally seen in this type of detached garage design. He noted that this is a deep lot. He agreed that the garage could be moved closer to the home. It was his belief that the garage is sited such to allow the use of the rear yard area versus having the detached building central in the rear yard. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 1999 PAGE - 6 - Chairman Pierce did not believe that moving the garage 10 feet toward the home would cause a problem. Director Walgren said that if the concern is that of the amount of paved surface, the driveway apron width could be reduced and that the use of a center pervious strip could be incorporated to reduce the amount paved surface. Chairman Pierce expressed concern that a long driveway approach is proposed. He stated that he would support having staff review measures that would reduce the amount of paving in the driveway. .Regarding the roof, he felt that the roof was visually acceptable from the front. Mr. Salah stated that he did not believe that individuals would notice the pitch of the roof from the front of the home. He said that he did not know the side effect of the roof pitch nor its visual impact. Regarding the recommendation of moving the garage forward, lie stated that he would not oppose moving it closer to the home. However, he did not want to have the garage sitting in the middle of the backyard and giving the appearance of an awkward structure. If the garage was to be located closer to the fence line, he would agree to move it up 15 feet. However, moving the garage closer to the fence line would necessitate the approval of a variance. He stated that he would agree to reduce the driveway width as long as both cars can utilize the driveway. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:11 P.M. Commissioner Martlage felt that the garage could be moved forward without compromising the design. She did not believe that it would be necessary to encroach into the side yard setback to do so and that a variance was not necessary. She felt that gable roof lines would be visible based on the location of the home. She agreed that it would not be seen from the street front but that it would be visible from the sides. She expressed concern that the design gives the home a squashed /flattened appearance to accommodate additional floor area. She recommended that more definition /refinement be considered as she felt that the design was close to being acceptable. Commissioner Page felt that the location of the garage can be worked out with staff. He felt that the roof line would be visible from the side versus the front view. He stated that he could support the design if the roof design was changed so that it does not give a flattened appearance. Commissioner Patrick agreed that this is a large enough home so that the design details would be obvious. She recommended that the applicant be directed to redesign the roof and that the redesign return to the Commission for its review. Commissioner Murakami stated that he generally liked the design. He felt that the applicant may be trying to increase the ceiling space with the use of a vaulted ceiling. He said that the profile of the home does not bother him as the applicant attempted to lower the height of the home. He understood the constraints of the long, narrow lot. Regarding the driveway, he stated that he was not opposed to shortening it and having the applicant work this issue out with staff. He stated that he could approve the design as presented. Chairman Pierce concurred with Commissioner Murakami's comments and felt that the staff could work out the driveway issue. He found the roof line to be acceptable. PLANNING COMM ISSIOIN MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 1999 PAGE - 7 - Director Walgren stated that extending the front roof line to an even pitch to bring the height of the home to a 26 -foot height limit would require the reduction in floor area by approximately 96 square feet. This modification would result in a continuous roof line, eliminating the gable break in the roofline. Commissioner Patrick stated that she would support a change in the roof line as recommended by staff as she felt that the roofline was awkward, even if it results in the reduction of floor area by 96 square feet. She stated that she would agree to allow staff to work with the applicant regarding the concern about the garage, moving it forward to reduce the amount of paved surface. COMMISSIONERS PAGE /MARTLAGE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -98 -066 WITH THE ADDED CONDITION TO REQUIRE THAT THE APPLICANT WORK WITH STAFF ON THE POSITION OF THE GARAGE AND THE REDUCTION OF 96 SQUARE FOOTAGE TO ANGLE THE ROOF SIMILAR TO THE REST OF THE ROOF DESIGN. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS BERNALD AND KAPLAN ABSENT. D:[RECTOR .ITEMS Redwood Middle School Initial Study Director Walgren informed the Commission that the Redwood Middle School Initial Study was included in its packet this past week and that the City Council will also have the opportunity to review it. He stated that attached to the document is the cover letter that city staff wrote to the school district requesting an extension of time to review the document as the city did not have time to conduct its review. He informed the Commission that the school district approved the extension of time last night. The Planning Commission has until Monday, March 15 to forward any comments /concerns regarding the initial study to him. He would make sure that the Commission's comments /concerns are incorporated into a single, city response letter as was done with the Saratoga Elementary School. He said that the Commission can address the initial study as a Commissioner and /or as individuals. Chairman Pierce said that this is a planning issue for the City of Saratoga and yet, the city has a say about the school as the school district can do what it wants to. Director Walgren informed the Commission that public schools can exempt themselves from local development review regulations but that they are not exempt from state environmental laws. He stated that the CEQA process is an open process that the school district needs to be comply with and that this is what the city is responding to. Commissioner Patrick stated that it is troubling that the city uses its time to review the initial study and forward its comments and concerns only to be disregarded. Director Walgren informed the Commission that the city submitted a response to the initial study for the Saratoga Elementary School. The school district will be required to respond to impacts that could not be mitigated based on staffs analysis of what has taken place and information that was not included in the initial study that should have been included to come to the conclusions that the environmental consultants came to. He informed the Commission that at its March 9 meeting, the school district will respond to comments and decide whether the initial study is adequate or whether they need to proceed with an E.IR for the project. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 1999 PAGE - 8 - Chairman Pierce felt that the Commission may need until the next meeting to have the opportunity to review and comment on the initial study. Commissioners Patrick and Murakami indicated that traffic is a major concern. Commissioner Patrick stated that she had the opportunity to review the initial study. She said that she was amazed by the fact that Saratoga schools generate approximately 90% more traffic to schools than the ITE rate norm. She felt that schools need to take into account that they are adding 50% more students and that additional students would make an incredible difference in traffic flow. She also indicated that she has been concerned for some time about the parking that is occurring under the oak trees in front of the school. She asked if there are plans to keep people away from the oak trees? Director Walgren stated that staff would reschedule the initial study for the Commission's March 10, 1999 to allow it the opportunity to comment. COMMISSION ITEMS No items were reported. COMMUNICATIONS Written - City Council Minutes dated January 26, February 3 and February 8, 1999 - Notices for Planning Commission Meeting of March 10, 1999 - Response to Saratoga Elementary School Initial Study - Memo to City Council Outlining Commission Reappointments. Director Walgren informed the Commission that the Council agreed to extend the policy that is currently applied to City Council Members to Commissioners. ADJOURNMENT TO STUDY SESSION There being no further business, Chairman Pierce adjourned the meeting at 8:23 p.m. Wednesday, March 10, 1999, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1999 Civic Center, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting Chairman Pierce called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call: Present: Commissioners Bernald, Kaplan, Martlage, Patrick, and Chairman Pierce Absent: Commissioners Murakami and Page Staff: Director Walgren Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - January 13, 1999 On a motion by Commissioners Patrick / Martlage, the Commission approved the January 27, 1999 minutes with the following amendments: Page 3, paragraph 2, line 1, replace the word eity with Planning Commission. - Page 6, paragraph 2, line 2, replace the word unattraetive with attractive. Page 8, second paragraph under "Commission Items" amended to read: "She has hecaFd reported that on a C -Span pro ram, Richard Moe, president for the Trust for Historic Preservation will 138 PF8Se11ti11g a '°o*••°° I FOlatill-, to explained that "Downtowns are back." - Page 8, second paragraph under "Commission Items" amended to read: "Vice- chairwoman Bernald said that the oi;AAv-r-e enclosed area outside of La Fondue has 4eef3 pulled down daf+ b awnings used for inclement r,"mAtie weather..." The motion carried 4 -0 -1 with Chairman Pierce abstaining. Oral Communication No comments were offered. Report of Posting Agenda Director Walgren declared that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 5, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet Director Walgren indicated that there were no technical corrections to the packet. CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING COMMISSION IPUTES FEBRUARY 10, 1999 PAGE - 2 - 1. UP -98 -017 & V -98 -018 (510 -24 -035) - HOLTON, 19280 Bainter Avenue; Request for Use Permit approval to add 354 sq. ft. to an existing 793 sq. ft. Kownacki guest house, located within the rear yard setback, 6 ft. from the rear property line. The height of the structure would remain at its current 12 ft. A Variance is also requested to maintain the existing -0- ft. setback from the side access easement, as well as expansion of an existing non- conforming use. The site is 57,883 (net) sq. ft. and is located in an R-1- 40,000 zoning district. Director Walgren presented the staff report. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. Wanda Kownacki, 19280 Bainter Avenue, Los Gatos, stated that she and her architect, Sandra Paull, would answer any questions which the Commission may have. Commissioner Bernald asked if the tile on the roof is to be removed? Ms. Kownacki responded that the tiles stored behind the guest home were left over from the renovation of the main structure. She said that it is planned to match the existing house with the same type of tile or to explore the use of a metal roof with the same coloring of the main house. Commissioner Kaplan expressed concern that by adding the amount of square footage proposed, the site would be maximized to that allowed by code. She asked if the guest house is currently being used as a rental unit? Ms. Kownacki responded that the guest house is being used only to host visitors. Commissioner Bernald said that in the report prepared by Michael Bench, arborist, he asked about the beautiful oak tree located in the lawn area. It was her belief that Ms. Kownacki would want to preserve the oak tree. Ms. Kownacki stated that she is not only interested in preserving the tree(s) that exist but has since added to the landscaping 10 native California and Mediterranean type trees. She said that it is planned to remove the lawn adjacent to the cottage and retain a small portion of lawn away from the oak tree. She stated that she is working with Land Works, a well known landscaping company who is interested in native California landscaping. She is also working with Chris Hall, a certified arborist, to optimize the conditions for the oak tree. She stated that she would not object to a condition that would preclude excavation and drainage at the collar of the oak tree. However, she said that her arborist does not believe that this would be necessary if all the irrigation around the tree is removed and replaced with a drip irrigation system. She recommended that Mr. Hall and Mr. Bench be allowed to work together to develop a plan to protect the oak tree. Commissioner Bernald strongly recommended that the soil that may have impacted the roots of the oak tree be removed. She stated that the work that has been done to the main house is lovely, that the windows are beautiful and that the door is attractive. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:42 P.M. Commissioner Patrick stated that she did not object to what is being proposed. Commissioner Martlage also stated that she has no objections to the proposed design and further stated that she liked the material of the guest home and use of the bricks. Commissioner Bernald concurred with the comments expressed and stated that she could support the request. PLANNING COMMISSION M1wUTES - FEBRUARY 10, 1999 PAGE - 3 - Commissioner Kaplan felt that the findings as set forth in the resolution for the variance can be made to approve the request. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD /KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. V -98 -018. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI AND PAGE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD /MARTLAGE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. UP -98 -017 WITH THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION THAT STIPULATES THAT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT, THE TURF SHALL BE REMOVED OR OT14ER MEANS DISCUSSED AND ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ARBORIST (i.e., ROOT COLLAR EXCAVATION AND DRAINAGE WORK). THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI AND PAGE ABSENT. 2. DR -98 -054 (503 -27 -018) - PENUEN, 14380 Elva Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to add 755 sq. ft. on the first floor and a second floor of 768 sq. ft. to an existing 1,219 sq. ft. one -story residence. The maximum height of the finished structure will be 21 feet. The site is approximately 7,500 sq. ft. and is located within an R- 1- 10,000 zoning district. Director Walgren presented the staff report Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 7:46 p.m. Ervin Haws, project designer, stated that calling the home a two story raises a flag and preferred to call the design a story and a half since the lot slopes downward from the street to the backyard to such a degree that if the bottom floor is placed on the grade, the home would be half a flight down, placing the second story a half flight up. He said that in looking at the drawings, very little of the addition would be visible from the street. He tried to be sensitive to the neighbor's privacy, placing windows toward the rear of the home, facing the long backyard. He stated his concurrence with staffs recommendation. Commissioner Kaplan stated that in looking at the drawings, they are minimal and that they do not give a sense of feel of the design for the addition. She inquired about the small window proposed? Mr. Haws said that the small window is located in a toilet compartment to provide light and that it is not an operable window. He said that he did not design a large window facing the neighbors for privacy reasons. He said that he tried to duplicate the existing materials on the existing part of the home with the same window treatment, trim and color. Susan Hannibal, 14375 Paul Avenue, informed the Commission that she shares a backyard fence with this property owner. She said that she was not concerned with the front elevations but with what the house would look like in the back. She said that she has a problem looking at a two dimensional drawing and that she did not know what the second story addition would do to her view. Her view today is the top of the home /roof and the hills which is natural landscaping. She expressed concern that with a two story addition, she will see a large home that will obstruct her view. She said that in talking with the applicants and the designer, there is some question as to how much the roof will be raised above the current roof line. She asked how much the home is to be raised above the roofline? She said that it seems that 18 feet is standard, noting that the height of the home is proposed at 21 feet. Her second concern is that of privacy. She said that even though there are two story homes in the neighborhood, there are no windows that face directly into her backyard. She said that this design has three windows that look directly into her backyard and her home. Her third concern would be what the changes proposed would do to her property value. She requested that a height pole be utilized so that she could see what the impacts would be to her views and privacy. She also requested that landscaping be installed so that she looks at landscaping and not just a "boxed" home. She also requested that something be done with the windows such as utilization of sanded or glass blocked windows. She said that she was willing to work with the applicant and their PLANNING COMMISSION Mi,iUTES FEBRUARY 10, 1999 PAGE - 4 - project designer to come up with solutions that are amicable and fair to both families. Commissioner Kaplan said that if someone in Ms. Hannibal's situation had sent a letter expressing concern, the Commission would have investigated the concerns. Ms. Hannibal stated that if she had the opportunity to review the plans earlier, she would have notified the commission of her concerns. Chairman Pierce said that it appears that the height difference in the roofline would be four feet. Director Walgren concurred that the difference in roof height is four or five feet. He said that it is important to note that the mitigation factors are: 1) the addition is set back approximately 50 feet versus the minimum setback requirement; and 2) if there is to be a second story addition to this property, 21 feet is as low as it can be designed (typically, a 25 to 27 foot height is appropriate for this size of home). Director Walgren informed the Commission that it cannot take into consideration property values but that it can take into account protection of view sheds and impacts on privacy. Commissioner Kaplan asked how high are the bedroom dormer windows? Mr. Haws responded that the dormer windows are table high and that you would see 50 feet of backyard plus the distance of the fence from the neighbor's yard, noting that trees are planted in the rear yard. He said that the property owners are conscientious of their privacy as the neighbors are. Michael Penuen, applicant, stated that lie has done everything possible to minimize the structure's height. He said that a 50 foot setback is proposed from the back fence, noting that Ms. Hannibal's house is sited to the front of the lot, providing another 35 foot setback (approximately 90 -100 feet between homes). He said that he is proposing to add trees, noting that Ms. Hannibal had a beautiful large tree that had to be removed a year or two ago because it was split by a bad storm. Since that time, she has planted another tree in a new location and he has planted fruit trees. It was his belief that in a year or two, the landscaping will be lush and would mitigate Ms. Hannibal's concerns. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/BERNALD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:00 P.M. Commissioner Martlage noted that the lots in the neighborhood are not very wide and that it was a logical choice to go up. She felt that the applicant was sensitive in the design by keeping the height at 21 feet and not the 26 feet allowed. She felt that the design was in keeping with the neighborhood. Therefore, she could support the request. Commissioner Patrick concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioner Martlage. She suggested that the neighbor also plant trees. She did not see that the home would be much higher than what already exists to restrict views. Therefore, she could support the request. Commissioner Bernald agreed with the comments expressed. She further stated that she liked seeing remodels like this that are designed off the back of the house. This home also has the added benefit of not only integrating with the existing roof line but having the slope to minimize the height and that at 21 feet it is quite a feat, one to be commended. Therefore, she could support the application. Commissioner Kaplan and Chairman Pierce agreed with comments stated. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/MARTLAGE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -98 -054. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI AND PAGE ABSENT. PLANNING COMMISSION Mj.r UTES FEBRUARY 10, 1999 PAGE - 5 - 3. DR -98 -071 (393 -40 -022) - BOISSERANC/PICETTI, 13650 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road; Request for Design Review approval to construct three new single family homes. Lot 1 is 12,513 sq. ft. in area with a 3,707 sq. ft. residence proposed; Lot 2 is 19,075 sq. ft. with a 4,235 sq. ft. residence proposed; and Lot 3 is 12,526 sq. ft. with a 3,707 sq. ft. residence proposed. All homes will be 18 feet in height. The properties are located within an R- 1- 12,500 zoning district. Director Walgren presented the staff report. He stated that staff finds that the plans are consistent with the original subdivision approval, do not exceed 18 feet in height, meet all zoning standards and that the homes meet the design criteria in terms of mass and scale. One issue to be considered is the tower elements of the mirrored floor plan of lots 1 and 4 being different from the architecture of the existing neighborhoods beyond Franklin Avenue to the east (i.e., barrel mission tiles and the tall rear element to lot 3). He stated that the concerns were mitigated by the fact that there are mission tile roof homes within the old neighborhood and that there is a mix of flat composition wood shake and mission style roofs in the new, six lot subdivision immediately to the east. He stated that the tower elements are repeated in some of the new homes to the east. From a public view standpoint, they would not be viewed from Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. Regarding the rear elevation of lot 3, it was found that the way the home was oriented and partially recessed from the left elevation, it should not be visible from Saratoga - Sunnyvale .Road. Based on these site factors and location factors, staff would recommend approval of the three homes subject to the conditions contained in the resolution of approval, including a condition that the lots be landscaped prior to final inspection. Commissioner Patrick asked if the roof height is the same as the other six homes? Director Walgren responded that they were. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 8:05 p.m. Mike Picetti, owner /builder of the homes, felt that the homes were designed with a nice floor plan and elevation. in response to Commissioner Patrick's question, he stated that he tried to design the homes similar to the six existing new homes. Commissioner Patrick said that the homes look remarkably different from the existing new homes. She felt that the drawings make the homes appear to be taller and more grandiose where the existing homes appear to be simpler and less imposing. She asked if this perception was due to the drawings? Mr. Picetti said that the drawings may give that perception. He stated that three of the existing plans have a similar plate height with a grandiose entry. He stated that he would agree to change the roof to a flat tile roof, if the Commission so directed. Commissioner Bernald referred to the second story element of lots 1 and 4. She said that the windows in the drawings appear to be much larger than the ones that exist in the homes that have already been built. Mr. Picetti said that the windows are approximately a foot larger in both width and height. Commissioner Kaplan acknowledged that these are low 18 foot homes. She said that the two neighborhoods would be considered as one even though there are two different builders. It was her belief that individuals driving through the neighborhood would view the area as separate, distinct neighborhoods. She said that the City Council has indicated that they would like to see compatibility but that it was unfortunate that they did not indicate what the homes were to be compatible to. She felt that the homes should be compatible to the homes on Franklin Avenue. She stated that the existing homes have more of a horizontal feel to them. These homes are not big homes but nevertheless give a taller appearance. She expressed concern that two full sets of fireplaces with arrestors are proposed when only one wood burning fireplace is proposed. She asked if the colors are to be uniform? PLANNING COMMISSION Iviar UTES FEBRUARY 10, 1999 PAGE - 6 - Mr. Picetti said that the wood fireplace located in the guest room could be removed. He said that the colors of the homes are to be earthtone /taupe colors and that the appearance would be different but not dramatic. Commissioner Kaplan stated that what was troubling the Commission is the use of the vertical columns in the fi-ont entryway as they give a second story appearance. Mr. Picetti said that the drawings and scale can be deceiving. He felt that the design would blend in nicely. He noted that the element is setback further and that it is not located at the setback line. The entry wall is recessed further away from the street, giving the appearance of a loggia. Commissioner Patrick noted that the porch areas are at six feet at its deepest and does not give the appearance of a loggia. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the project designer usually places garages around to the side of the homes. She said that existing homes have the garage design and that you do not look into the garages. Commissioner Martlage asked how the square footage compares to the square footage of the other homes on Franklin Avenue? Mr. Picetti responded that the square footages are all at approximately 3,000 square feet. He said that lot 2 is a larger lot and has an additional 300 or 400 square feet. Commissioner Martlage noted that one element that the other homes use is a row of horizontal windows above the door with stucco above. Mr. Picetti said that he could consider shortening the window. He said that in the 45 degree angled walls, he could lower the window height to that of the window above the entryway for lots 1 and 4. Marty Oakley, project designer, said that lie tried to create three distinct designs but yet have the homes blend in with the existing six homes and compliment the remodeled home located on lot 3. Regarding Plan A on lots l and 4, he said that a towering element is not proposed but that it was a plate that was raised 15 feet, continuing the pitch of the roof of the lowest plate to the highest plate. He said that the entry element is lower than the two rooms on either side of the design allowing the wall to go up nine feet to the highest point. He said that the homes are proposed at 18 feet in height, similar to the other six homes. When initially designed, he tried to achieve a side entry garage on lots 1 and 4. However, the lots were squared and he stated that it was difficult to get a 22 foot deep garage and enter the side because you need to maintain 28 feet from the property line which makes the home very narrow. Thus, the design for a front garage. The homes were designed to fit the shapes of the envelopes as best he could. In regards to the fireplace for plan A, lie said that these homes were designed before the ordinance was adopted but that he would be willing to eliminate one of the wood burning fireplaces either in the family room or the living room and replace it with a gas -only fireplace, eliminating one of the chimneys. He stated that he understood that it was hard to visualize the design as these are not three dimensional drawings. He said that these are architecturally new designs for Saratoga but that they have been approved in two areas in the past (i.e., Kerwin Ranch and Kosich property at Saratoga and Lawrence). Commissioner Kaplan said that she did not like the entryways of the homes that Mr. Oakley identified as architectural examples because they were too tall. She asked if the windows could be down sized a little? Mr. Oakley responded that it would be possible to scale down size of the windows, but that in doing so, you would compromise the design by making it shorter and throwing the element out of proportion. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/MARTLAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:25 P.M. Commissioner Bernald noted that there is one application for the design of the three homes. She said that she PLANNING COMMISSION Mt,r UTES FEBRUARY 10, 1999 PAGE - 7 - could support two of the designs but not the third design. Director Walgren informed the Commission that approval of the designs could be separated if the Commission could not support a particular home design. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the landscape plan was incorporated into the plans? Director Walgren said that it is a condition of approval that a landscape plan is to be developed prior to the issuance of a building permit. If the Commission wants to review a landscape plan, it could be brought back to the Commission prior to project approval. Commissioner Kaplan acknowledged that these are small homes. She stated that the Commission already knows what has been built and felt that these homes look different. She was hoping that the designs of the existing homes would have been carried over to the design of these homes. She did not believe that the design was quite right for the neighborhood. Commissioner Bernald said that it was her belief that the interior of the homes were beautiful and that the design would provide a lot of light. She said that she could see the design of Lots 1 and 4 being compatible to the homes nearest them that have been built on Franklin Avenue. She stated that she was having problem with the design of Lot 2 as she did not like the verticality of the entryway. She recommended a design that is more in keeping with the older neighborhood of Franklin Avenue. She said that she could support Lots 1 and 4 at this time but that she could not support the design of Lot 2. Commissioner Martlage agreed that the concern is the verticality of the entryway. She did not believe that the design would be compromised if the large window was eliminated and that it would not result in the loss of a lot of light. She felt that it would be a shame not to consider making these homes compatible to the existing six homes. She stated that she could not support the proposal until the design is such that it is compatible with the existing six homes. She recommended that an effort be made to design the homes with a horizontal feel by centering the doorway laterally versus vertically. Commissioner Patrick said that the designs of the homes appear to be similar so that she could not differentiate between the three designs and that she did not like the entryway element of the homes. She said that the existing six homes had their entryways set into a courtyard setting such that the walls enclosing the courtyard become an element of the house which sets it back further to make it more intimate. It seems that the homes, in their design, do not try to look beyond the fact that they are 6,000 square foot homes. She did not like the fact that these are not courtyard entryways to give them the depth to offset the verticality look. She did not believe that the design incorporates the rest of the neighborhood because of the vertical look of the entryway. She agreed that the homes appear to be compatible to that of the Kerwin Ranch homes which she did not believe was appropriate for this neighborhood. Also, the rear elevation window of Lot 2 with the high window was inappropriate because it would not work. Therefore, she could not support the request as designed. Chairman Pierce agreed that the homes were not designed to be identical to the existing six homes but that he felt that they were designed similar enough. He liked the raised element by the front door as it is not a massive structure, noting that these are medium sized homes. He felt that the design allowed more light and that this was a good feature. He stated that he would like to see the homes built as designed. Director Walgren noted that there does not appear to be a consensus to approve the plans as submitted. He recommended that the Commission consider a minor compromise in design such as bringing the entry element down on Lot 2 so that the eave line of the entry element is below the eave line of the main roofline. This would bring down the mass and scale of the design and yet maintain the integrity of the design. The other issue is the PLANNING COMMISSION Miiv UTES FEBRUARY 10, 1999 PAGE - 8 - elimination of the upper level windows of the two opposing tower elements for Lots 1 and 4. He said that if the applicant is willing to make these design changes, this would be an alternative to a continuance. Chairman Pierce recommended that the public hearing be reopened to ask the applicant if they are willing to make the design changes or whether they wish to continue this item to a study session. Commissioner Kaplan did not believe that it would be necessary to continue this item to a study session if the applicant is willing to make the design changes to address the Commission's concern. Commissioner Bernald noted that the rear window element of Lot 2 has not been addressed. COMMISSIONER BERNALD /MARTLAGE MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -0 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSTAINING AND COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI AND PAGE ABSENT. Mr. Oakley agreed to make the changes as recommended by staff. He said that sheet 7, lot 2, suggests lowering the plate line of the existing front porch so that it aligns with the gutter of the roof behind it. Director Walgren clarified that the eave line is to be brought down to match the other eave line to reduce the verticality of the design. Commissioner Martlage recommended that the windows of Plan A be made more horizontal and that they DID not necessarily have to be reduced. Mr. Oakley said that the windows can be made less tall. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD /MARTLAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:40 P.M. Commissioner Patrick expressed concern that there is no a safety fence around the existing foundation of the house that was removed. She considered this an unattractive nuisance. She expressed concern with the possibility of someone getting injured. COMMISSIONERS B ERNA LD/MARTLAGE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -98 -071 AS AMENDED PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER PATRICK VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI AND PAGE ABSENT. 4. V -98 -014.1 (379 -25 -041) - AHMADIANI, 14031 Saratoga Avenue; Request for Variance approval to allow an existing single -story residence to be replaced with a new two -story structure to be built in the same location four feet from the property line where six feet is the required setback and to allow the second floor to be built four feet from the property line where eleven feet is the required setback. The new house totals 1,897 sq. ft. with a 400 sq. ft. detached garage. This proposal was previously approved as a second -story addition to the attic of the existing residence, but the structure has since been demolished. Therefore, an application for a new Variance to maintain the non- conforming setbacks of the previously existing structure must be considered by the Planning Commission. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report. He recommended Commission consideration of a new home construction four feet from the left property line where six and eleven feet are required. Regardless of the history, staff supports the variance as it is not unusual from other variance requests with similar lot constraints. Staff finds that the lot constraints form the special circumstances to support the variance. He said that the new home will be built to the same specifications and details of the originally approved addition to the existing home. He said that the Heritage Preservation Commission has reviewed the revised proposal as the project is located on a PLANNING COMMISSION MiwUTES FEBRUARY 10, 1999 nnrF _ 4 _ heritage lane. Although concern was expressed with the change in project description, the Heritage Preservation Commission supported the request as long as the home is built exactly per the details of the original construction. He said that staff is holding the applicant to this requirement as part of variance approval. Commissioner Bernald asked if pictures were taken of the home that existed that can be used a base line? Director Walgren responded that pictures were taken of the original home and that staff is relying on the original plan which will be used as construction plans. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. Bob Schwenke, project designer, stated that it was found that the existing structure was extremely poorly built. When the walls were opened up, they were found to have been poorly constructed. He said that the exterior siding was removed because of the termite problem inherit to the exterior walls, primarily to the front walls and the right walls of the structure. The only wall that was salvageable was the south wall. He stated that the original proposal /application was to remodel and add onto the structure and to match the existing building. He is proposing to correct the structural failure within the structure. He indicated that a letter from Don James verifies the condition of the home. Commissioner Patrick asked Mr. Schwenke if he was present before the demolition took place to verify the condition of the home? She also asked if he was aware of the fact that he had to contact staff to obtain permission /permit to demolish the structure? Mr. Schwenke responded that he saw the damage caused by termites to the front of the house and the right hand side of the home. He stated that he concurred with the contractor regarding the demolition of the structure. He said that his concern was to maintain the integrity of the design by pulling off the siding. He stated that lie was not aware that permits were needed to demolish the home. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that the Commission was astounded when it found out that the home was demolished without benefit of permit. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/BERNALD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:51 P.M. Commissioner Bernald stated that she was shocked by the fact that the project designer could come before the City without acknowledging fault of the action taken. She said that she would agree to move forward as long as the home is built according to the previously approved plans. She said that she was having a hard time with the way this has been presented to the Commission. Commissioner Kaplan said that she generally does not like variance coming before the Commission after the fact. She stated that the Commission is not vindictive or out to punish anyone but felt that the contractor knew that they should contact the city for permits to demolish a structure. She further stated that the Commission does not like the attitude that has been presented this evening. She said that she does not wish to punish the applicant as the home would be built as previously approved. She felt that the city should be given the courtesy of being notified in the future. Commissioner Patrick stated that she heard the comments relating to structural integrity but what she also heard is the lack of professional integrity. She said that the homeowner has stated that the contractor performed the demolition without her knowledge. But when you have a designer who stands before the Commission who states that the demolition had to take place and that he went ahead with the demolition, she did not believe that the city could rely on this individual's integrity to build the home according to approved plans. She said that someone PLANNING COMMISSION Mew UTES FEBRUARY 10, 1999 PA(,R - In - should be punished because this action should not go unpunished. However, she did not want to punish the homeowner. As the house will be built as it was before, it would be difficult to deny it at this point. She wished that there was a way to have someone pay for the mistake as a deterrent to others playing ignorance. Commissioner Bernald asked if the City has ever asked that a project go forward with someone else given the history of this application? Director Walgren responded that there has not been a situation similar to this but that the city has received requests to change architects because the property owners did not believe that certain standards were being met. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the Commission could recommend on site monitoring to occur at the applicants expense? Director Walgren said that a reporting program from the property owner's builder could be required to be submitted to the city on a regular basis to ensure that the materials and details are constructed per the original plans. Commissioner Patrick asked if a bond can be posted to ensure that construction is per the original plans? Chairman Pierce said that if the home is not built per the original plans, the city can require that construction be torn down and redone. Commissioner Kaplan recommended that a regular monitoring program be submitted to the Heritage Preservation Commission. Director Walgren informed the Commission that the home would not be finaled if it is found that the home was not built per the original plans. Chairman Pierce expressed concern with what happened in this case. He stated that the applicant should be happy that the neighbors did not appear before the commission to object to the application as he would have a problem in granting the variance. He said that he would agree to accept the recommendation of construction supervision as far as some assurance of getting a building that meets the original design and materials. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD /MARTLAGE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. V -98- 014.1 WITH THE CONDITION THAT A MONITORING PROGRAM IS TO BE PRESENTED TO THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI AND PAGE ABSENT. DIRECTOR ITEMS Director Walgren mentioned that staff has the League of California Cities for the month of March to be held in Monterey. it was his belief that Commissioner Page will be attending. He said that there is room for one to three more Commissioners to attend. He requested that he be notified before the next meeting if any other Commissioner wishes to attend this conference. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Kaplan reported that the cat hospital is to getting a new front. Commissioner Bernald said that on Thursday, January 28, 1999 at 3:35 p.m. she was downtown across the street from the Blue Rock Shoot when an acrid scent made itself known where she was and her eyes began to water. It PLANNING COMMISSION M�.rUTES FEBRUARY 10, 1999 PAGE - 11 - was the Blue Rock Shoot roasting coffee against what the Commission asked them to do. She requested that the Commission call up the use permit. Director Walgren said that there needs to be a majority of the Commission willing to move to call up the use permit. He informed the Commission that two letters have been sent to the business owners advising them not to roast coffee during the daytime business hours. it was further noted that the Commission has the authority to call LIP the use permit if this issue is not resolved. He said that staff will research the process of reconsideration of the use permit. He said that the original use permit did not address coffee roasting. If the use permit is called up, a condition would be added to require no roasting during certain times and if violated, the use permit could become void in the future. He stated that this item would be public noticed similar to a regular application for a conditional use permit. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN MOVED TO CALL UP THE USE PERMIT FOR THE BLUE ROCK SHOOT. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI AND PAGE ABSENT. Commissioner Bernald stated that it was brought to her attention that some bushes have washed down or have fallen onto the sidewalk on Quito Road at the corner at Pollard. She said that it has been brought to her attention that the bushes are so far down in the sidewalk that you have to walk off the sidewalk onto Quito Road, a dangerous situation. COMMUNICATIONS Written City Council Minutes dated January 20, 1999 Notices for Planning Commission Meeting of February 24, 1999 League of California Cities Conference Schedule ADJOURNMENT TO STUDY SESSION There being no further business, Chairman Pierce adjourned the meeting at 9:07 p.m. Wednesday, February 24, 1999, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 27, 1999 Civic Center, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vice- chairwoman Bernald called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Roll Call: Present: Commissioners Kaplan, Martlage, Murakami, Page, Patrick, Vice- chairwoman Bernald Absent: Chairman Pierce Staff: Director Walgren, Associate Planner Bradley Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - January 13, 1999 On a motion by Commissioners Kaplan /Martlage, the Commission approved the January 13, 1999 minutes with the following amendments: - Page 6, paragraph 9, last sentence amended to read: "He agreed with Commissioner Kaplan that the Commission should reexamine this application as lie does not have the answeFs information to approve the rp o,ject this evening. - Page 8, paragraph 9, amended to read: Commissioner Martlage expressed concern with the length of the stucco wall..." - Page 15, paragraph 9 amended to read: "Commissioner Kaplan asked if the structures are eet considered non- conforming, the variance is not approved and the Commission directs that the buildings be removed and if an appeal to the City Council fails..." - Page 16, paragraph 6, lines 5 and 7 amended to read: "...there is a lot of dead space in the deck design ... She said that there are some aesthetics concerns in addition to encroachment into the setbacks. The motion carried 5 -0 -1 with Vice - chairwoman Bernald abstaining and Chairman Pierce absent. Oral Communication No comments were offered. Report of Posting Agenda Director Walgren declared that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 22, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet Director Walgren indicated that there were no technical corrections to the packet. CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. SM -98 -004 & F -98 -004 (397 -40 -020) - MOROYAN, 14961 Via De Marcos; Request for Site Modifications and Fence permits to erect a fence enclosing 25,978 sq. ft. and construct a pool in the San Marcos Heights Subdivision. The property is 40,766 sq. ft. and is located in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- PLANNING COMMISSION Ivi...JTES JANUARY 27, 1999 PAGE - 2 - Planner Bradley presented the staff report. Commissioner Murakami inquired if some of the trees to be planted to mitigate the fence are to be of a native variety or was it a mixture of what is typically seen in landscape plans? Planner Bradley responded that the Holly Oak is a hybrid of a native California plan species and that the fern pine is not a native plant. Commissioner Page inquired as to the original amount of cut and fill for the home? Planner Bradley guesstimated that cut and fill is to be approximately 1,000 cubic yards. Vice - chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 7:39 p.m Mr. Winterbotham, landscape architect, addressed the site modifications proposed for the swimming pool located at the upper building pad adjacent to the house. He said that the pool was sited to minimize grading. He said that the second request is for a fence exception. He felt that the application was reasonable for the neighborhood and felt that it was consistent with the existing development patterns seen in the neighborhood and would not constitute a grant of special privilege. He indicated that the trees are not native materials but are suitable and adaptable for the area. He said that grading for the original home was approximately 700 -800 cubic yards and that the total for both projects would not exceed 1,000 cubic yards. He said that olive trees were used around the swimming pool to be consistent with the style of architectural and the sculpture quality that would provide partial screening of the pool. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she would like to see native plantings used versus hybrid plantings. Commissioner Patrick noted that the landscape plans do not include fruit trees. Mr. Winterbotham stated that the fruit trees and vines would not be used to mitigate any of the improvements proposed and therefore were not included in the landscape plans. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN /PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:44 P.M. Commissioner Page stated that he liked the pool but expressed concern with the proposed fencing, especially the posts and the gate concept as it would be appear heavy on the hill, would be predominately viewed and would not fit in. He stated that lie viewed what the neighbors have, noting that there are some fences in the neighborhood but not on a corner lot and that they are not visible from the hillside. Therefore, he could not support the fence request. Commissioner Kaplan concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioner Page. She said that the city has a rule against fences and that she would like to adhere to it. She said that the site is prominent/visible and felt that the property owner purchased the property with this understanding. She felt that the design should have utilized the site. She stated that she would not support the excess fencing but that she would support fencing around the pool and Lipper level. Commissioner Martlage concurred with the comments expressed by her fellow Commissioners and felt that fencing around the pool area, closer to the home, would be appropriate. Aesthetically, it would be jarring to see a fence go down the hillside as it is an attractive open space. Commissioner Murakami agreed with the comments expressed by the Commission. He agreed with Commissioner Page that this is a corner lot which is highly visible, acknowledging that other fences have been approved that adjoin this lot. He said that fencing around the pool is acceptable but that fencing around the entire area is too much. Commissioner Patrick said that she has yet to support the type of fencing being proposed to date. She stated that she could only support the fencing around the pool as required by law. She further recommended that planting around the easement be that of native species. Vice - chairwoman Bernald said that there are other neighbors who have similar fencing to the one being requested this evening. Given the fact that the site is abutting an easement and an expanse of area along the road, she would agree with the Commission that the only fencing that should be approved is the one proposed around the pool and the lower sloped area (in the area of the retaining wall). She stated her appreciation of the location of the pool. Director Walgren said that based on Commission discussion, the appropriate motion would be to approve the site modification for the pool grading and to approve fencing to enclose the pool area and a reasonable amount of area PLANNING COMMISSION Nt_ JTES JANUARY 27, 1999 PAC F. - 'I - around the pool. The Commission would also need to indicate the fencing material to be used (i.e., wrought iron or open wire fencing material). He said that the use of landscaping is proposed to mitigate the fencing and that some native planting could be incorporated along the fence. Vice- chairwoman Bernald indicated that the Planning Commission is moving away from the approval of fences based on the concern for the existing wildlife habitat. COMMISSIONERS PAGE /MARTLAGE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. SM -98 -004. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH CHAIRMAN PIERCE ABSENT. Director Walgren stated that it is his recommendation that the fence exception be considered and approved this evening, pulling in the fencing below the area of improvements where the pathways are depicted on the plans. Commissioner Patrick stated her support of allowing fencing around the pad area only. Commissioner Kaplan recommended that the fence be restricted to an open wire fence material. COM.M.ISSiONER PAGE /MARTLAGE MOVED TO APPROVE F -98 -004 WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT: THE APPLICANT TO WORK WITH STAFF REGARDING FENCING OF THE POOL AND TERRACE AREA, FOLLOWING THE CONTOUR LINE WITH THE USE OF OPEN AND WROUGHT IRON FENCING MATERIAL. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER PATRICK VOTING NO AND CHAIRMAN PIERCE ABSENT. 2. DR -98 -038 (503 -14 -028) - ZHANG/LI, 13612 Vaquero Court; Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 2,574 sq. ft. two -story residence and a 1,020 sq. ft. accessory structure and construct a new 5,568 sq. ft. two story residence. The site is 34,465 sq. ft. and is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report and stated that extensive grading is proposed but that it is just under the 1,000 cubic yard limit permitted in the hillside district. He recommended the addition of a condition that stipulates that the cut and fill is to be exported from the site. He informed the Commission that a letter has been received from Delora Sanfilippo, 21834 Via Regina, requesting that the existing utility easements remain protected. She indicates that a horse trail exists that crosses the property that staff was not aware of He said that the horse trail is not designated as a horse path /trail on the City's Parks and Trails Master Plan. He said that the city could not require a horse trail easement, noting that it is located adjacent to a horse trail network that could be accessed by the existing Quarry Road emergency access connection. She requests that her trees be protected during construction, noting that this concern has been addressed by the city's arborist and that the accessory/out buildings are removed. She expresses concern with the design of the rear elevations that face her property and requested that the hours of construction be limited to Mondays and Fridays. He informed the Commission that city ordinance allows construction seven days a week, limited to daylight hours. Also, of concern is the fire hydrant access. He said that he was not familiar with a fire hydrant access agreement with the fire district. He said that the fire district did have an opportunity to review the plans and that there is no requirement for an access agreement. However, should a fire occur, the fire district would make use of whatever access is available. Vice - chairman Bernald opened the public hearing at 8:03 p.m. Stephen Clark, project architect, stated that he was surprised by the letter submitted by Mrs. Sanfilippo. He said that he is not aware of any legal easements but that he was willing to discuss this issue. He also was not aware of a horse trail and that an area may have been misconstrued as a horse trail. As far as the fire hydrant, he said that it is located at the corner. if the fire department wants to use the extension of Quarry Road, although it is chained, it has a fire box which the fire department can access. He said that he worked with staff to design a residence that fulfills the needs of his client. He addressed the design of the residence, noting that the lean -to is to be removed. He said that the property owner wants to minimize the views to the west and south sides so that there are no problems between neighbors, noting that a play area is proposed on the north side. He recommended to his client that the back side of the home be placed 3.5 feet into the ground in order to minimize the height of the total structure. He said that the structure has been set on a stone platform in certain areas and that all of the retaining walls are of stone material, noting that the design blends into the hillside with the use of stone, stucco and glass. PLANNING COMMISSION M..JTES JANUARY 27, 1999 PAGE - 4 - Commissioner Kaplan asked Mr. Clark if consideration was given to placing the entry driveway at its current location and not across the face of the hill? She felt that a garage and driveway tucked away would be more attractive. Mr. Clark said that he did not give consideration retaining the driveway at its current location as the proposed design would reduce the amount of paving by pulling the driveway toward the front, noting that a natural swale exists in this area. Vice - chairwoman Bernald recommended that the garage be kept at its current location and that the driveway be shortened or that a circular driveway be considered to take advantage of the beautiful natural setting. Mr. Clark stated that city code limits cut and fill to 1,000 cubic yards. He said that Vice- chairwoman Bernald's recommendation would require approximately 3,000 cubic yards of grading, noting that two story structures exist to the left and the right of the site, giving a perception of bulk to the single story structure. He said that the grade going LIP is not conducive to a one story garage as it would necessitate an additional pad for backup purposes. if the driveway was extended to the back side, it would increase the amount of paving. He said that he would agree to review this issue with staff. He said that he was not adverse in utilizing two different pavers: grass rings and paving stones as a compromise. Commissioner Martlage said that the issue seems to be the pervious /impervious driveway. She asked if consideration was given to other designs that would site the garage elsewhere as she appreciated the fact that by not wrapping the garage around the house, it reduces the amount of paving. She said that aesthetically, the Commission would like to see the architecture of the home and not the architecture of a garage. Mr. Clark said that he looked at one iteration of a schematic design that placed the bedroom in the front but that he came to the conclusion that a problem exists as the paving would be increased by 1,000 square feet. Commissioner Patrick clarified that the Commission does not like to see driveways and garages in the front of homes. She asked if the project could be redesigned to have the garage located to the side of the home? Mr. Clark explained that he has 18% grading where the Commission desires the garage and driveway to be relocated. He would cut into the hillside where the deck is located in front of the master bedroom in order to get a driveway to the side of the home. He said that the contour of the land was such that it was natural to extend the house and to site the garage underneath the house. He agreed that he would not like to have the garage in front of the house if he had his choice in design. However, the home was designed to fit the contour of the site so that the site is not mutilated. He said that placing the garage as proposed requires little or no grading to the front of the home and that from a design stand point, it is a natural location. Commissioner Page noted that the arborist report states that there is to be no grading underneath oak tree #l. He asked if the driveway, as proposed, requires grading under tree #I? Mr. Clark responded that he will need to retain the services of an arborist to trim five feet of the overhang that is dragging the ground and that lie will work with staff regarding this issue. He said that the tree needs to be trimmed in order to appreciate its entire canopy. Director Walgren said that arborist expressed concern with the fill proposed for the driveway but noted that the fill has been. cut back and that it is supported by a retaining wall. Vice - chairwoman Bernald noted for the record that the Commission was in receipt of a letter from Mrs. Sanfilippo and that the Commission has read her letter. Delora Sanfilippo, 21834 Via Regina, stated that she understood the difficulty in designing a home to fit the slope. She noted that the play area and her major lawn area are on opposite sides, a benefit to her. She said that there is a drainage system (swale) at the bottom of the area where the garage is proposed. It was her understanding that the drainage system was installed to carry the drainage from her house and the neighbor's property at the time that the exiting home was built. She expressed concern that when construction occurs, that there be a good drainage design so that there is no water drainage to the home that comes from the hillside. She said that she did not have a recorded easement for the drainage system but that recorded easements for the sewer and water exist. She stated that she was glad to hear that fire access is available. She requested that the temporary bird aviary be relocated a distance from the property line. She indicated that her major concern relates to her view when the home is built. She requested that landscaping be required along the western property line to soften her view as her current view is that of a bare building. Regarding the request for construction hours different to the hours specified in the ordinance, she stated PLANNING COMMISSION M,..JTES JANUARY 27, 1999 PAGE - 5 - that she suffers from a chronic disease, thus the request to restrict the days /hours of construction. Director Walgren read from the title report that stipulates a private utility easement recorded for the purpose of installation and maintenance of private utility systems to the Sanfilippos, including sanitary sewer and water systems. Staff would recommend that these easement be shown on the site plan prior to the issuance of any permits. Mr. Clark agreed that the easement should be shown on the site plan. He concurred with the installation of' landscaping to mitigate Mrs. Sanfilippo's concern and that she is also welcomed to install landscaping on her property. He felt that Mrs. Sanfilippo would be pleasantly surprised that the home would be reduced in height by eight feet. He said that the barn area to be removed and the he was not sure what is to be done with the aviary. He said that he would agree to design a gazebo pheasant pen in order to maintain the pheasants and requested that lie be allowed to work with Mrs. Sanfilippo regarding the construction time schedule. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:30 P.M. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the bird structure qualifies as a gazebo structure and whether it would have to met setback requirements as a gazebo structure? Director Walgren said that setback requirements are relaxed for open garden type structures. He said that a gazebo /aviary structure would be considered as an open garden structure. Commissioner Patrick stated that she was not convinced that this was a good siting of the home on this property. She did not believe that the finished home would blend in with the hillside. She said that she views the stucco, the use of stone and the gray colors as opposite to what she would like to see a house look like at this location. She said that she would prefer the use of more wood and earthtone structures. She said that she was not convinced that the driveway in front was the only solution as it appears that the house could be moved to the right to accommodate the garage and the existing driveway to minimize grading. She did not believe that the planting of rhododendrons and camellias under the oak trees is a good idea. She stated that she would not be willing to approve the design as proposed. Commissioner Martlage concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioner Patrick that the site is a sensitive one and that the proposed design could be applied anywhere. She felt that the site was nice and needed more consideration (i.e., use of natural materials). She did not like the use of cool colors. She stated her support of an alternative design to the driveway. Therefore, she could not support the request. Commissioner Page agreed with the architect's recommendation of the use of two different pervious pavers for the driveway. He said that when he first viewed the lot and the drawings, the design appeared to be massive. He felt that there may be a possibility of locating the garage and driveway to the side toward the front of the home, keeping the second story on top of the garage in order to reduce cuts. Commissioner Kaplan concurred with the comments expressed. She stated that she did not like the driveway approach as designed and felt that the house was too large for the setting. She stated that the stucco house located to the left of this parcel does not appear to belong in this area. She did not believe that the design concept of the house relates to the land. Also, an argument could be made that a basement is proposed. Therefore, the garage does not have to be located as proposed as the two living spaces could have been placed on top of each other, pushing the home away from Puero Court to reduce digging for the turn around area. She noted that the trees to the back need to be protected. She stated that there is to be no mechanical equipment used to remove the asphalt and that anything that is to be done with the asphalt would need to be done by hand. She asked if this was included as a condition? She said that the issue of the easements is one that needs to be resolved by the property owners. She stated that she could not approve the request this evening. Director Walgren indicated that a condition has been included that restricts the use of mechanical equipment for the removal of the existing asphalt. Commissioner Murakami said that some positive considerations exist such as the removal of the old asphalt. He stated that he understood what the architect was trying to do in terms of designing the home to minimize grading. He agreed with the architect that it would require additional grading to design the garage and driveway to the side of the home. He said that in looking at the neighborhood, the design is not as bad as compared to other styles of homes LIP the street as there is not much of a style in the neighborhood. He said that color in this area is a minor concern as this is it would not be a visible hillside lot. He said that he was willing to meet in a study session to discuss PLANNING COMMISSION M..- -TES JANUARY 27, 1999 PAGE - 6 - alternative design /layout solutions to address some of the concerns expressed this evening. Vice - chairwoman Bernald said that this was an attractive design with the exception of the garage underneath the front of the home. She said that the use of the windows give the home an attractive appearance. However, she shared the Commission's concern as to whether the home was sited properly on this lot. She felt that muted colors versus the use of starker and gray colors would have helped. She also expressed concern with the garage /driveway and stated that she would like to have the opportunity to see if there are alternative design solutions. Director Walgren said that it appears that the majority of the Commission lids a strong position regarding the application as submitted. It appears that the applicant is being requested to consider retaining the existing driveway and relocating the driveway and necessary driveway access to the side, incorporating more rustic /warming materials and colors, modifying the front elevations. He recommended that the applicant be directed to make the specific changes and that this item return on the next available public hearing. Vice - chairwoman Bernald reopened the public hearing at 8:39 p.m. Mr. Clark stated his concurrence with a continuance to allow him the opportunity to redesign the home to address the commission's concerns. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN MOVED TO REOPEN PUBLIC HEARING. BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSION CONTINUED THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM TO FEBRUARY 24, 1999. 3. DR -98 -009 (389 -28 -007) - SAGHEZCHI,13762 Serra Oaks Court; Request for Design Review approval to convert an existing 462 sq. ft. garage to living area and add a new garage and a 453 sq. ft. second story to an existing 2,990 sq. ft. residence. The property is 14,450 sq. ft. in an R -1- 12,500 zoning district. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Bradley presented the staff report. Vice - Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 8:43 p.m. Max Peyvan, project architect, stated that the purpose of the design was to take over a piece of property that has been abandoned and convert it into livable space. He said that it has been a long term coordination and review with the city in terms of setback, height and lot coverage. He said that the design matches the existing home and the environment. He stated that he met with the adjacent neighbors to discuss the proposed design. He felt that the design was harmonious to the area and that the colors and materials would match the existing colors and materials, increasing property values. He stated that he would agree to reduce the driveway area, if so directed. He said that he proposes to reduce the driveway area five to ten feet and replace it with a landscaped area. He clarified that additional paving will be added. Planner Bradley clarified that there is a small area of paving proposed, including a small landscape box. Commissioner Kaplan asked if consideration was given to placing the second story over the existing structure instead of building a tower? Mr. Peyvan stated that his clients would like to take advantage of the dead space and create additional living area. He felt that the design is attractive and well harmonized to the existing home. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN /PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:52 P.M. Commissioner Kaplan did not agree with the concept that every inch of space has to be filled with building even if allowed by code. She found that this was an unusual and odd design, one that she did not care for. She said that she did not support the tower element in the middle of the structure with a garage being stuck at the end. Commissioner Murakami said that he did not usually oppose two story additions but that he did not like how the tower element sticks straight out. He understood that there are factors such as cost that would make this an economical design. However, he did not believe that the design would look good. He said that he would like to see the structure over the main roofline to balance the design effect. Therefore, he could not support the application. PLANNING COMMISSION M._.JTES JANUARY 27, 1999 PAGE - 7 - Commissioner Patrick concurred with the comments expressed_ by her fellow Commissioners. She expressed concern with the balcony off the master bedroom overlooking the neighbor's yard as it may be intrusive. She also expressed concern with the expanse appearance of concrete from the street as the design appears to be a box on top of a box. She did not believe that the design was compatible with the other homes in the neighborhood. Commissioner Martlage concurred with the comments expressed by the other Commissioners. She did not believe that the second story is an issue as there are other two story homes in the neighborhood. She felt that the design was obtrusive. Commissioner Page also agreed with the comments expressed. He expressed concern with the expanse of driveway and recommended that it be reduced. He felt that there may be a better way to blend in the design, especially as it relates to the tower element. He stated his appreciation of the perspective drawing. However, he said that no other drawings showed him the entire house to give him a better sense of the design. He said that he could not support the design as it has a tower appearance. Vice - chairwoman Bernald agreed with the comments expressed by the Commission. She said that the Commission has seen remodels that have incorporated second story additions that have been designed beautifully and not designed as an after thought as this application appears to be. Director Walgren said that substantial and specific design changes have been recommended by the Commission. He said that there are two options available: 1) denial of the application which would require the resubmittal of an application and payment of new fees; or 2) continuance of this item for redesign, incorporating the addition over the main story of the structure and reducing the lot coverage for the proposed driveway and turn around area. COMMISSIONERS MARTLAGE /PAGE MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. Mr. Saghezchi stated his concurrence to a continuance. IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO FEBRUARY 24, 1999. DIRECTOR ITEMS Director Walgren addressed the following items: A letter is being sent to a property owner located at the end of Garrod Road relating to the removal of a Coast Live Oak tree (informational item to the :Planning Commission). The city is in receipt of the Environmental Initial Study for the proposed Saratoga Elementary School Expansion and that this study has been distributed to the Commission in its packet, noting that a cover memo has been distributed to commissions expressing interest in this project (i.e., Planning, Heritage Preservation and Public Safety Commissions). He stated that there is a short window period to respond to the Initial Study. He noted that the School Board did not elect to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EI_R) and decided to use the initial study process to determine that an EIR is not necessary. He requested that any concerns or comments to be forwarded to the School District be considered at the February 10 public hearing. A meeting has been scheduled for the Heritage Preservation Commission on Tuesday morning, February 9, 1999 to forward comments relating to the architecture of the building and the removal of two large eucalyptus trees. The Public Safety Commission is scheduled to meet Tuesday in a joint meeting with the Council to address their concerns relating to the traffic and circulation mitigation plan. These comments will be put together and forwarded to the School Board at the end of that week. This week, staff received a second packet from the School District expressing their agreement to a joint meeting with the City Council, the Planning Commission or anyone else interested in meeting so that the project can be explained. Staff is working toward scheduling this meeting. Staff will forward this meeting date to all parties. He further informed the Commission that the school district is now willing to come before the Heritage Preservation Commission in a formal meeting to receive its recommendation on the property listed on the city's heritage resource inventory. This meeting is scheduled February 9, 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION M._ . JTES JANUARY 27, 1999 PAGE - 8 - Vice - chairwoman Bernald noted that there appears to be a lot of soil proposed to be removed from the site. She asked who would be addressing the impact of moving all the soil? Director Walgren informed the Commission that staff will be responding to the soil removal, including the issue of soil fill handling. He clarified that the School Board would not be making a presentation before the Commission. He informed the Commission that the City Council will be discussing this issue at its next meeting and that lie anticipates that a meeting with the School District would be scheduled at that time. Commissioner Patrick noted that the letter requests that each Commissioner contact Superintendent Dr. Gardner to arrange appointments. Director Walgren recommended that meetings not be scheduled until after the Council discusses this issue. Director Walgren said that several items were raised at the last meeting dealing with code enforcement issues that have since been addressed. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Kaplan reported on the following: Requested that staff find out why the Hemingway Cat Hospital located on Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road has had a large boarded up area for months. Director Walgren indicated that he has referred this item to the building inspector and that he would report back to the Commission at a later date. She reported that on a C -Span program, Richard Moe, president for the Trust for Historic Preservation, explained that "Downtowns are back ". Vice- chairwoman Bernald said that the enclosed area outside of La Fondue has pull -down awnings used for inclement weather. She asked if building permits were required for the awning? Director Walgren said that the outdoor patio was approved as part of the use permit for the restaurant. COMMUNICATIONS Written - City Council Minutes dated January 6, 1999 - Notices for Planning Commission Meeting of February 10, 1999 . - Letter to Rathin Neogy Re: Removed Tree - Saratoga Elementary School Initial Study ADJOURNMENT TO STUDY SESSION There being no further business, Vice- chairwoman Bernald adjourned the meeting to a Study Session at 9:10 p.m. to review /discuss the following applications: 1. DR -98 -060 (389 -34 -003) - YAMAOKA DEVELOPMENT, 18180 Sage Ct.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,829 sq. ft. residence on Lot l of the Fitzsimmons subdivision. The height of the proposed residence is 18 feet from natural grade. The site is 24,052 sq. ft. DR -98 -061 (389 -34 -003) - YAMAOKA DEVELOPMENT, 18625 Sage Ct.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,752 sq. ft. residence on Lot 2 of Fitzsimmons subdivision. The height of the proposed residence is 19 feet from natural grade. The site is 24,004 sq. ft. DR -98 -062 (389 -34 -003) YAMAOKA DEVELOPMENT, 18587 Sage Ct.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,450 sq. ft. residence on Lot 3 of the Fitzsimmons subdivision. The height of PLANNING COMMISSION M. -.JTES JANUARY 27, 1999 PAGE - 9 - the proposed residence is 19 feet from natural grade. The site is 20,013 sq. ft. DR -98 -063 (389 -34 -003) YAMAOKA DEVELOPMENT, 18380 Sage Ct.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,517 sq. ft. residence on Lot 4 of the Fitzsimmons subdivision. The height of the proposed residence is 18 feet from natural grade. The site is 20,223 sq. ft. DR -98 -064 (389 -34 -003) YAMAOKA DEVELOPMENT, 18288 Sage Ct.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,516 sq. ft. residence on Lot 5 of the Fitzsimmons subdivision. The height of the proposed residence is 18 feet from natural grade. The site is 20,875 sq. ft. (CONTINUED FROM 1/27/99) MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1999 Civic Center, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairman Pierce called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. Roll Call: Present: Commissioners Kaplan, Martlage, Murakami, Page, Patrick and Chairman Pierce Absent: Commissioner Bernald Staff: Director Walgren, Assistant Planner Pearson Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - December 9, 1998 On a motion by Commissioners Kaplan / Martlage, the Commission approved the December 9, 1998 minutes as submitted. The motion carried 6 -0 with Commissioner Bernald absent. Oral Communication No comments were offered. Report of Posting Agenda Director Walgren declared that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 8, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet Director Walgren indicated that there were no technical corrections to the packet. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. UP -98 -01.6 (503 -24 -067) - ROSENFELD, 14471 Big Basin Way; Request for Use Permit approval for the placement of a wireless telecommunications facilities (antennas) within the perimeter of the roof of the two -story building located at 14471 Big Basin Way. The rooftop already has antennas from two other telecommunications companies. The site is 9,116 square feet and is located within CH- I (Historic Commercial) zoning district. COMMISSIONERS MARTLAGE /KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 1. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER BERNALD ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. DR -98 -042 (397 -28 -035 - COOK, 20405 Williams Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 2,880 sq. ft. two -story residence at a height of 24 feet from natural grade on a 7,680 sq. ft. lot located in an R -1- 10,000 zoning district. The application includes an exemption request from the floor area reduction requirement for heights over 18 feet. PLANNING COMMISSION Mi,.JTES JANUARY 13, 1999 PAGE - 2 - Director Walgren presented the staff report. Commissioner Murakami inquired about the roof, noting that an element is located on top of the roof, in the middle of the second story. He asked if this element is being used for aesthetic purposes or was it a functional raised roof area? Regarding the increase in height of the structure, he said that he could not figure out how much was added to the total roof line and asked if it was increased by two feet? Director Walgren concurred that the increase in height was no more than two feet. He deferred the questions as to whether the protruding roof element was a design or functional feature to the applicant. Commissioner Kaplan asked where the driveway to the house is to be located? Director Walgren said that the driveway is to be located on the west side of the residence, to the back of the house. He said that a driveway is proposed to follow the property line. Commissioner Kaplan said that normally, she likes to see garages in the back but that she was not sure if she would like to a see a driveway going all the way back to the garage so close to the fence that there is no room to buffer the movement of cars and heights. Commissioner Patrick said that it was her understanding that if the application had been filed a month later, the applicant would not be entitled to a floor area exception. Director Walgren informed the Commission that the ordinance amendment that went into affect last fall no longer allows an exception to be requested before having ruled that there is a predominance of two story structures in a neighborhood. He informed the Commission that there are approximately half a dozen of these applications that were submitted prior to the adoption of the floor area reduction ordinance. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. Jack Cook, applicant, stated that the plans presented were submitted after careful consideration. He said that traffic and cars seem to be an issue in the neighborhood, thus the request for designing the garage to the rear and the driveway along the property line. He said that the architectural design was that of a craftsman style design, consistent with that of the neighborhood. He said that consideration and adjustments have been made in accordance with the arborist's recommendation. Any impact to the house to the west has been minimized by providing a buffer. Commissioner Murakami asked Mr. Cook if the rise on the roofline was to let out hot air or was it used to increase the ceiling proportions for the two upstairs rooms? Mr. Cook responded that the rise was used as a design consideration as all the ceilings upstairs are of the same height. He said that the house is narrow and that lie used the rise out of necessity in order to keep the same roof pitch. Commissioner Martlage requested clarification of Section AA , Sheet A -4 of the drawings. She said that it depicts bedroom #2 in the middle of the structure and a bathroom above bedroom 42. She asked if the drawing was labeled wrong? Mr. Cook clarified that the second floor contains a bathroom that serves two bedrooms. Kirk McKenzie, 12 Bayview Avenue, Los Gatos, informed the Commission that lie is appearing on behalf of his mother, Frieda McKenzie, 15311 Bell Court Avenue, Saratoga, owner of the adjoining parcel at 20471 Williams Avenue. Like Mr. Cook's property, his mother's property is comprised of two lots from the original subdivision and developed as one parcel. He expressed concern with the request for the exception of the square footage requirement and height. He agreed that this is a narrow house that gives a row house appearance and that it appears to be massive and bulky. He felt that there should be a concern about having a massive, bulky structure. If the application had been filed at a later date, the exception would not have been made available. He felt that a finding of predominance of two -story structures in the neighborhood would need to be made. if you count all of the lots, a quarter of the lots consist of two story homes. He questioned whether there was a two story PLANNING COMMISSION M..,(JTES JANUARY 13, 1999 PAGE - 3 - predominance on Williams Avenue. He noted that the arborist report said that a number of trees are at risk by virtue of construction, including two trees located on his mother's property. He referred to tree No. 3 which indicates that a five foot mulching strip on his property as well as on Mr. Cook's property would be required. He requested that in the event that the project is approved as submitted, that Mr. Cook bear the burden of the cost for Mulching. Janet Cook, applicant, addressed Commissioner Kaplan's concern regarding the driveway. She indicated that the home was designed to provide a buffer. She noted that several homes in the neighborhood also have long driveways that run along the side of the homes with garages located in the back. Director Walgren informed the Commission that a letter was received this evening from Mrs. W.L Peoples, 20480 Williams Avenue, objecting to further intensity of development in the neighborhood. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:56 P.M. Commissioner Page stated that he liked the design of the house and felt that it looked great from the street, acknowledging that this was a narrow lot to work with. However, lie expressed concern with the height of the home. He said that if the decorative roof element can be lowered, he could support the application. Commissioner Martlage stated that she liked the design of the home as it fits in and is in keeping with the old flavor of the neighborhood. She stated that she like the articulation in the roofline. If the roofline could be lowered slightly, she could support the application. Commissioner Patrick stated that she could not support the exception request. She said that given the density of the small neighborhood, she did not feel that the Commission should be granting a height exception. She looked at the square footage of the basement and did not see a need for a height exception and would be opposed to it. If the item was continued for a redesign, she would recommend that instead of having a long driveway that is required by these types of lots, that the driveway be relocated to the left side of the home similar to those of subdivision type housing. She also expressed concern with the right side elevation as it is real long. She recommended that further articulation be considered. She stated that the design of the home was nicely designed. Commissioner Murakami stated that he liked the design of the home as well. With the design of non- conforming lots and the passage of the ordinance, he agreed with Commissioner Patrick that even though basement space is not counted, there is a lot of square footage proposed. He did not believe that the one portion of the roof has no functionality. If this portion of the roofline can be lowered, the square footage exception may not be needed. He said that he could support the floor area exception. Commissioner Kaplan concurred with the comments expressed by her fellow Commissioners and that she could not support floor area exception as it is a discretionary approval. She was not convinced with the diagram included in the staff report that there is a preponderance of two story homes in the neighborhood. She said that she could not support the application unless the floor area exception request was withdrawn. Director Walgren said that the center portion of the building is a functional result of the span of the room. He said that the roof is a relatively low pitch for a two story structure. It appears that the commission is asking that the square footage be reduced by approximately 200 feet and that the floor area exception be withdrawn. Chairman Pierce said that he liked the design and that it was a terrific house in a terrific neighborhood. The home would be a nice addition to the neighborhood. He said that most of the homes in the neighborhood are much smaller. He liked the garage being sited in the back. He did not know what else could be done with the driveway PLANNING COMMISSION M-- ,(JTES JANUARY 13, 1999 PAGE - 4 - unless it can be made a straight way with a turn around area. He agreed with the Commission that reducing the 280 square feet would not be unduly oppressive. He would support reducing the home to the normal size. ON A MOTION BY COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /MARTLAGE, THE COMMISSION APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. DR -98 -042 WITHOUT THE FLOOR AREA REDUCTION, REDUCING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE HOME BY APPROXIMATELY 281 SQUARE FEET. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER BERNALD ABSENT. 3. DR -98 -040 & V -98 -023 (397 -01 -068) - LEINWAND/ROSTANKOWSKI, 19050 Camino Barco; Request for Design Review approval to add a 1,519 sq. ft. second story to an existing single -story residence. The total floor area on the site will be 5,469 sq. ft. The net site area is 34,215 sq. ft and the property is located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. Variance approval is also requested for building height exceeding 26 ft. The existing structure is 28 ft. 6 in. from natural grade. Proposal calls for maximum building height of 30 feet. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Director Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that it came to staffs attention late in the process that the building was as old as it was. It is not currently listed in the city's Heritage Preservation Inventory. However, staff has included a requirement that the applicant go before the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) to determine if the building should be included in the inventory list. He said that typically, staff would have referred the application to the HPC before the Planning Commission in the event that the HPC may have some plan changes as a condition of their review. In this case, staff wanted to keep the public hearing process on track. This item will be scheduled before the HPC at their first meeting in February. On the chance that there are changes recommended by the HPC, these items will return to the Planning Commission. He informed the Commission that the large coast live oak that abuts the building on the north side, to add up would result in the removal of some of the major limbs. The city arborist reviewed the project and concluded that if his measures are followed very carefully, the tree would survive this degree of limb and foliage removal. He addressed the underfloor issue and said that there are some areas of the underfloor that are unimproved, some areas sloping that are taller than the five foot limit (six+ feet). This would otherwise be considered a story which would constitute a three story building which is not permitted in the code. In order to retain the older structure, the applicant is proposing to upgrade the underfloor area of the structure and mechanical equipment to bring the height down to no more than 47' to allow it to be considered a truly an underfloor area and not a story. Staff has accepted the applicant's recommendation and will make the rooms inaccessible and unusable. Staff believes that this solution would be reasonable given the age and condition of the structure. Staff would recommend approval subject to the conditions contained in the resolution, including a requirement that the workshop window be removed. In response to Commissioner Kaplan's question, Director Walgren responded that the applicant could have dug out enough space in the existing under story to make it a proper first ground floor and that this was certainly an alternative. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 8:11 p.m. Gary Schloh, project architect, addressed the design of the home. He said that there is very little of the original design that he is proposing to change. He is trying to add back into the residence some of the charm that has been lost in the last 50 years due to lack of maintenance. He said that the roof is to remain the same and that he is proposing to add a cupola, an architectural element that helps the aesthetics of the structure and is a functional element that allows light ventilation and natural cooling for the structure. This element adds a 1.5 feet over the height of the existing structure. The major change that can be seen is on the north elevation of the house. The roof is being extended on the left hand side of the house overlooking French doors at the deck area that is to be PLANNING COMMISSION Mi,.JTES JANUARY 13, 1999 PAGE - 5 - replaced. The lattice will be removed as it is not as appropriate as a natural stone wall would be that is more indigenous to the area. The stone wall would give a sense of better structure for the house to sit on. He addressed the arborist report. The owners have mentioned to him that from the history of the project that there are two trees on the property that the arborist makes mention of. The owner is concerned regarding the deposit being required to stand behind the health and the longevity of the trees. Specifically of concern is oak tree #1 and the requirement to post bond to ensure its survival. He noted that this tree is not on the owner's property and that it belongs to the neighboring property. He informed the Commission that the neighbor does a thorough discing of the property at least once a year which he did not believe was a good thing for an oak tree. He wanted to go on record that if the tree does suffer to the point of termination, that the applicant not be held responsible. He also referred to tree #3 that is located on the property but that it is also is located on the neighbor's side of the driveway. He said that there is no fence in this area and that this area is disced around this tree on an annual basis. There is a concern that there may be a fungus growth on the tree. Commissioner Kaplan requested that Mr. Schloh respond to her question about the feasibility of using the underfloor area and making it a proper first floor? Mr. Schloh said that there is not a lot of evidence of water problems in the crawl space. He said that there is some water in crawl spaces that go from the high side to the low side. He felt strongly that some of the roof design of the existing house really suffers from poor design especially over the kitchen as there is an inappropriate roof design over this area. He said that lie has to do considerable work to the roof. The suggestion of putting the living area in the crawl space was not studied to a great detail and that circulation wise, it is physically possible. He said that a very large oak tree is located within 6 -8 feet of the basement area. He said that digging into the roof zone would be a negative. He did not believe that the foundation work would be needed and that there would be retrofitting of the crawl space for future beams and for mechanical work. He felt that there is so much area in the added space that using this area made much more sense as far as creating living space. Commissioner Murakami addressed the cupola as far as its functionality and asked if it would be possible to circulate air with a ceiling or attic fan that would eliminate the extra height of the roof structure. Mr. Schloh said that the cupola is serving a physical purpose and is also serving as an architectural aesthetic purpose. He said that skylights could be added to the roof but that he did not believe that the character of the structure would be in keeping with the architectural style. Attic fans could be added but that these items would be mechanical. The cupola is not a mechanical feature but that it is gravity fed and is considered a window located on a vertical surface. From an architectural standpoint, it adds some interest to the roof itself. Commissioner Patrick asked why the area near the oak tree needs to be excavated to add living space. Mr. Schloh responded that at the perimeter of the deck is 8 -10 feet. As you go from the perimeter of the deck to the house, the grade is climbing up. At this point, the floor line to the ground is approximately 6.5 feet. This is the point where the cut would start down. He informed the Commission that the canopy of the oak tree is enormous. The arborist makes mention that there is a certain percentage of distance of the canopy of the tree that is not allowed to be excavated into. He said that it is proposed to excavate down 3.5 feet deep and dig deeper to the back of the home relative to the natural grade. Underneath the deck, directly by the tree, would not be excavated. Commissioner Kaplan said that in order to do the work on the roof and add the second story, a good portion of the oak tree will be in danger, especially with the removal of tree limbs. Director Walgren clarified that if the underfloor of the existing home was improved, it would have to be excavated downward, result in some damage to the root system of the oak tree. However, the city arborist felt that the tree would survive if all his recommended measures are followed. PLANNING COMMISSION M..JTES JANUARY 13, 1999 PAGE - 6 - Commissioner Page asked about the two windows with shutters located on the north elevation. Mr. Schloh said that shutters are shown only on the dormer windows to be consistent and to add character to the windows. He said that there were some windows that can only take one shutter on one side. To be consistent, architecturally, that only the dormer windows would have shutters. Commissioner Martlage asked about the window fan light and its purpose? Mr. Schloh said that this is decorative woodwork over the French door. Commissioner Martlage said that at the site visit, the Commission had a hard time determining the front and the back of the house. She said that there is no delineation of front and back. From an architectural stand point, even if the property owner wants to list the home in the National Register of Historic Places as long as the original facade is maintained, mechanical items can be located to the backside. She felt that it would be appropriate to install operational skylights. Mr. Schloh said that the front of the home has been on the uphill side, tucked around the corner. Regarding the skylight question, he said that if skylights are placed on the back side, they would not be obvious until you walk around the side. He referred back to his comments about aesthetics. He said that if you look at old structures of this vintage, many times they had cupolas. Steve Wong, 14000 Short Hill Court, informed the Commission that his property abuts the garage. He said that this was a nice design but expressed concern that the windows may look directly toward his home. He requested that the windows be made a little smaller. Chairman Pierce said that he walked the property and felt that it would be remote that someone could look out of the window to Mr. Wong's home. COMMISSIONERS MARTLAGE /MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:37 P.M. Commissioner Kaplan said that having visited the property, the Commission spent a lot of time on this issue and expressed concern with the oak tree. She expressed concern with cutting back the number of limbs that are proposed to be cut back. She said that modifying the home in any way would impact the oak tree. The question that she has is what would be the least disruptive giving the size and beauty of the heritage tree. She said that she would vote against the application for many reasons. She felt that there were other alternatives. She said that she would rather see a redesign or that this item be discussed in a study session. She said that she liked the design of the home as it is exciting but that she could not vote in support of it this evening. Commissioner Murakami said that he was also curious about the heritage tree. He was bothered by the fact that the structure was too high. The oak tree issue is another concern. For aesthetics, it bothers him that a cupola is being used. He felt that the mechanical items that have been mentioned can be utilized to eliminate the cupola. lie felt that pushing the envelop 30 feet was too much even though there are special circumstances associated with the lower floor. He agreed with Commissioner Kaplan that the Commission should reexamine this application as he does not have the information to approve the project this evening. Commissioner Patrick stated that she. liked the use of the copula. She asked if something can be done with the three story perception. She asked if something could be done with the underfloor area. She felt that it was a terrific looking house. However, she felt that questions can be answered to mitigate the concerns in a study session. PLANNING COMMISSION M.. -.JTES JANUARY 13, 1999 PAGE - 7 - Commissioner Martlage concurred with the comments expressed and expressed concern with the oak tree. She felt that without the deck on the side of the home, the structure could be pulled back to save the oak tree. She said that she was also bothered by the perception of a three story home. Commissioner Page agreed that a study session would be beneficial as there may be alternative solutions to mitigate the concerns of the Commission. Chairman Pierce concurred with the comments expressed by the Commission. He stated that lie liked the cupola. Given the uniqueness of the structure, he could support the 30 feet if the oak tree could be preserved. Therefore, it would be worth spending some time to review alternatives in order to protect the beautiful oak tree. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /KAPLAN MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. Mr. Schloh stated that lie would agree to a continuance to a study session. He stated that he also would like to hear the comments of the Historic Preservation Commission before going to a study session. Commissioner Kaplan requested that the arborist be consulted for an opinion of what can be done physically to preserve the oak tree. Director Walgren stated that he would invite the arborist to the work study session. Director Walgren indicated that the Historic Preservation Commission would be reviewing this application on February 9, 1999 and that this item could be continued to February 1.0, 1999. BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSION CONTINUED THIS ITEM TO A FEBRUARY 10, 1999 6:00 P.M. STUDY SESSION. 4. DR -98 -060 (389 -34 -003) - YAMAOKA DEVELOPMENT, 18180 Sage Ct.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,829 sq. ft. residence on Lot 1 of the Fitzsimmons subdivision. The height of the proposed residence is 18 feet from natural grade. The site is 24,052 sq. ft. DR -98 -061 (389 -34 -003) - YAMAOKA DEVELOPMENT, 18625 Sage Ct.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,752 sq. ft. residence on Lot 2 of Fitzsimmons subdivision. The height of the proposed residence is 19 feet from natural grade. The site is 24,004 sq. ft. DR -98 -062 (389 -34 -003) YAMAOKA DEVELOPMENT, 18587 Sage Ct.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,450 sq. ft. residence on Lot 3 of the Fitzsimmons subdivision. The height of the proposed residence is 19 feet from natural grade. The site is 20,013 sq. ft. DR -98 -063 (389 -34 -003) YAMAOKA DEVELOPMENT, 18380 Sage Ct.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,517 sq. ft. residence on Lot 4 of the Fitzsimmons subdivision. The height of the proposed residence is 18 feet from natural grade. The site is 20,223 sq. ft. DR -98 -064 (389 -34 -003) YAMAOKA DEVELOPMENT, 18288 Sage Ct.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,516 sq. ft. residence on Lot 5 of the Fitzsimmons subdivision. The height of the proposed residence is 18 feet from natural grade. The site is 20,875 sq. ft. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report on the five individual applications. Staff recommended approval of the five applications subject to a change the barrel /mission the roofing material being proposed be substituted with a flat the wood shake appearing roofing material to be consistent with the existing homes on Saratoga Avenue. Staff also recommended the addition of a condition to require that the applicant contract a certified PLANNING COMMISSION M,..JTES JANUARY 13, 1999 PAGE - 8 - arborist as a tree protection manager throughout construction to augment the other efforts to protect the trees on the property. In response to Commissioner Murakami's question he said that staff did not request consideration be given to the use of wood sidings. Commissioner Murakami recommended that a mix in siding be used to break up the use of stucco which make the homes look all the same. In response to Commissioner Kaplan's question, Director Walgren said that there is not to be a gate on this street. Commissioner Kaplan said that she did not recall being present at the final vote on the subdivision. She asked staff if there was any indication whether the Commission made the fencing along Saratoga Avenue compatible with other developments that are to be built? Director Walgren responded that a condition that fencing along Saratoga be compatible with recent development. What was approved was a finished masonry wall with a stone veneer to match the existing wall on the adjoining subdivision. In response to Commissioner Martlage's question, Director Walgren stated that the applicant would be required to keep the property clean. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 8:56 p.m. Stuart Scott, representing the project, stated his agreement with the staff report as presented. He stated that he would agree to add wood siding to one or two of the homes. Regarding the roofing material, he said that he would agree to install flat roofing material. He stated that the he would agree to provide the required tree protection measures. He said that the property would be cleaned up and that he needs the public works department approval before he can proceed with clean up. Commissioner Page referred to lot 4 and inquired as to the length of the home? Director Walgren responded that the length of the building is 120 feet, including the garage. Commissioner Martlage expressed concern with the length of the stucco wall. It appears that the front elevation is the only elevation that has any articulation. She did not know if the landscaping would mitigate the appearance as lots I and 2 border Saratoga Avenue. She felt that unappealing walls would face the street due to the lack of detail variation. Commissioner Kaplan said that she reviewed the landscaping plans and noted that on every lot has a live oak and that there appears to be planting under the oak trees. She felt that this needs to be addressed with the landscape architect. She expressed concern that throughout the subdivision about this concern. Mr. Scott stated that he would agree to comply with arborist's recommendation. Lot I Commissioner Page said that he has question regarding the position of the home on lot 1. Mr. Scott said that the position of the home was due to the setbacks required as part of the subdivision review process. Commissioner Patrick expressed concern that the garage is located on wrong site, creating a long driveway. She asked if the driveway could be moved to the Saratoga Avenue side, decreasing the driveway. Mr. Stuart said that PLANNING COMMISSION M.,,LJTES JANUARY 13, 1999 PAGE - 9 - Ile would consider relocating the driveway if so directed by the Commission. Commissioner Martlage referred to page AR3, the north Saratoga Avenue elevation , and noted that only two small windows are proposed with the rest of the elevation being a flat stucco surface. Mr. Stuart said that two small windows are proposed to due to the noise of the street. Commissioner Patrick said that there are architectural questions that cannot be answered as the architect is not present this evening. Commissioner Kaplan said that in looking at the material board and the similarity of the project being the same stucco and same color paint, she was not sure that this is what the city would want to see on its heritage street. She recommended that this item be continued to a study session to address the concerns of the commission. Steve Nakuchi, landscape architect, said that he was present when these plans were designed and would try to answer questions. Commissioner Murakami said that he liked the overall design but would like to have the architect present to address surface and structures. As far as the driveways, they do not bother him. He said that the commission has to take a complete look at everything. Commissioner Patrick agreed that a study session would be beneficial to have everyone present and a faster process. Commissioner Martlage said that colored renderings would be helpful. Mr. Nakuchi said that he was present when the design was reviewed and said that he might be able to answer some of the questions. He said that when the project was designed, it was designed to have a European pedestrian village feel. The architectural image was to have a lot of similarity between buildings and building materials. The differentiation would occur with the shading, the hue variations in the stucco and the use of plant material. Commissioner Murakami said that he liked the overall the design but that it would have been helpful to have the architect present to answer detailed questions that the Commission has. Regarding the concern of the long garage, he felt that the Commission has to look at the overall design of the project. Commissioner Patrick said that it would be beneficial to have a study session to review and discuss the project with the project architect present and may help expedite the process. Commissioner Martlage said that her questions relate to the architecture of the project. She stated that she would like to see colored renderings of the project. Chairman Pierce said that additional dialogue is needed in order to understand the image of a European village. Director Walgren said that this item could be continued to January 27 to a study session, following the regular public hearing. He recommended that the applicant /architect be prepared to discuss the side and rear expanse of wall. Also to be considered is relocation the garage /driveway, consideration of the incorporation of wood siding and the submittal of a colored board. Commissioner Kaplan also requested that consideration be given to the design of the home on lot 5 as it is extremely large. PLANNING COMMISSION M... JTES JANUARY 13, 1999 PAGE - 10 - COMMISSIONERS PAGE /PATRICK MOVED TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO JANUARY 27, 1999 FOLLOWING THE REGULAR PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA. 5. DR -98 -055 (397 -24 -010, -038, -073, -074, -075) - PINN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, 18895 Hayfield Ct.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,558 sq. ft. residence on Lot 10 of the Spaich subdivision. The height of the proposed residence is 18 feet from natural grade. The site is 26,634 sq. ft. DR -98 -056 (397 -24 -010, -038, -073, -074, -075) - PINN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, 18913 Hayfield Ct.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,781 sq. ft. residence on Lot 12 of the Spaich subdivision. The height of the proposed residence is 21 feet from natural grade. The site is 28,183 sq. ft. DR -98 -057 (397 -24 -010, -038, -073, -074, -075) - PINN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, 18907 Hayfield Ct.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,971 sq. ft. residence on Lot 11 of the Spaich subdivision. The height of the proposed residence is 18 feet from natural grade. The site is 28,149 sq. ft. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Director Walgren presented the staff report. He said that there will be grading /excavation that would occur in order to set the homes lower on the site and to lower the profile of the homes from the adjoining views. He noted that the grading for grading of lot I 1 seems a little high. He requested that the applicant consider a response to his response to this issue in order to determine the amount of excavation that is to occur. Commissioner Patrick asked if the plans show one wood burning fire place for each home with the remainder gas burning? Director Walgren responded that only one wood burning fire place is proposed for each home and that the remaining fire places are to be gas only. Commissioner Murakami referred to page 5 of the staff report relating to the landscape plans. He asked how closely does staff monitor that at least 50% of the proposed trees to be planted are to be California native trees are to be installed? Director Walgren responded that the landscape plans need to be modified before permits can be issued and that staff will monitor to make sure that trees require would need to be planted as well as the landscaping before the home can be finaled. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 9:24 p.m. Chuck Bommarito, representing Pinn Brothers Construction, concurred with the staff report. He addressed lot 10 and the fact that the arborist is concerned about some grading. He said that he would agree to the arborist's recommendation /requirements. Commissioner Murakami said that it would be helpful if the drawings submitted give a feel of what the homes would look like. He recommended that colored renderings be submitted. He said that he was not comfortable not knowing what the homes would look like. Commissioner Kaplan said that in looking at the colored board, they look similar in the shade of color and pattern. She asked if anything can be done to enhance the colors? Mr. Bommarito said that color palette has some consistency in it. He said that the gable would keep it consistent and that there can be changes in roof colors. He noted that the roofs have large and moderate pitches and are not visible roofs. PLANNING COMMISSION M�..JTES JANUARY 13, 1999 PAGE - I l - Commissioner Page said that the chimneys seem to stand out. He asked if the chimneys stand out due to the use of the spark arresters? Mr. Bommarito said that the chimney can be modified. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /MARTLAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:29 p.m. Commissioner Martlage stated that she was pleased with the design as they coordinate nicely with the Julia Morgan House and with each other. Even though the color palette is limited, she felt that there was enough variation support the design of the homes. Commissioner Page said that he has a problem with the chimney. However, he felt that the homes were nicely designed. Commissioner Patrick felt that the homes were too large for the rest of the neighborhood. She said that the resolutions do not state that 50% native landscaping is to be required and recommended that this condition be included as a condition. She would support pulling the chimney down per staffs recommendation. Commissioner Murakami said that it does not bother him that the chimneys are a little high as they are part of the architectural style. He said that although there are more detailed renderings for the Commission to look at besides the color scheme, lie was satisfied with the design would be willing to approve the project as the homes are designed to enhance the neighborhood. Commissioner Kaplan concurred with the comments as expressed by the Commissioner. Chairman Pierce said that this project, unlike the previous project that the Commission reviewed, the Commission has been seen the project before and that it has spent a lot of time on the project. Therefore, it was easier to approve these three designs. He stated his agreement with the previous comments by the Commission. Director Walgren agreed that a condition needs to be added to each of the three resolutions to specify that the landscaping per the plan and modified per the discussion contained in the staff report. ON A MOTION BY COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/MARTLAGE, THE COMMISSION APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. DR -98 -055 WITH THE MODIFICATION OF LOWERING THE CHIMNEY AND THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION RELATING TO THE LANDSCAPING PLAN, AS MODIFIED. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER BERNALD ABSENT. ON A MOTION BY COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /MURAKAMI, THE COMMISSION APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. DR -98 -056 WITH THE MODIFICATION OF LOWERING THE CHIMNEY AND THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION RELATING TO THE LANDSCAPING PLAN, AS MODIFIED. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER BERNALD ABSENT. ON A MOTION BY COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/MARTLAGE, THE COMMISSION APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. DR -98 -057 WITH THE MODIFICATION OF LOWERING THE CHIMNEY AND THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION RELATING TO THE LANDSCAPING PLAN, AS MODIFIED. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER BERNALD ABSENT. 6. DR -98 -047 (397 -28 -031) - BLACKWELL HOMES, 20345 Williams Ave.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 3,029 sq. ft., two -story residence on a lot currently developed with a PLANNING COMMISSION W -40TES - JANUARY 13, 1999 PAGE - 12 - 3,220 sq. ft. two -story apartment building (to be demolished). The sit is 8,590 sq. ft. and is located within an R -1- 10,000 zoning district. The application also includes an exception request from the floor area reduction requirement for heights over 18 feet. Planner Pearson presented the staff report. He noted that the basement shown in the cross section is part of the existing apartment building. Therefore, significant excavation will not be necessary. He recommended that a condition be added to require that an ISA certified arborist be on site during demolition and construction as recommended by the city's arborist. Commissioner Murakami referred to the cellar located on sheet A -3. He asked if there was going to be any other excavation that is to occur? Planner Pearson said that the applicant would need to clarify this question. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 9:39 p.m. David Britt, project architect, addressed the style of the home. He said that he designed the home to pay close attention to the neighborhood and pulled the craftsman style residence from the other existing residences in the neighborhood. He said that it is proposed to remove the existing building, noting that it is bigger and taller than the proposed home. Commissioner Kaplan said that she was pleased to hear that there is to be an arborist on site and requested that staff have unscheduled visits to the site. Planner Walgren said that the city arborist would be requested to perform unscheduled visits to the site during construction. Commissioner Page building section B, it shows a master bath in the hallway and requested clarification. Mr. Britt said that there is an attic and that in the master bath in the hall, the ceiling was flat. In the master bedroom, the ceiling is vaulted. COMMISSIONERS PATRiCK/MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:42 P.M. Commissioner Page said that this is a great design and that it fits well with neighborhood. He expressed concern with the height and that he would support in reducing the height or the square footage of the home to be consistent with an earlier approval this evening. Commissioner Martlage said that for consistency sake with a project approved early this evening, she felt that square footage needs to be reduced. Otherwise, the design of the home was tremendous. Commissioner Patrick stated that she liked the design of the home but that she would not approve the extra 308 square feet. Commissioner Murakami also stated that he liked the design of the home. Regarding the square footage of the home, he felt that this house was more reasonable in its attempt to request additional square footage where the other request was not reasonable. However, he understood what the commissioners are eluding to as far as consistency. Therefore, he would go along with the commission and request that the additional square footage be eliminated. Commissioner Kaplan concurred with the comments expressed and stated that she would not support the exception request. PLANNING COMMISSION M,. (_JTES JANUARY 13, 1999 Chairman Pierce liked the design of the home. He said that the garage is located in the front where the other home had the home in the back, noting that lie likes garages in the back. He agreed that in order to be consistent, the Commission needs to deny to deny the floor area exemption. ON A MOTION BY COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN /MARTLAGE, THE COMMISSION APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. DR -98 -047, DENYING THE FLOOR AREA REDUCTION. 7. DR -98 -048 & V -98 -016 (397 -28 -031) - BLACKWELL HOMES, 20345 1/2 (lot 23) Williams Ave.; Request for Design Review and Variance approval to construct a 2,583 sq. ft. two -story residence and a detached 441 sq. ft. garage on a lot currently developed with an 800 sq. ft. residence (to be demolished). A Variance is requested to allow the garage to be constructed with both the front and side yard required setbacks. The site is 9,020 sq. ft. and is located within an R -1- 10,000 zoning district. The application also includes an exception request from the floor area reduction requirement for heights over 18 feet. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Pearson presented the staff report and recommended that condition 7 be amended to add the following language: "...except for tree Nos. 4 and 10." Commissioner Kaplan referred to Exhibit A -0 that shows the garage facing the front with the front of the garage on the same plane. She asked if this is going to change? She also asked why the garage could not be moved closer to the home? Commissioner Pierce noted that there is a tree on the street that may not allow the garage to be moved closer to the home. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 9:51 p.m. David Britt, project architect, addressed the location of the garage. He said that the location of the garage is based on the location of the existing carport and driveway. He said that it is proposed to use the vehicular access to access the (Tarage. He said that the arborist had suggested turning the garage as drawn (somewhere between tree #7 and # 1 1). If the garage was to be moved closer to the home, the garage would be closer to tree #7. This is probably why the garage was turned to its side. He said that the house is designed as a farmhouse style, indicative of what is found in the neighborhood when the area was developed at the turn of the century. He said that the mechanical chase serves two functions: 1) if a mechanical chase was not proposed, it would result in a flat section of the home; and 2) farm homes had wood burning stoves in the kitchen or single fireplace. Therefore, the mechanical chase was used as a design feature as well as an indicative character. He said that a basement was not included because it was not needed. COMMISSIONERS PAGE /PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:55 P.M. Commissioner Murakami stated that he liked the style of the home. He said that he could support the variance based on the necessity to mitigate the damage or removal of the trees. Regarding the floor area exception, he said that he would not support it as an adequate amount of square footage is provided necessary to make the home function. Commissioners Kaplan, Patrick, Martlage, and page concurred with Commissioner Muarkami's comments. Commissioner Page expressed concern with the color palette of the wood siding and suggested that it be modified. PLANNING COMMISSION M...JTES JANUARY 13, 1999 PAGE - 14 - Chairman Pierce stated that he liked the design and felt that the three designs would add to the neighborhood. However, he.would not support granting the floor area exemption. ON A MOTION BY COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN, THE COMMISSION APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. V -98 -016. ON A MOTION BY COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /KAPLAN, THE COMMISSION APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. DR -98 -048, DENYING THE FLOOR AREA EXEMPTION AND INCLUDING THE MODIFICATION TO CONDITION 7 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. 8. V -98 -011 (503 -19 -157) - LOU, 20651 Leonard Road; Request for Variance approval to allow a recently constructed detached accessory structure to encroach into a required 30 ft. front yard setback. The structure was built without City building permits. The Variance application includes a gazebo structure and a detached rear yard deck that also encroach into required setbacks and were also built without permits. The subject property is 1.48 gross acres in size and is located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. Planner Pearson presented the staff report. Staff felt that in this case, the variance would be a grant of a special privilege as it appears that there is room to construct the structures outside the setback areas. It is recommended that all structures be removed or modified to comply with the setback and height requirements within 180 days. He recommended that a condition be added to require that all debris and construction material also be removed from the property within a 180 days. He recommended that the Commission deny the variance by adoption of the resolution attached to the staff report. Commissioner Kaplan asked how staff came to the recommendation of 180 days on a matter that has been going on for some time? Planner Pearson responded that the 180 days would allow the applicant time to arrange for the work to be done. However, this time can be modified by the Commission. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the staff report states that there are several code related problems associated with the accessory structures as the problem meets exactly the allowable floor area for the zoning district (5,771 square feet). She said that the accessory structure located by the gate /driveway could not be approved per the zoning district. Planner Pearson said that the letter referenced was written prior to a code change. Director Walgren said that there was some confusion early on as to what the allowable square footage was and that the square footage listed in the letter is not correct. He said that the square footage is not a part of the variance and that the accessory structure is within the allowable square footage for the property. He said that the variance was a setback issue. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 10:03 p.m. Fu -Meia Loh, applicant, submitted correspondence from the city and letters from adjacent neighbors regarding the accessory structure. She apologized for the situation. She said that she contacted various architects to assist her with the design with estimates given at $750- $1,000. She said that she removed the old storage building and replaced it with a portable storage shed. She said that the only location that she could place the storage was in the front and side yard setbacks due to the constraints of the lot. She said that the shed is not visible to the neighbors. She asked all of her neighbors if they opposed the structure and none opposed the structure. She requested Commission approval of the variance. If required to relocate, she has been advised that it would be difficult. PLANNING COMMISSION Mi..JTES JANUARY 13, 1999 PAGE - 15 - Commissioner Murakami asked Ms. Loh who made the decision to locate the storage shed in the front yard? Ms. Loh responded that it was her decision to place the storage shed in the front yard. She indicated that she is a realtor. Kay Duffy, 20637 Leonard Road, neighbor across the Swale, stated that she did not support the shed. If another shed is allowed on the property, the current location of the shed would have less of an impact versus having the shed in the rear. She said that the shed is an attempt to clean up the property as construction material has been going on for four years. If shed is required to be torn down, she requested that the construction material be cleaned up. Mildred Perry, 20615 Leonard Road, said that when you see the shed, it looks like a guard house. She said that construction has been ongoing for four or five years. She did not believe that the variance should be allowed, noting that the shed is not attractive. If the variance is allowed, that there be a limited amount of time be giving to tear down the accessory structures and removed. Starr Davis, 20681 Leonard Road, adjoining property owner, reiterated the concerns contained in the letter. She expressed concern that she received a call from Ms. Loh who informed her that the gazebo's height was lowered and that the variance was no longer required. She also expressed concern with the safety of the tree. Mrs. Perry said that her husband delivered a letter to the city before the last meeting and asked if it was on file. Director Walgren indicated that the letter referenced by Mrs. Perry was not attached to the staff report but that it was in the application file. Mr. Loh responded to the comments made about the gazebo. She said that a staff official did not inform her that the gazebo was not allowed in its current location. She was advised that if the height of the gazebo was reduced, it met city regulations. She said that she reduced the height of the gazebo and that she was surprised about this issue. She said that she has been given two different opinions about the storage shed relating to the setback requirements. Director Walgren said that staff has been working to help Ms. Loh resolve the problem for over a year. He said that accurate as built drawings were never submitted to staff and that field assumptions were made. He said that the gazebo is still more than 10 feet in height from grade and that it must meet setback requirements. If reduced, it can encroach various degrees into the setbacks, depending on the height of the structure. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /MARTLAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:24 p.m. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the structures are considered non- conforming, the variance is not approved and the Commission directs that the buildings be removed and if an appeal to the City Council fails, what authority or avenue does the city have to remove the structures and bring the property into conformity and get the property cleaned up. Director Walgren stated that this evening's variance hearing allows the city to conclude the city's administrative remedies and then file a notice of nuisance abatement against the property to ensure that the property confirms. Commissioner Kaplan said that given what she has read, heard, and seen this property is a poster child for cleaning up suburban blight. She said that this makes it clear to her why the city has zoning requirements. It is to prevent helter- skelter, indiscriminate structures being plopped down on properties and creating substandard conditions. She felt that the structures decrease property values for everyone in the area and felt that the area was PLANNING COMMISSION M .JTES JANUARY 13, 1999 PA(;F - 1 A - a mess. She felt that 180 days was much too long and recommended 60 days for removal of the structures and clean up of the site. She did not believe that there was a basis to grant the variance. Commissioner Murakami felt that this was a very unfortunate mistake in judgment on the part of the owner. He said that he could see that the gazebo and deck be modified to confirm to the zoning code. However, as far as the shed structure, the site is at the maximum allowable square footage for the site. Director Walgren said that the shed is no longer a non - conforming structure nor an issue in terms in the maximum allowable square footage. He said that the shed could be picked up and relocated to a less obtrusive location. He said that the excess height can be considered by the Commission should it deny the variance as a means to allow the shed to be relocated. Commissioner Murakami said that as the owner is a realtor she should know that there are certain things that individuals cannot do to properties without first investigating what can be done legally. He said that he would not support the variance. However, there are some things that the applicant can do to correct some of the problems. He felt that the 180 days recommended by staff was a fair amount of time as it will take some time to correct the violations and clean up the site. Commissioner Patrick stated that she could not see any reason to grant the variance and that there are many reasons to deny the variance. She said that she would not grant a variance to the height of the accessory structure(s) based on the neighbors' concerns. She would recommend that Ms. Loh remove the accessory structures and start all over. She agreed that six months was too long given the situation and that she did not feel that there was a need to exacerbate the problem. Therefore, she recommended that 60 days be applied to rectify the situation. Commissioner Martlage had two major concerns beyond the setback situation: 1) a tree was damaged to build the gazebo. If the plan had been brought to the Planning Commission, it would have been happy in helping Ms. Loh in helping preserve the health of the tree. She did not believe that the Commission would have approved the location for the gazebo, especially as it encroaches the privacy of the neighbors. 2) The aesthetics bother her as there is a lot of dead space in the deck design. Therefore, this was clearly not designed by someone trying to coordinate the accessory structures with the home. She said that the home is a soft color where the gazebo and deck are white. She said that there are some aesthetic concerns in addition to encroachment into the setbacks. Commissioner Page agreed with everything that has been stated. He did not believe that ignorance of city codes was an excuse. He felt that Mrs. Loh had an opportunity to rectify the situation and has not done so. Therefore, he could not support the variance request. Chairman Pierce agreed with the comments expressed by the Commission and that he too would not support a variance and'that he would not allow a 15 structure to be built under any circumstances. He felt that 90 days was a reasonable amount of time to rectify the situation. Commissioner Kaplan recommended that the applicant be given 60 days with a discretion at a staff level. ON A MOTION BY COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN, THE COMMISSION APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. V -98 -011, DENYING THE VARIANCE REQUEST AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: 1) AMENDED SECTION 1.4., AMEND THE 1.80 DAYS TO 60 DAYS OR AS DETERMINED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME AS DETERMINED BY STAFF; AND 2) AMENDING THE RESOLUTION TO STATE THAT ALL CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL IS TO BE PLANNING COMMISSION M. ,JTES JANUARY 13, 1999 PAGE - 17 - REMOVED. DIRECTORS ITEMS Director Walgren reported on the following: Provided the Commission with a League of California City calendar. He stated that typically, new Commissioners attend one -day workshops. He requested that if there is any interest in attending these workshops, that additional information will be provided. Presented an update on the Saratoga Elementary School project. He indicated that he sent correspondence on this issue. He said that he has not heard back from the school district. He expects that there will be an informal meeting before the City Council and the Planning Commission. He hopes that they arrange to meet with the Heritage Preservation Commission before the EIR is released. Saratoga Avenue project - The Commission has seen this project and discussed it at their site visit. He said that this application was heard by the Planning Commission last summer. It was advertised that it was an addition 'to an existing home by renovating the attic and adding windows. As construction commenced over the holiday, the building is taken down the foundation. He stated that lie has been in contact with the property owners who has been having difficulty with the project. The city will be issuing a stop work order on Friday morning. This item will be coming back before the Planning Commission as a variance request. The home denied by the Commission on Garrett Road was appealed to the City Council. He said that a great effort was made to retain the magnificent oak tree, noting that it was removed without benefit of tree removal permit. He said that this will probably be a Commission item in some form of a memo in terms of flow staff will resolve this issue. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Kaplan addressed the following: Signage at the storage place on the Sunnyvale- Saratoga Road. Staff is to determine if the purple and orange sign was appropriate for the architectural. She requested that staff report its findings on this issue. Director Walgren said that staff has not found anything. He said that the earlier use permits were sparse in terms of the restrictions that run with the property. The use permit did not dictate whether the building could be painted with stripes. He said that the sign is not permitted. He said that staff would investigate the non- conforming sign. The Commission put a lot of effort to property next to Pier One by Kinkos at Lawrence Expressway and Saratoga Avenue. She asked staff to look at the landscaping as it is now sticks, dead bushes, a lot of weeds and a stained fencing in an area that is an entryway to the City. The Commission worked hard to make it presentable and stated that this condition is not acceptable. She stated that Director Walgren has indicated that this will be rectified. She congratulated Saratoga as a city as it is in the forefront of air pollution control. She said that there are two newspaper articles congratulating the City for being one of four cities in California that have PLANNING COMMISSION Mi, .,JTES JANUARY 13, 1999 PAGE - 18 - taken steps to clean up the air. She thanked the Commission, City Council and staff. She recommended that the Commission meetings be moved to the Community Center as the lighting in the auditorium bothers her. She noted that the fence ordinance is scheduled to be reviewed next week. She recommended that the Commission revisit this issue to see if it is still worth the effort to have minimum /maximum fencing in the hills. Commissioner Martlage reported the following: concerns have been expressed regarding the new building at the corner Oak Street and Highway 9 (cleaners establishment), noting that a new, large sign has been installed; there is the "vinyl" garage on Saratoga Avenue that seems to be unprecedented attempt; retaining walls is being installed on Quito Road under some oak trees; and three homes adjacent to the Foot Hill Club are using cedar shingles that may not be consistent with approved plans. COMMUNICATIONS Written City Council Minutes dated December 1, 2, 8 and 16, 1998 - Notices for Planning Commission Meeting of January 27, 1999 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING There being no further business, Chairman Pierce adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m. to Wednesday, January 27, 1999, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk