HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002 Planning Commission MinutesMINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, December 11, 2002
PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Chair Jackman called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman and Kurasch
Absent: Commissioners Roupe and Zutshi
Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner John Livingstone and Planner Christy
Oosterhous
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of October 23, 2002.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the
regular Planning Commission minutes of October 23, 2002, were approved as
submitted.
AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, and Kurasch
NOES: None
ABSENT: Roupe and Zutshi
ABSTAIN: Barry
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of November 13, 2002.
As there were too few Commissioners present who were eligible to vote to adopt the regular minutes
from the November 13, 2002, Planning Commission meeting, consideration of the minutes for that
meeting were continued to the next meeting on January 8, 2003.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Tom Corson, 18337 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga:
• Advised that he is present to discuss the ongoing problem of 18312 Swarthmore Drive.
• Stated his belief that improper noticing occurred and concern that this project underwent an
administrative approval as opposed to a Planning Commission review.
• Informed that he hand delivered a letter advising of the removal of six 45 -foot liquid amber trees
without benefit of a permit.
Saratoga Planning Commissic' linutes of December 11, 2002 Page 2
• Added that work had begun on the lying of the foundation without a permit and that the existing
home was demolished without a permit.
• Asked that this developer be dealt with according to law and that permits should be cancelled until
the infractions are corrected and the project is abated.
• Said that he is extremely concerned, has addressed his concerns over several occasions and has yet
to see any resolution to his concerns
• Added that he has no right to appeal due to the fact that the project was not properly noticed.
Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Corson which property on Swarthmore he is addressing.
Mr. Tom Corson replied the single -story on Swarthmore.
Director Tom Sullivan:
• Advised that the correspondence and issues raised by Mr. Corson have been referred to the City
Attorney, who is preparing a response.
• Added that the permit for the house construction was issued today.
• Assured that he would refer any new concerns raised this evening to the City Attorney.
Ms. Elizabeth Lara, 18324 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga:
• Identified herself as her father, Mr. Ole Lara's, representative. He is the owner of 18324
Swarthmore Drive.
• Said that she is a resident of Saratoga.
• Asked the Commission to cease and halt further construction of this home.
• Declared that she received a defective notice in September in which she was not made aware of the
right to challenge by appealing any decision to the Planning Commission within 10 days. The
notice said nothing of the right to appeal.
• Added that it was not clear to her that this was an administrative process representing a notice of
intent to approve.
• Requested that the Director reconsiders and provides proper noticing with the inclusion of the 10-
day right of appeal.
Commissioner Hunter said that she assumes staff cannot review the City Attorney's response with the
Planning Commission this evening.
Director Tom Sullivan assured that the City Attorney's response would be copied to Commission.
Ms. Elizabeth Lara:
• Stated that she identified the person who removed the trees.
• Requested that the Planning Commission takes a closer look and stop construction.
• Said that the project does not meet architectural compatibility and the removal of the trees has
resulted in a loss of privacy.
• Added that this matter is of great importance to her and her father.
Commissioner Barry asked whether the tree issue was forwarded to the City Attorney.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that he learned of the matter this afternoon.
Saratoga Planning Commissi( linutes of December 11, 2002 Page 3
Ms. Elizabeth Lara said that the plans for this project were not submitted in good faith.
Commissioner Garakani asked if this project was before the Planning Commission before.
Director Tom Sullivan replied no. The Code calls for administrative design review for new dwellings
under 18 feet in height and/or consisting of less than 6,000 square feet. Anything larger is referred to
the Planning Commission for public hearing.
Commissioner Garakani asked what occurs if there are objections by neighbors.
Director Tom Sullivan said that if objections are raised, he attempts to set up a meeting between the
applicant and neighbor to try to work the issues out.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if it is the practice, when noticing these administrative hearings, to advise
the neighbors of their right to appeal.
Director Tom Sullivan stated that the notice used in this case is the same notice that has been used for a
number of years. It will be changed from this point forward. Added that a consideration is being made
for the possibility of setting an administrative hearing instead of simply an administrative notice.
Commissioner Hunter pointed out that at this point the trees are down and the house has been removed.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that the permit has been issued and the project obtained approval in
September.
Ms. Elizabeth Lara reminded that work began on the foundation on Monday, prior to the permit being
issued.
Chair Jackman pointed out that Director Tom Sullivan has a good handle on what is going on with this
matter and will continue to work out the issues.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this
meeting was properly posted on December 5, 2002.
REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS
Chair Jackman announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an
Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision,
pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b).
CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar Items.
Saratoga Planning Commissic linutes of December 11, 2002 Page 4
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1
REVIEW OF ARBORIST REPORT PREPARED FOR 14480 OAK PLACE, CUTLER (397 -22-
051): The Planning Commission will conduct a Public Hearing to review the findings and
recommendations of an Arborist Report prepared by City Arborist Barrie Coate regarding the impacts
to ordinance protected oak trees from the construction of a structure closer than 10 feet to an oak tree.
(SULLIVAN)
Director Tom Sullivan provided the staff report as follows:
• Reminded the Commission that on August 28, 2002, the Commission granted an appeal to Mr.
Breck. As a result, the City Attorney prepared a substitute resolution regarding a 300 foot section
of Mr. Cutler's perimeter fencing.
• Advised that the conditions and recommendations by the City Arborist are contained in this new
resolution.
• Stated that this evening represents a follow up action to August 28, 2002.
Commissioner Garakani questioned the adequacy of the bond amount of $100,000 or $25,000 per tree
when the estimated cost per tree is $35,000.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that the bond is in totality and not per tree.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if the resolution provided as a table item is identical to the resolution
contained in the staff report.
Director Tom Sullivan pointed out additions to the newest copy.
Commissioner Kurasch suggested establishing a time frame for the accomplishment of all remediation
measures.
Director Tom Sullivan said that this is fairly well spelled out but cautioned that some of the activities
will occur over a period of years.
Commissioner Kurasch stressed the importance of having a calendar time frame and recourse in the
event that necessary actions are not accomplished. Asked what would occur in the event that necessary
actions are not taken.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that it would become a City Attorney issue at that point if the applicant
has chosen to disregard the Planning Commission and its resolution.
Chair Jackman asked Director Tom Sullivan whom should be called to address the Commission first.
Director Tom Sullivan replied Mr. Breck, since he is the appellant. Followed by Mr. Cutler. Each can
address the Commission for up to 10 minutes.
Mr. William Breck, 20375 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, Saratoga:
• Provided a handout to the Commission in which he provided the list of issues.
• Said that there should be non - compliance penalties.
Saratoga Planning Commissic. Iinutes of December 11, 2002 Page 5
• Stated that his number one concern is the five tree violations, which have resulted in a loss of visual
screening. This leaves them with a blank wall instead of natural screening.
• Asked that each of these five violations be prosecuted.
• Declared that the aboveground structure footings should be removed.
• Advised that the Planning Commission resolution should refer to the whole wall and not just the
300 -foot section.
• Stated that the bond should also cover the removal of trees, that the tree valuations are too low and
that the bond period is too short and should be for a period of 12 years.
• Said that what has happened here is not normal and that there should be penalties for the damage to
date and not just for future damage. Penalties should be based on damage since April and not just
from this December.
• Added that an assessment of excessive pruning was not done and should be factored into the
resolution.
• Said that fill dirt should be removed and proper drainage put in to protect tree roots.
• Said that it is unclear to him if his appeal has had a long -term effect.
• Stated that he wants a full canopy survey of trees and that no trenching or compressing should be
allowed.
• Pointed out that the trees have declined since April.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Breck if something has been left out of the resolution.
Mr. Bill Breck said issues of trenching and compressing.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Breck if he is disputing the depth of the continuous footings.
Mr. Bill Breck replied yes.
Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Breck what he believes the dimensions of the footings to be.
Mr. Bill Breck replied that they are five feet wide near his home.
Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Breck what further building on site is anticipated at this point.
Mr. Bill Breck responded that this is just the "tip of the iceberg" as this damage to date is prior to the
main house remodel.
Mr. Mitch Cutler, 14480 Oak Place, Saratoga:
• Advised that he is here to provide further clarification.
• Assured that the City has approved all grading and footing done on his property as well as having
approved all tree trimming done.
• Added that the Code Officer told him that he could prune up to 30 percent.
• Said that it is disrespectful to hold him and his family up as a poster child against trees.
• Pointed out that an engineer monitored construction of this wall.
• Stated that anger is being misapplied against him when it should be applied against the process.
• Declared that he felt Commissioner Kurasch owes a public apology to him for comments and
innuendoes made about him at previous meetings.
Saratoga Planning Commissic linutes of December 11, 2002 Page 6
• Charged that he is the victim of racism and prejudice and that one neighbor called him a "dirty
Jew."
• Said that he believes the Planning Commission has supported this disrespect.
Commissioner Kurasch said that she is willing to extend an apology to Mr. Cutler if he feels that he has
been wrongly accused and would forward that apology.
Mr. Mitch Cutler thanked Commissioner Kurasch for her apology.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Cutler what he means about funds owed him by the City.
Mr. Mitch Cutler:
• Replied that had he been told before, he would have stayed within any perimeters. However, this
was never done.
• Assured that he has followed every single rule and regulation.
• Complained that he is being held hostage to the mistakes of the City of Saratoga.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if he came to the City before or after he started construction on these
large footings. Added that the last action taken was to look at the repercussions to how the wall was
constructed.
Mr. Mitch Cutler said that he was following the instructions of the City of Saratoga and work began
after he believed he had approvals. Added that his neighbors are upset since the City did not do its job.
Chair Jackman admonished Mr. Cutler that no racial slurs were heard at any public meetings.
Mr. Mitch Cutler said that he heard them from his neighbors.
Chair Jackman expressed regret that there appears to have been a great number of misunderstandings in
this matter.
Director Tom Sullivan:
• Clarified that Mr. Cutler originally had approval for a six -foot wood fence in this area. Concrete
footings for a wood fence do not require permits.
• Added that during a site visit on the subject of trees, it was noticed that the forms for footings were
of a size that would require a permit.
Commissioner Kurasch questioned the need for continuous concrete footings for a wood fence.
Commissioner Barry questioned whom the gentleman was who is with Mr. Cutler this evening.
Mr. Alan Noodleman, Esq., identified himself as the attorney of record for Mr. Mitch Cutler.
Commissioner Garakani asked if the design of the fence was approved.
Director Tom Sullivan:
• Replied yes, the 300 -foot section of concrete wall was approved. The appeal is about a 150 -foot
portion near trees.
Saratoga Planning Commissic linutes of December 11, 2002 Page 7
• Stated that the tree regulations do not permit the building of a structure within 10 -feet of protected
trees, unless the approving authority says that it is okay to do so.
• Added that he approved the horizontal portion but did not consider it a structure or pavement.
• Said that subsequent to his decision, Mr. Breck appealed that decision and the Planning
Commission determined that it was indeed pavement.
Commissioner Barry pointed out that this is a legitimate process set in Code and that there is nothing
illegal in that series of occurrences.
Director Tom Sullivan agreed that this is a normal set of occurrences.
Mr. Mitch Cutler challenged that Director Sullivan is misleading the Commission in that no Arborist
report had been required prior to work beginning on the wall.
Chair Jackman asked Director Sullivan where the Commission should proceed now.
Director Tom Sullivan replied to allow interested members of the public to speak to this matter during
the remainder of the public hearing.
Ms. Holly Davies, 14478 Oak Place, Saratoga:
• Expressed her agreement with the comments made by Bill Breck.
• Asked that the bonds be secured immediately.
• Said that this is a huge project that has been going on for years.
• Stated that there are still eight large trees that need tree bonds.
• Said that the City should collect a penalty for the tens of thousands of dollars in damage to trees.
Commissioner Barry asked that Mr. Noodleman, Attorney for Mr. Mitch Cutler, who is standing in the
audience taking notes, be seated as she finds his behavior to be intimidating.
Mr. Alan Noodleman advised that as he suffers from five degenerating discs, remaining seated for any
long period of time is difficult and painful.
Commissioner Barry accepted Mr. Noodleman's explanation and relented in her request that he be
seated.
Mr. Alan King, 14472 Oak Place, Saratoga:
• Said that Tree 4 and 5 are on his property.
• Thanked the City Arborist and Planning Commission.
• Handed his own arborist's report, which states that trees are likely to decline in five years.
• Said that he had several conversations with Mr. Cutler.
• Urged the Planning Commission to adopt the recommendations and to put as much force into it as
the Planning Commission can.
Ms. Letha Matas, 20378 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, Saratoga:
• Stated that Mr. Cutler is destroying their property and placed a portable toilet next to their bedroom
window.
• Called Mr. Cutler a "naturally mean man" who has not discussed anything.
Saratoga Planning Commissic linutes of December 11, 2002 Page 8
• Asked to turn over the remainder of her time to speak to Mr. Breck.
Chair Jackman asked Ms. Matas if the portable toilet has been situated on her property.
Ms. Letha Matas replied no but that it is as close as it can get to her property.
Commissioner Garakani asked Ms. Matas how she sees this situation being solved.
Ms. Letha Matas replied by moving the potty and fixing the things he must fix. Said that there are all
kinds of things wrong. Mr. Cutler was pouring cement despite stop work orders. She said that he is not
fIRK�11YT1�
Commissioner Garakani told Ms. Matas that she did a great job expressing her view and did not need to
turn her time to speak over to Mr. Breck in order to get her point across.
Mr. Frank Matas, 20385 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, Saratoga:
• Stated that the wall has been constructed on their easement and that he would like to see it come
down.
• Asked that the remainder of his allotted time be given over to Mr. Breck.
Chair Jackman advised that speakers cannot simply give their time to speak over to others who have
already spoken but rather must speak for themselves.
Mr. Frank Matas:
• Said that he used to get along with Mr. Cutler for about one and a half years.
• Added that nowadays Mr. Cutler just does whatever he wants to do and the City just allows it.
Director Tom Sullivan asked if access is blocked.
Ms. Letha Matas said that trees have been planted and cars are parked in such a way as to block access.
Commissioner Barry asked what the purpose is for this easement.
Mr. Frank Matas replied as a turnaround.
Ms. Letha Matas added that they can no longer park their boat there while they had previously done so
for over 22 years.
Director Tom Sullivan cautioned that this easement is not an issue before the Commission this evening.
Ms. Elizabeth Lara, 18872 Devon Avenue, Saratoga:
• Said that she has resided here for four years and her dad has for 60 years.
• Said that it is shocking to see oak trees located on Oak Place being removed.
• Expressed surprise at the issuance of over the counter permits without Planning Commission
involvement.
• Stated that she has done some research, including from the City of Palo Alto and UC Davis.
• Said that benefits from trees include habitat, shading and screening.
Saratoga Planning Commissic linutes of December 11, 2002 Page 9
Commissioner Barry pointed out that a subcommittee of the Planning Commission has done a lot of
work to revise the City's Tree Ordinance, which has gone forward to the City Council.
Ms. Tracey Cutler, 14480 Oak Place, Saratoga:
• Said that one of the issues that most concerns her is comment made by the Planning Commission,
innuendoes that they have done things underhandedly or on the sly.
• Suggested that all issues are a way of backpedaling by the City to cover its mistakes.
• Said that she objected to references made by one Commissioner about Canary Palms not being
indigenous and therefore not a desirable tree to plant.
• Said that much of beauty is due to planting of non - indigenous materials in places such as Hakone
Gardens and Villa Montalvo.
• Said that this influence on the design of her property is unwarranted and that they should be
permitted to plant to their own personal taste.
• Asked the Planning Commission to reanalyze its position.
• Said that they had spoken with Mr. and Mrs. Matas prior to their project starting and the Matases
had loved their plans.
• Added that they had a friendly relationship with the Matases prior to construction and assured that
they have done nothing to their easement.
Commissioner Barry asked Ms. Cutler about her feelings over the health of trees.
Ms. Tracey Cutler replied that she could not address each problem as identified by Mr. Coate but
assured that they have done and will do whatever is possible to keep trees healthy.
Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that the Commission is simply dealing with violations and has
asked for mitigation on other types of projects in the past.
Ms. Tracey Cutler:
• Said that she understands but feels that boundaries have been overstepped.
• Expressed concern that it is being implied that they (the Cutlers) hate trees.
• Added that she does not want to be told what she can or cannot plant on her property as this would
be a further intrusion into private citizen's rights, something which she must take a stand on.
Commissioner Garakani stated that the cutting down or excessive trimming of trees and the improper
construction of this stone wall has brought about a lot of hardship. Asked how to fix this situation so
the hardship goes away.
Ms. Tracey Cutler assured that they will do what they can do but still it needs to be discussed as to what
they feel is reasonable.
Mr. Mitch Cutler said that he is happy to comply with most of the Arborist's requests but expects an
apology from the City for its illegal activities. With the resolution of the fence issue, he will get started
right away.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Cutler to what illegal activities he refers.
Saratoga Planning Commissic, Iinutes of December 11, 2002 Page 10
Mr. Mitch Cutler replied that this issue is between attorneys.
Commissioner Barry said that she is having a little trouble coming to terms with constructive comments
with the comments just heard. Pointed out that Mr. Cutler did not initially allow Barrie Coate onto his
property.
Mr. Mitch Cutler denied that and called this accusation a complete fabrication. He added that he simply
expected the appointment for Mr. Coate's site visit to be made through his attorney.
Commissioner Barry pointed out that once attorneys are involved things change.
Mr. Mitch Cutler replied if the attorneys work out the issues, he can move forward with mitigations.
Chair Jackman said that it appears that the attorneys need to work out issues prior to continuation.
Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the resolution under consideration is the result of what the
Commission asked to do. The City Attorney has helped prepare this resolution.
Commissioner Barry agreed that the Commission can discuss actions.
Ms. Tracey Cutler:
• Stated that all the neighbors are insinuating that her husband, Mitch, is a mean man and does not
care about others.
• Declared that this representation is not true.
• Pointed out that oftentimes problems arise when construction activity occurs.
• Reminded that prior to construction beginning, they had no problems with their neighbors.
• Said that this issue with the fence and the City (as well as one complainant) is how the contention
began.
• Said that they had been open about their plans and indicated a willingness to work with neighbors.
• Said that this situation has been unfair to them.
Mr. Mitch Cutler:
• Agreed that their relationship with their neighbors was great for three years.
• Added that since that time, difficulties that have arisen are mostly due to one neighbor who has
rallied the others.
• Suggested that the City and Planning Department be held accountable.
Mr. Bill Breck:
• Stated that Mr. Cutler feels he has the right to do anything.
• Pointed out that he once smashed a surveyor's equipment.
• Agreed that the easement lawsuit is a separate issue from this easement concern.
• Asked the Commission to stick to the Code, which states that when trees are damaged and/or
destroyed, they must be replaced with similar trees.
• Said that he is very concerned that this requirement will be ignored.
• Asked if the 10 neighbors adversely impacted must file lawsuits to get appropriate action by the
City.
Saratoga Planning Commissic,. .1inutes of December 11, 2002 Page 11
• Stated that this has been a horrid summer with numerous violations by the Cutlers that will result in
12 years of trees dying to look forward to.
• Declared that he expects the requests outlined in the document he distributed to be incorporated into
the resolution. If not, they will be back.
• Said that it has been a long time to wait for any restitution.
Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 8:35 p.m.
Commissioner Barry asked Director Sullivan if he has had an opportunity to review the document
distributed this evening by Mr. Breck.
Director Tom Sullivan replied no.
Commissioner Barry:
• Said that in it Mr. Breck suggests that there are omissions in penalties and recommendations for
drainage and removal of fill.
• Stated that she would like to have the City Attorney's reaction, that the Planning Commission
could discuss mitigation issues and the City Arborist can look into drainage and fill issues raised.
Director Tom Sullivan:
• Reminded that this item was before the Commission in August as an appeal of an administrative
decision regarding building within 10 feet of a protected tree.
• Added that the Commission granted that appeal and directed the City's Arborist to prepare a report
with mitigations and a determination whether the horizontal portion of the wall is best removed or
left in place as well as to establish a valuation on the trees.
• Said that Barrie Coate was directed to use the most recent report edition in establishing valuation.
• Said that if there are penalties imposed, citations are issued, which are infractions. To impose an
infraction the activity should be immediate or witnessed.
• Added that the penalties imposed were agreed to between Mr. Cutler and the City Attorney.
• Cautioned that the Commission needs to separate this request for penalties from what is before the
Commission this evening.
Commissioner Barry:
• Said that in general she is happy to go with Barrie Coate's recommendations but would like to add a
condition that if valuation has not been based on the most recent table, it should be corrected to do
so.
• Added that soil removal should be done is a way that guarantees good drainage.
• Said that during the bonding period, if construction is done in the area (within 10 feet of rootline)
use of platforms will be required as a mitigation measure.
Commissioner Hunter said that she is being very silent this evening because she is not sure what to do.
Said that she finds this situation to be overwhelming and will continue to listen carefully.
Commissioner Kurasch asked about the most recent version of the resolution specifically the time
frame for accomplishment. Stated that how mitigation will be accomplished is an important issue to her
and supported inspections by the City at supportable intervals.
Saratoga Planning Commissic finutes of December 11, 2002 Page 12
Director Tom Sullivan pointed out the timeframes included within the conditions with a January 1St
deadline, no later than 15 days, no later than 30 days, February 28th, etc.
Commissioner Barry suggested the creation of a compliance calendar.
Chair Jackman agreed that this would be helpful.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if litigation is the next step if compliance is not achieved.
Director Tom Sullivan replied yes.
Commissioner Kurasch expressed agreement with Commissioner Barry. Added that installation of any
additional hardscape should be prohibited under said tree canopies.
Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that condition 9 requires a landscape plan be submitted for review
by the City Arborist and that soil removal shall be done in a manner that does not further impact the
trees with flooding or ponding of storm water.
Commissioner Kurasch said that she likes hearing the public feedback and reminded that the
Commission tries to come together for the public good.
Commissioner Garakani:
• Said he would like the opportunity to speak to two things.
• Said that law and regulations have to be obeyed by all.
• Stated that it appears Mr. Cutler was under the impression he had approvals he needed to proceed
while the neighbors feel their interests are in trouble.
• Suggested that this is not worth fighting with neighbors and that these neighbors need to get
together and go forward, finding what can be done to make things better and working together.
Commissioner Hunter:
• Stated that she would support the resolution with the additions proposed.
• Said that she is sorry that this has happened.
• Pointed out that the Commissioners are all citizens of Saratoga too and are appointed to try to do a
job here.
Chair Jackman suggested approving the resolution and going forward with the mitigations.
Commission Kurasch said that work needs to be done to improve the process and asked staff for the
purpose for the bond.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that the bond is in the event that one of four trees should die during the
bond period.
Chair Jackman asked how long this bond would be in effect.
Director Tom Sullivan replied nine years.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if such a bond is routine.
Saratoga Planning Commissic. linutes of December 11, 2002 Page 13
Director Tom Sullivan said that bonds are not uncommon for trees potentially impacted by
construction, both on the subject property and/or on adjacent parcels. Asked if the Commission would
like a critical start date table in the resolution.
Chair Jackman replied yes.
Commissioner Barry:
• Called it a compliance calendar.
• Said that it is clear the decision may not please either side.
• Reminded that the legal aspects are out of the purview of the Commission.
• Said that there is a common value held by residents to protect trees, particularly oak trees.
• Agreed that something went very wrong and that the Planning Commission has tried to mitigate that
damage, including working to change the Tree Ordinance.
• Expressed support to lean more heavily on prevention of future tree damage.
Chair Jackman restated that the Commission supports the resolution with the addition of a critical start
date /compliance table, soil removal and the inclusion of the six items for the fifth tree.
Commissioner Barry reminded that the valuation table in effect has been called into question.
Director Tom Sullivan said that whichever valuation table was in effect when Barrie Coate performed
his review is the appropriate one to use.
Commissioner Barry asked about the inclusion of a requirement for use of platforms for the protection
of trees in the event of any construction near the root line.
Director Tom Sullivan suggested that this could be a subset of Condition 9.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the
Planning Commission accepted the recommendations of the City Arborist with the
added conditions stated by the Commissioners as it pertains to the mitigation of
damage to trees on the property located at 14480 Oak Place, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman and Kurasch
NOES: None
ABSENT: Roupe and Zutshi
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Jackman called for a break at 8:59 p.m.
Chair Jackman reconvened the meeting at 9:10 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.2
Saratoga Planning Commissic. ,Iinutes of December 11, 2002 Page 14
APPLICATION #02 -138 (517 -08 -062) — BROWN, 14775 Oak Street: Request for Variance
approval to allow a new basement to be built under the existing house. The existing house intrudes into
required setbacks; therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the basement to also intrude
into the required setbacks. The existing house size above ground will not change. (LIVINGSTONE)
Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows:
• Informed that the applicants seek a Variance to allow a new basement to be constructed below an
existing single- family resident, a house that intrudes the front and exterior side setbacks.
• Said that the Variance is required to allow the basement to also intrude into the setbacks, beneath
the existing footprint of the house.
• Said that there are three findings that must be made and staff feels this project meets all three.
• Stated that the finding of special circumstances can be made in the affirmative. The lot is unique in
both size and shape. It is half the size of the typical lot in the district. It is a restricted lot since it is
a corner lot. Denial of a Variance would deprive this owner a common building practice of locating
a basement below the footprint of a house.
• Said that this request can be found not to represent a special privilege. This is a non - conforming
corner lot with an existing building. This basement will not alter the physical appearance of the
house while allowing the owner more living space.
• Advised that this proposal does not represent a detriment to public health, safety or welfare.
• Said that no trees on the property are proposed for removal and a $2,500 tree protection bond will
be secured.
• Informed that no negative correspondence has been received and nine letters of support from
neighbors were received.
• Said that the applicant has provided a site plan that has been stamped by a licensed surveyor.
• Recommended approval of a Variance.
Commissioner Barry asked why the square footage is not identical for the first and basement levels.
Asked if there is a condition regarding construction plan conditions for trucks and dirt.
Chair Jackman asked about a zero setback on Oak.
Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that the zero setback is not against the street but rather
against the property line.
Mr. Bill Brown, 14775 Oak Street, Saratoga:
• Said that he is a 26 -year resident of this home, which he remodeled eight years ago.
• Said that his family, including two children, needs more square footage.
• Stated that he is a basement specialist and that installing a basement is the logical way to achieve
the additional square footage.
• Made himself available for questions and said that some of his neighbors are present.
Chair Jackman stated that this is one of the best and most complete proposals the Commission has seen.
Commissioner Kurasch asked how long it would take to install this basement.
Mr. Bill Brown:
• Replied about three months and that it would take about two to three weeks to dig it out.
Saratoga Planning Commissic, .1inutes of December 11, 2002 Page 15
• Assured that they would keep the neighbors informed of their construction activities.
• Advised that he installs basements in Los Altos, Palo Alto and other communities.
Commissioner Hunter thanked Mr. Brown for providing an article on basements.
Mr. Bill Brown said that a basement is the logical way to go.
Commissioner Garakani asked for a cost comparison in installing a basement over going up.
Mr. Bill Brown replied that it is more costly to install a basement over building up.
Mr. Ray Persico, 14761 Sixth Street, Saratoga:
• Expressed support for the Brown application.
• Said that he had needed such a Variance himself and hopes to see this one approved.
Mr. John Hollingsworth, 14739 Oak Street, Saratoga:
• Identified himself as the next door neighbor and expressed his support.
• Stated that he also had submitted a written letter of support.
Marilyn & Walt Marchetti, 20701 St. Charles, Saratoga:
• Said that they are neighbors.
• Advised that Mr. Brown constructed their own basement about nine years ago at which time they
too obtain a Variance.
• Stated that they can testify that Mr. Brown builds good basements.
• Said that they are happy when neighbors improve their homes as this improves the neighborhood
overall.
Commissioner Barry asked the Marchettis about parking conditions on St. Charles.
Ms. Marilyn Marchetti said that it is as bad as it has always been.
Mr. Walt Marchetti said that, as it is a very narrow street, parking should not be allowed along it.
Chair Jackman suggested that this issue be referred to the Public Safety Department.
Director Tom Sullivan said if the Commission so wishes he will make the referral.
Ms. Marilyn Marchetti added that if a fire truck were to come down the street while cars are parked,
they could not get through.
Mr. Jerry Gurley, 14724 Oak Street, Saratoga:
• Said that he has resided in his home for 33 years and knows the Browns as excellent neighbors.
• Stated that they are nice people and that everyone likes them.
• Declared them a credit to the City.
Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 9:30 p.m.
Saratoga Planning Commissio.. .iinutes of December 11, 2002 Page 16
Commissioner Garakani said that this is a very good project and that he is all for it. It meets the
requirements for a Variance and he is happy to approve it.
Commissioner Kurasch said that this is the kind of supportable project she likes to see all the time and
that it should be cloned. Agreed that it is very supportable.
Chair Jackman said that she is very supportive too and prefers a basement over a second story.
Commissioner Hunter said that she too is totally in support and finds a basement is better than building
up. Agreed that this is a nice application.
Commissioner Barry agreed and said that it is clear that staff applied strict interpretations to make the
three necessary findings. This proposal meets all the tests and fits into the City's philosophy to build a
basement rather than building up as it allows the neighborhood stay the way that it is. Commended the
neighbors on their positive relationship.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the
Planning Commission approved a Variance (Application #02 -138) to allow a new
basement to be built under the existing house, which intrudes into the required
setbacks, on property located at 14775 Oak Street, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman and Kurasch
NOES: None
ABSENT: Roupe and Zutshi
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.3
GATEWAY DESIGN GUIDELINES: Design Guidelines for the Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road Gateway
have been prepared to guide new development in this district. The streetscape improvement plan has
been adopted to address improvements within the Public street right -of -way to create a new northern
gateway to the City. The Guidelines provide direction for the redevelopment within the Gateway
district. (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF OCTOBER 23, 2002) (SULLIVAN)
Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows:
• Reminded that this item was continued from the meeting of October 23, 2002, as only four
Commissioners were present at that meeting.
• Said that meetings, workshops and study sessions have been held.
• Said that the progression of the recommendations is depicted through the multiple columns. The
fifth column reflects the recommendations of the Commission generated at a Study Session.
• Gave a rundown on the process, which included additional Task Force meetings on July 26 and
August 23.
• Offered a new option to the Commission, which would be to recommend to Council that the street
improvement aspect, done and going to bid for spring /summer construction, is enough and that
these Gateway Design Guidelines may no longer be necessary.
Saratoga Planning Commissic, linutes of December 11, 2002 Page 17
• Reiterated that the public area is gong to get done in the next year and that these proposed Design
Guidelines are for private facades.
Commissioner Kurasch asked why they were implemented in the first place.
Director Tom Sullivan said that there was a desire to have a specific plan in the Gateway area.
Commissioner Barry asked about the impact on mixed use.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that citywide standards for mixed -use zoning is pending and that a
Citywide Sign Ordinance update could deal with signs.
Commissioner Hunter asked about lighting issues.
Director Tom Sullivan said that this issue too could be done Citywide.
Commissioner Kurasch asked what appeal process would be in effect with these Gateway Design
Guidelines.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that a Design Guideline functions like an Ordinance and if an applicant
exceeds 50- percent trigger that results in hardship, a Variance can be requested.
Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 9:42 p.m.
Mr. Al Saah, 12200 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga:
• Identified his property as being one of three parcels that comprise Park Saratoga.
• Said that he had been excited about the prospect of these guidelines and appreciates the efforts of
Director Sullivan and his staff. However, he now has concerns.
• Said that he wrote a letter two weeks ago outlining his concerns.
• Said that the proposed buffering conditions would be detrimental to him, as he would lose 18 of 37
parking spaces.
• Added that with these guidelines, he could not rebuild what is there now.
• Said that this could result in a loss of property value of about 50 to 60 percent in the future.
• Said he supports a five -foot setback but not a 20 -foot buffering setback.
• Recommended approval of the Gateway Design Guidelines without the 20 -foot setback
requirement.
Chair Jackman asked Mr. Saah if his property is triangular.
Mr. Saah replied yes.
Chair Jackman asked Mr. Saah if there are lots of parcels with similar conditions to his.
Mr. Saah replied no.
Chair Jackman asked for the potential of a Variance.
Saratoga Planning Commissic /linutes of December 11, 2002 Page 18
Director Tom Sullivan sought to clarify that Mr. Saah's property is actually a rectangular shaped lot and
the buffer is five feet while the setback is 30 feet. What is being discussed that would be different is
not to allow parking within the required buffer area.
Commissioner Kurasch asked how viable such a Variance request would be.
Director Tom Sullivan said that this offers good grounds for a Variance.
Commissioner Barry said that a Variance might be a vehicle to deal with these guideline requirements.
Mr. Saah:
• Accused Commissioner Barry of supporting the Guidelines since the beginning and said that he
should not be required to obtain a Variance due to an unfair condition.
• Suggested accepting the guidelines without the 20 -foot buffer zone.
• Pointed out that there has never been a survey done on the impacts on properties.
Director Tom Sullivan reminded that the Mixed Use Guidelines were set aside by the Planning
Commission until after the completion of the Gateway Design Guidelines.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if it is possible to put parking in another location and put the building
back.
Ms. Sue Mallory, 12258 Kirkdale Drive, Saratoga:
• Said that she has resided in her home since 1967 and served on the Task Force since November
1995.
• Added that originally both residential and business property owners were represented with the intent
to redevelop and beautify the area.
• Advised that most recently meetings were more heavily attended by business owners. The July
meeting was heavily attended by business owners.
• Gave examples of homes impacted by having commercial building constructed adjacent to
residential with the impacts on loss of privacy.
• Said that she too is unhappy with the proposed buffers and setbacks but because they are not
enough.
Commissioner Barry asked Ms. Mallory for her idea on what would be adequate.
Ms. Sue Mallory replied more than 25 feet.
Commissioner Garakani asked what buffering would be required if the commercial building is only one
story.
Ms. Sue Mallory replied that she did not know.
Mr. Jeff Walker, 20451 Seagull Way, Saratoga:
• Said that he has commercial properties on two sides now.
• Said that when a major remodel consisting of 50 percent or more occurs, he wants to see current
standards upheld.
Saratoga Planning Commissit- Qinutes of December 11, 2002 Page 19
• Said that he would like to see the Guidelines go forward with the requirement for design review and
with no parking allow in the back if next to residential uses but also supported Director Sullivan's
recommendation of putting these guidelines on hold for one year.
Director Tom Sullivan clarified that he offered this as another option but not as a recommendation.
Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Walker about the potential impacts to a commercial property owner
in losing use of 20 feet of their property.
Mr. Jeff Walker agreed that this is a tough call to have to make.
Ms. Kristin Davis, 20344 Zorka Avenue, Saratoga:
• Said that she is here as a resident of the Gateway area having lived here her whole life.
• Said that she is a former business owner on Gateway.
• Reminded that her family had nothing to do with the construction of residential units at the rear of
Azule Crossing but rather sold the property.
• Advised that her grandfather bought this land in 1937 and it was commercial at that time and
probably before.
• Said that she appreciates the residents' concerns as she lives in a one -story house with a huge two -
story home located behind her.
• Said that the intent of the Gateway Design Guidelines is to enhance a business district.
• Added that she too has been involved since November 1995 but that discussions had been held for
decades. Many involved have dropped out saying, "why bother ?"
• Stated that commercial property owners have rights and are part of the community also. This
represents a changing of the rules and their livelihoods are at stake.
• Said that all sides have made compromises and agreed that perhaps these Guidelines may need to be
put aside.
• Said that this issue is important to everyone involved and that she does not want to see anyone
suffer.
Mr. Jack Mallory, 12258 Kirkdale Drive, Saratoga:
• Mentioned that he was present at the last public hearing date.
• Said that he is a representative of the residents who attended meetings over the years.
• Said that a letter dated October 11, 2002, outlines their concerns.
• Said he has reviewed the recommendations and is in disagreement.
• Suggested that the Gateway Guidelines do not represent the residents and that the City's failure to
appoint a balanced committee from the beginning has complicated the process and caused a failure
to reach agreement.
• Declared that he loves the City and agrees with its long -range goals.
• Expressed respect for the Planning Commission's hard work but said he does not feel its
recommendations represent the interests of residents.
• Asked that their names be removed as offering any endorsement to these Design Guidelines.
• Added that he is unhappy with the proposed option to table these Guidelines altogether.
• Said that this area has been treated as a second class area.
Chair Jackman asked Mr. Mallory what his suggestions are to fix this situation.
Saratoga Planning Commissit- /Qinutes of December 11, 2002 Page 20
Mr. Jack Mallory said clear objectives must be developed and the participants on the Task Force cannot
be changed midway through the process.
Chair Jackman said that she agreed that a balanced Task Force membership is important.
Mr. Jack Mallory said that he had had very high hopes.
Chair Jackman assured Mr. Mallory of her belief that the Planning Commission can come up with
goals.
Commissioner Barry said that it appears Mr. Mallory has concern with all possible outcomes. He does
not want to see the Gateway Guidelines simply set aside and he does not want to start all over again.
Director Tom Sullivan reminded that the Planning Commission's action will represent a
recommendation of action for Council to consider.
Commissioner Barry said that the next step is a hearing before the Planning Commission and asked the
other Commissioners for their preferences, be it the alternative to set aside these draft Gateway
Guidelines in lieu of a City wide Mixed Use Ordinance, which would be a broader set of guidelines.
Director Tom Sullivan said that that this is one more alternative recommendation that the Commission
can forward on to Council.
Commissioner Kurasch said it appears the residents have both process and product concerns. Said that
she is not certain exactly what they are seeking per their memo.
Mr. Bill Guthrie, 20422 Seagull Way, Saratoga:
• Thanked the Commission for taking on this difficult and thankless task.
• Said that the Gateway Design Guidelines includes takings from both residents and commercial
interests.
Commissioner Kurasch stated that these guidelines only do so much and Design Review does the rest.
Mr. Bill Guthrie said that he agreed that the most important issue is the distances between the
structures.
Commissioner Kurasch asked what the existing setbacks are.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that right now the distance between structures is 30 feet.
Mr. Bill Guthrie said that the proposed changes in the Gateway Design Guidelines are detrimental to
residents in this respect.
Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 10:42 p.m.
Commissioner Garakani said that it is part of the Planning Commission's job to look at these draft
Gateway Design Guidelines closely and not to simply pass them along to Council to work on issues the
Saratoga Planning Commissic .1inutes of December 11, 2002 Page 21
Commission should have worked out. Suggested offering benefits to the commercial uses to make up
for the buffering requirements.
Director Tom Sullivan cautioned the Commission not to mix up the Gateway Design Guidelines with
Mixed -Use Guidelines.
Commissioner Garakani suggested that the Commission work more on this and make the residents,
commercial property owners and City all happy.
Director Tom Sullivan said that one thing both the residential and commercial property owners agree
upon is the need to provide some parking in the front.
Commissioner Kurasch said it is important to find some consensus. Suggested a 20 -foot setback with
the second story set back in a step back fashion.
Director Tom Sullivan said that this is what is proposed for the rear and side with a 10 -foot minimum
front setback. Cautioned that there is no reason to hurry and that another Study Session can be
arranged.
Commissioner Barry said that if the Commission elects to have another Study Session, it should be
because the Commission thinks the document is close. Said that it has been heard tonight that the
process did not lead to a document that those who worked on it feel good about.
Chair Jackman expressed support for the idea of an additional Commission Study Session in order to
incorporate some things heard this evening into a compromise.
Commissioner Garakani pointed out that if a specific individual project was under consideration here,
there would be lots of freedom.
Commissioner Hunter:
• Said that there was some reason seven years ago to form a Task Force.
• Said that this is so difficult to consider.
• Added that the idea was to enhance the commercial uses and reminded that this City is a bedroom
community and not a commercial community.
• Stated that these differences appear almost impossible to solve and that all the Study Sessions in
the world may not solve these differences.
• Said that initially she had felt this process was going along too fast. At this point, she said it is time
to make up minds and send this issue on to Council, who are elected officials while this
Commission is not an elected body.
• Stated that she is not sure the Commission can solve these problems.
Chair Jackman said that the Commission can polish them up enough to send on to Council.
Commissioner Hunter expressed that she is ready to send the Guidelines on to Council right now and let
them be Solomon. Added that Council is elected to make the hard decisions on behalf of the
community. Reminded that the City needs a commercial tax base.
Commissioner Kurasch said that the proposed Guidelines represent a substantial improvement.
Saratoga Planning Commissic, linutes of December 11, 2002 Page 22
Chair Jackman expressed why not wait to proceed until the streetscape is completed.
Commissioner Kurasch proposed having an exclusion for those properties that do not fit or develop a
formula whereby the area of net loss resulting from a required buffer shall not exceed 10 percent.
Director Tom Sullivan pointed out Part 2, Page 3, regarding the applicability section whereas over 50
percent in improvements represents the thresh hold from which requiring compliance would kick in.
Suggested that the Commission might want to add more criteria and/or a method for issuance of a
waiver.
Commissioner Garakani suggested a simple plan to have existing property owners, both residential and
commercial, plant buffering landscape immediately so that it begins to mature to a point to offer
sufficient screening in the event that the commercial properties redevelop in the future.
Commissioner Barry reminded that these relate to future development.
Commissioner Hunter stated that she likes Commissioner Kurasch's idea to give an out if a property
cannot accommodate a buffer.
Director Tom Sullivan said that he is not in a position to develop those sorts of standards tonight but
understands the general gist that the Commission would like to have an waiver process under the
appropriate conditions.
Commissioner Hunter said that Al Saah was eloquent in presenting his case before the Commission and
can do so again before Council.
Commissioner Barry expressed support for forwarding the draft Gateway Design Guidelines to Council
with the addition of minimum standards for lots which would be compelled to comply, including lot
length, width and area. Added that the Mixed -Use standards will relate to the entire City from the
Gateway to the Village.
Director Tom Sullivan added also the PA zones, all commercial and office zones are also potential
mixed -use areas.
Commissioner Barry said that it will be harder to come up with guidelines for all areas.
Director Tom Sullivan said that guidelines speak to intent.
Commissioner Barry suggested general guideline statements with implementation based upon Design
Guideline issues with all specifics off the table.
Chair Jackman expressed her support to move this item on to Council.
Director Tom Sullivan said that findings will be needed to help guide future Commissioners to
implement goals and policies.
Saratoga Planning Commissio. _ linutes of December 11, 2002 Page 23
Commissioner Kurasch said that she is comfortable having more specifics contained within the
Guidelines, saying that she finds them to be clarifying.
Director Tom Sullivan said that the Gateway Design Guidelines would be more specific than the
Village and Residential Design Guidelines.
Commissioner Barry said that she likes that these Guidelines focus specifically on the Gateway.
Chair Jackman said to send the matter on to Council.
Commissioner Kurasch said that she has more areas of concern including the fact that there is no
consensus on the illumination of signs.
Commissioner Barry said that signs should be pulled out of these guidelines and dealt with on a
citywide basis.
Commissioner Kurasch said she has a simple suggestion to page 14 regarding landscaping to require
36 -inch box trees to achieve a 20 -foot minimum height. Asked if shrubs are included or only trees.
Added that there is no consensus on buffers and setbacks.
Commissioner Barry said that security lighting (page 16, part 13) should include the added language
"shall be the less obtrusive possible." Added that if asked should the Commission deal further with the
issues of setback and buffers, her opinion is no.
Commissioner Hunter agreed that these issues are too complex.
Director Tom Sullivan said that the necessary text will be provided with the drawings and applicability
standards.
Commissioner Barry asked if Council wanted to send this matter back to the Commission or Task
Force, whether they would have the option to do so.
Director Tom Sullivan replied yes.
Commissioner Barry said that if the Council wants more work from the Commission, it will be sent
back.
Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the Commission has participated in the process over the last six
months.
Chair Jackman agreed that it is time for it to move on.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the
Planning Commission forwarded on the Design Guidelines for the Saratoga -
Sunnyvale Road Gateway to Council for its consideration and final approval, by
the following roll call vote:
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman and Kurasch
NOES: None
Saratoga Planning Commissic, iinutes of December 11, 2002 Page 24
ABSENT: Roupe and Zutshi
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.4
APPLICATION #02 -172 (CITYWIDE): Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding Second Dwelling
Units for various R -1 Residential Zones. The proposed Ordinance Amendment will implement both the
City's Housing Element and Assembly Bill 1866. The Housing Element anticipates that 45 new second
dwelling units would be constructed over the next five years. Assembly Bill 1866 requires the City to
treat applications for second dwelling units in a ministerial manner. This new law does not allow the
City to conduct a Public hearing to consider the proposed new second dwelling. (SULLIVAN)
Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the rules of the game have been changed for a significant part of the ABAG mandated
housing units, secondary units, with the passage of State Assembly Bill 1866, which will be passed
into law next year.
• Informed that with this legislation, a City will no longer have discretionary review of second units.
• Added that standards can be established including issues such as parking, access, number of
bedrooms and appearance but these issues must be yes and/or no issues and not issues allowing
discretion. If an application complies with the basic standards set forth, a building permit must be
issued. If not, no permit is issued.
Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 11:30 p.m.
Mr. Tom Corson, 18337 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga:
• Declared that he is in awe of the Planning Commission, having been present all evening, amazed by
the work it does.
• Offered his commendations and thanks.
• Said that he hopes whatever could be done would be done to protect small lots.
• Recommended adding a requirement that any time a home is completely torn down, that request be
forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration prior to approval of the demolition.
• Added that the noticing was ludicrous for this home on Swarthmore, having been sent only to ten
property owners.
Director Tom Sullivan reminded that changes to require this action would have to be made to the
Design Review Section of the Ordinance. At the present time, if the replacement home is less than 18
feet high and/or less than 6,000 square feet, such action is not required.
Commissioner Barry asked if lot size can be a criteria for allowing or disallowing second units under
this new legislation.
Director Tom Sullivan said that no lot size can be excluded outright but that all existing Zoning
Ordinance requirements for a particular zoning designation would have to be met, including coverage,
FAR and setbacks.
Saratoga Planning Commissk tinutes of December 11, 2002 Page 25
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the
Planning Commission recommended approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment
that will implement both the City's Housing Element and Assembly Bill 1866
regarding how the City will treat applications for second dwelling units in a
ministerial manner without the requirement of a public hearing, by the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman and Kurasch
NOES: None
ABSENT: Roupe and Zutshi
ABSTAIN: None
DIRECTOR'S ITEMS
Director Tom Sullivan reminded the Commissioners that the December 25, 2002, meeting has been
cancelled. The next meeting will be held on January 8, 2003.
COMMISSION ITEMS
Commissioner Hunter advised that the Purdue house denied by the Commission was appealed. Council
upheld the appeal and overturned the Commission's denial. Asked that Council refer such situations
back so allow more extensive Design Review.
Director Tom Sullivan said that concerns of the Commission need to be carefully articulated within a
Resolution for Denial to deal with such circumstances as having an appeal upheld by Council.
COMMUNICATIONS
Written: Facsimile communication from Mitch Cutler requesting a Study Session with the Planning
Commission regarding a Variance application for fence height.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that Mr. Mitch Cutler is seeking a Study Session with the Commission.
Chair Jackman stated that she feels any such discussion needs to be held in a public arena.
Commissioner Barry agreed and said that the Commission needs the benefit of a staff report and that
this is not a Study Session type issue.
Director Tom Sullivan agreed with Commissioner Barry.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Chair Jackman adjourned the meeting at 11:47 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday,
January 8, 2003, to begin at 7 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, November 13, 2002
PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Acting Chair Roupe called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Garakani, Hunter, Roupe and Zutshi
Absent: Commissioners Barry, Jackman and Kurasch
Staff: Director Tom Sullivan and Planner Christy Oosterhous
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of October 23, 2002.
As there were too few Commissioners present who were eligible to vote to adopt the regular minutes
from the October 23, 2002, Planning Commission meeting, consideration of the minutes for that
meeting were continued to the next meeting on December 11, 2002.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no Oral Communication Items.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this
meeting was properly posted on November 7, 2002.
REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS
Acting Chair Roupe announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by
filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the
decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b).
Saratoga Planning Commissio. .inutes of November 13, 2002 Page 2
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO.1
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL #02 -053, APPLICATION #01 -044 (403 -28 -034) — AZIZI, 18360
Purdue: Denial of Design Review application to construct a two -story single - family residence on an
8,040 square foot lot. The floor area of the proposed residence and attached two -car garage is 2,923
square feet. The maximum height of the residence would be 20 feet. The site is zoned R -1- 10,000
(OOSTERHOUS)
Acting Chair Roupe removed this item from Consent to be heard as a Public Hearing Item since there is
a member of the audience wishing to address the Commission on this matter.
Mr. Tom Corson, 18337 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga:
• Thanked the Commission for rejecting this application.
• Advised that he has lived in this neighborhood for 25 years and has significant concerns over what
types of construction is being approved.
• Pointed out that the neighborhood consists of smaller homes, from 1,400 to 1,600 square feet.
• Said that he feels strongly that the neighborhood's character should be preserved.
• Encouraged the Commission to keep up the good work as done with the rejection of this proposal.
Ms. Elizabeth Lara, 18324 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga:
• Identified herself as her father's representative, who owns a home in this neighborhood.
• Said that she found out today about the Purdue project and is present this evening to obtain more
information.
• Stated that she is pleased that this proposal was denied.
• Said that she was raised in this area and is concerned about architectural compatibility.
• Declared that she does not want to see this neighborhood turn into another El Quito Park type
neighborhood.
• Stated that a house recently approved on Swarthmore is more than two times larger than the other
homes in the neighborhood.
• Suggested that there should be ways to rein in initial approvals that are not compatible with
neighboring homes.
• Expressed appreciation to the Commission and sought guidance on what she can do to further her
cause.
Commissioner Zutshi asked Ms. Lara when the project on Swarthmore was approved.
Ms. Elizabeth Lara:
• Replied that the large home was approved by staff in October of this year.
• Added that she had just learned about the project and the 10 -day appeal period has already passed.
• Said that she has a petition signed by 26 neighbors who do not support that project.
• Said that they are concerned about architectural approvals occurring administratively without
coming before the Planning Commission.
• Questioned how a home can be doubled in size and not require Commission review.
Saratoga Planning Commissio. _inutes of November 13, 2002 Page 3
Acting Chair Roupe thanked Ms. Lara for her comments and advised that the Commission is not in a
position to comment on this approval. Asked Director Tom Sullivan and Planner Christy Oosterhous to
address Ms. Lara's concerns.
Planner Christy Oosterhous:
• Advised that the concerns and comments raised by Ms. Elizabeth Lara were received after the
appeal period had passed.
• Added that the applicant has been asked to revise the front elevation of the home.
• Stated that the home meets the criteria for review through the Administrative Process. It is less
than 18 feet in height, a single -story and is a plain stucco bungalow design.
Acting Chair Roupe pointed out that a number of applications submitted to the City are subject to
Administrative Approval. It is not unusual that this particular matter was not brought to the Planning
Commission for review.
Ms. Elizabeth Lara:
• Expressed concerns about features such as large columns and an eight- foot -long window located
within four feet of a fence.
• Added that this is the first home on their street that has been torn down and all landscaping
removed. This was done very quickly.
• Said that they are trying to organize themselves.
Acting Chair Roupe suggested that the Director could look into the matter.
Director Tom Sullivan cautioned that the Commission is reaching the nexus of how far this matter can
be discussed this evening particularly since it is not even a part of this project that is on the agenda.
Acting Chair Roupe encouraged Ms. Elizabeth Lara to discuss her concerns further with Director Tom
Sullivan and Planner Christy Oosterhous.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the
Planning Commission approved the Resolution of Denial ( #02 -053) for Application
#01 -044 for property located at 18360 Purdue, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Hunter, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: Garakani
ABSENT: Barry, Jackman and Kurasch
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO.2
Application #02 -190 — (397 -01 -012), SAINT ARCHANGEL MICHAEL SERBIAN ORTHODOX
CHURCH, 18930 Allendale Avenue: Request for General Plan Land Use Map Amendment from
Residential Very Low Density to Quasi- Public Facility. The proposed General Plan Land Use Map
Amendment would allow a parcel that is presently designated Residential Very Low Density and
containing a single- family dwelling to be designated Quasi - Public Facility. The change in designation
is requested in order to facilitate a lot line change, which would allow the parcel in question to become
Saratoga Planning Commissio. minutes of November 13, 2002 Page 4
part of the adjacent Saint Archangel Michael Church facility. An Environmental Initial Study has been
prepared. (WELSH) (REQUEST TO BE CONTINUED TO DATE UNCERTAIN).
Acting Chair Roupe advised that there is a request for a continuance to a date uncertain for this agenda
item.
Director Tom Sullivan elaborated by saying that the applicant will seek to package the whole project
into one application. This project will be renoticed when it comes forward again.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.3
GATEWAY DESIGN GUIDELINES: Design Guidelines for the Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road Gateway
have been prepared to guide new development in this district. The streetscape improvement plan has
been adopted to address improvements within the Public street right -of -way to create a new northern
gateway to the City. The Guidelines provide direction for the redevelopment within the Gateway
district. (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2002) (SULLIVAN)
Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the Commission has discussed the Gateway Design Guidelines twice.
Recommended that this Public Hearing on the Guidelines be continued to the December 11, 2002,
meeting to allow more Commissioners to be present.
Stated that the Gateway Design Guidelines warrants having a larger body available to fully discuss
it.
Acting Chair Roupe stated that this would represent a continuance to a date certain.
Commissioner Hunter pointed out that there are people present this evening that may like the
opportunity to speak about the issue.
Director Tom Sullivan said that it is possible to take public testimony if the Commission would like to
do so.
Acting Chair Roupe opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 7:26 p.m.
Mr. John Mallory, 12258 Kirkdale Drive, Saratoga:
• Said he was disappointed that this process would not continue tonight.
• Stated that he would return on December 11, 2002.
Commissioner Hunter thanked Mr. Mallory for his email communications.
Acting Chair Roupe stated that it is appropriate not to rush to judgement on this matter.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.4
Saratoga Planning Commissio. .inutes of November 13, 2002 Page 5
Application #SD -01 -001 & ED -01 -003 — (397 -27 -029), JAVANMARD /ASGARI, 20440 Arbeleche
Lane: The applicant requests Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide one parcel into two building
sites. The existing parcel is 27,661 square feet (net) and contains an existing single - family. Proposed
Parcel A is 11,982 (net) square feet. The proposed Parcel B is 15,769 (net) square feet. The existing
single - family dwelling is to be demolished. One single - family dwelling is proposed on each parcel.
The project site contains a riparian corridor, the Saratoga Creek, and several mature trees. The
proposed parcels are located in the R -M -4,000 zoning district. The General Plan designation for the
proposed parcels is Multi - Family Residential. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared.
(OOSTERHOUS)
Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicant is seeking approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide one parcel
into two with building sites on each parcel.
• Stated that the existing house would be demolished and a new single - family residence constructed
on each parcel.
• Informed that the property is located on the Saratoga Creek border and is zoned Multi- Family
Residential. Multi - Family Residential and Commercial uses are located in the immediate area.
• Said that the maximum height for Lot A is proposed at 28 feet, 6 inches and would be a two -story
home consisting of 3,800 square feet.
• Said that the maximum height for Lot B is 28 feet and would be a two -story home consisting of
3,900 square feet.
• Described the 75 -foot setback requirement for the riparian corridor.
• Pointed out that the creation of two smaller parcels from one parcel would result in the creation of
two parcels that would have constraints as far as the development of the parcels.
• Discussed the Initial Study prepared and said that staff has determined that there are significant
impacts as a result of this proposal.
• Added that the proposal is not consistent with the Municipal Code regarding development within a
riparian corridor and the proposed removal of 12 redwood trees.
• Recommended that the Environmental Document be found inadequate since staff can only make
five of nine required findings.
• Recommended denial of the project with the findings that it is not consistent with the General Plan,
the site is not suitable for development as proposed and that the design of the development would
likely cause substantial environmental damage.
Commissioner Garakani asked Planner Christy Oosterhous when this application was received by the
City.
Planner Christy Oosterhous replied August 21, 2001.
Commissioner Garakani expressed surprise that staff did not identify these major concerns at that time.
Asked if the applicant was aware of staff's position prior to this evening.
Planner Christy Oosterhous advised that it took some time to do the background research in order to
come to this conclusion. Added that the applicant is actively involved in the whole process and that
some impacts are visible only after the buildings were staked out on the site.
Saratoga Planning Commissio. inutes of November 13, 2002 Page 6
Commissioner Zutshi asked about comments and/or requirements from the Army Corps of Engineers
and the Department of Fish and Game.
Planner Christy Oosterhous advised that no written comments were received from either agency.
Commissioner Hunter stated that due to past problems with development near creeks, the City uses
more caution.
Commissioner Garakani asked if there are regulations about basements close to a creek.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that the site would need a geotechnical soils evaluation.
Acting Chair Roupe opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 7:37 p.m.
Ms. Glush Dada, Project Designer:
• Said that she just recently got involved with the design of this project but that project engineers
have worked for about a year.
• Stated that it has taken about two years to get before the Commission.
• Said that this is an odd - shaped parcel that is hard to build upon.
• Stated that they are not ruining any trees and that important trees on site are being retained. Only
one tree would be cut.
•
Suggested that with the value of land in Saratoga, her clients have the right to expect to be able to
build 3,000 square foot homes in order to get land value back. This square footage includes the
garage area. These are very decent homes by today's standards in the Bay Area.
• Said that they have taken a creative approach to be able to fit decent sized homes on this property.
• Declared that the redwood trees can be protected through structural building techniques.
• Provided an exhibit that depicts the buildable area on the property.
Commissioner Garakani sought clarification that the applicant is willing to keep the redwood trees.
Ms. Glush Dada said of course. The trees afford privacy between this site and the adjacent commercial
property. Added that constructing with piers every 15 feet would preserve these trees. Added that an
Arborist can do a report about this type of construction near trees.
Commissioner Garakani asked if Ms. Dada is concerned about tree roots damaging the structure of the
house.
Ms. Glush Dada said that there are ways of preventing that with installation of metal barriers.
Commissioner Zutshi asked Ms. Dada if she is willing to reduce the size of these homes.
Ms. Glush Dada said that her client does not want smaller homes. This is the typical size home in
Saratoga.
Commissioner Zutshi asked about the 12 redwood trees.
Ms. Glush Dada reminded that only one tree would be removed from the site.
Saratoga Planning Commissio. inutes of November 13, 2002 Page 7
Acting Chair Roupe asked Ms. Glush Dada about the riparian corridor. Added that the setback
standards set forth for riparian corridors indicates that both lots are considered unbuildable.
Ms. Glush Dada said that the Biologist could better address this issue. Reminded that the Civil
Engineer worked with City staff for one year and that they obeyed the setbacks provided.
Acting Chair Roupe asked Planner Christy Oosterhous to clarify the issue of the riparian corridor
easement.
Planner Christy Oosterhous advised that the easement requirement for the riparian corridor is addressed
in the Subdivision Section of the City's Municipal Code for when a subdivision is being created near a
creek. A designated Creek Protection Easement is required.
Commissioner Garakani asked about the required size of this Creek Protection Easement.
Planner Christy Oosterhous stated that it is based upon the biotic assessment. In this case it is a 75 -foot
setback from the corridor.
Acting Chair Roupe clarified that the primary concern is the riparian corridor.
Mr. John Bushall, Biologist:
• Informed that he prepared the biologic report that suggested the 75 -foot setback.
• Stated that this project would have increased setback encroachments but that mitigation can be
taken that include eradicating non - native species and moving the wire mesh fence on site off the
bank by 10 feet and replace it with a cedar split -level fence, and replanting 10 feet of the bank and
part of the slope with native vegetation.
• Said that biologically, these steps should mitigate increased encroachment into the setback.
• Said that the applicant has done due diligence in working with this site.
Commissioner Hunter questioned the potential adverse impacts on the creek from using herbicides to
eradicate the invasive non - native grasses.
Mr. John Bushall said that the product proposed, Aquamaster, is approved by the EPA for use near
water. The process includes cutting the weeds and applying the herbicide directly to the cut stems.
Commissioner Hunter asked why not just leave the creek as it is with the plants already there.
Mr. John Bushall replied that they are not native to the area. Wildlife has no use for these plants and
the plants will ultimately take over the riparian corridor. This is a huge problem in the Bay Area.
Acting Chair Roupe asked if replacement of plant material in the riparian corridor still results in
encroachment into the riparian corridor.
Mr. John Bushall replied yes. He said however that by creating nice mid canopy and underbrush, this
project would create a better situation than what is there now.
Commissioner Zutshi asked how Mr. Bushall weighs the encroachment into the setback with the
replacement of the non - native vegetation.
Saratoga Planning Commissio, inutes of November 13, 2002 Page 8
Mr. John Bushall advised that typically a pristine and high - quality habitat needs a 100 -foot setback. A
75 -foot setback is recommended here. The mitigation for encroaching into that setback is at a three to
one ratio. If you remove one tree, you replace with three.
Acting Chair Roupe asked Mr. Bushall if this project meets that mitigation criteria.
Mr. John Bushall replied that this project exceeds the mitigation criteria.
Acting Chair Roupe asked staff for its position based on this opinion.
Planner Christy Oosterhous stated that she would stick to her conclusion presented within the staff
report that this development is not appropriate for this site.
Commissioner Zutshi asked for further clarification of the purpose for the removal of non - native
vegetation.
Mr. John Bushall said the intent is to prevent the spread of non - native vegetation, which is a Bay Area
wide problem with invasive species.
Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the creek area is prone to flood. Asked what time of year the
non - native vegetation would typically be removed.
Mr. John Bushall stated that the removal is done by hand and erosion control measures, such as placing
straw, is installed.
Commissioner Zutshi asked who supervises this work.
Mr. John Bushall said that he is not under contract. Said that they can provide supervision if contracted
to do so.
Ms. Diana Espinosa, 14510 Oak Street, Saratoga:
• Identified her family -owned business, Neal's Hollow, as being located at 14320 Saratoga -
Sunnyvale Road. The business was established by her parents in 1965 and she and her two brothers
currently run the business.
• Said that she is concerned about having two single - family residences on this site.
• Said that the division of this lot does not make sense since it is already is at a disadvantage due to
the riparian corridor.
• Said that the stakes for the building on Lot B are in place and appear to be too close to the redwood
trees.
• Expressed concern about the potential for future conflict with a residential owner of Lot B over
issues such as the lighting and business uses on their adjacent commercial property.
• Stated that a limousine service has operated from Neal's Hollow since the 1970s. There is sensor
lighting on the site as well as regular lighting. Additionally, there is a school operating at Neal's
Hollow and it is important for these children to have quite between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.
from Monday through Friday. Two homes could be extremely disruptive to the school.
• Said that the close proximity of the house on Lot B to the shared property line with her site could
hinder fire fighting ability on both properties.
Saratoga Planning Commissio. inutes of November 13, 2002 Page 9
• Stated that there are potential flooding impacts with development of this property.
• Advised that their attorney is investigating easement issues for utility and access.
• Thanked the Commission for listening to her views.
Acting Chair Roupe reminded that the redwood trees would be preserved through the use of special
construction techniques.
Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the stakes for the house are about half way under the canopy
and the trees may not be able to be preserved.
Commissioner Garakani recognized Ms. Espinosa's wish to be pro- active and prevent conflict before it
occurs. Agreed that these are pre- existing businesses of which any new residential owners would have
to be made aware at time of purchase of their homes.
Ms. Glush Dada:
• Stated that any drainage issues would be solved and that they never let dirty water drain to the
creek.
• Said that construction hours would be honored and no street parking would be required during
construction.
• Pointed out that tall trees, like redwoods, have long roots that grow straight down. A more spread
out tree has more spread out roots.
• Added that as long as main roots are not bothered, it is okay to construct within 10 feet.
Commissioner Hunter agreed that redwoods have deep taproots.
Acting Chair Roupe closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 8:14 p.m.
Commissioner Hunter asked how large is the parcel.
Director Tom Sullivan replied about two - thirds of an acre.
Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the property has just an 800 square foot house right now and
what is proposed is about 8,000 square feet on the same property. Questioned whether typically a
house of that size would be allowed on a parcel of this size.
Acting Chair Roupe reminded that there are no FAR standards in the R -M zone.
Planner Christy Oosterhous agreed that this is correct but added that this is not a typical site.
Commissioner Hunter thanked staff for its report. Agreed with the analysis that this is not an
appropriate use near a riparian corridor. The existing 800 square foot house could be bigger but not two
single - family homes with a triangular lot.
Commissioner Zutshi agreed that this is too much for the lot size and with the proximity to the creek.
The creek plays an important role in that area. Stated she would not be in favor of the proposal.
Commissioner Garakani:
• Said that the main issue is the proximity to the creek.
Saratoga Planning Commissic inutes of November 13, 2002 Page 10
• Said that he hated not to see the enjoyment of the use of the creek.
• Expressed happiness with the mitigation that would improve the riparian corridor.
• Suggested a reduction in the size of the homes or incorporating a basement and said that he could
support with one of those actions.
• Stated the importance of keeping the redwood trees.
Commissioner Zutshi said that she too would love to live near a creek but that huge houses would
overwhelm the creek itself.
Acting Chair Roupe:
• Said that he is concerned about the substantial encroachment into the riparian corridor although
mitigation would improve the situation particularly with the removal of non - indigenous species.
• Said that he is concerned particularly with Lot B and the pressure of creating a small lot in a
difficult location.
• Suggested a single structure as this proposal is too much for the lot and too much of an
encroachment into the riparian corridor.
• Asked staff if the Negative Declaration, Subdivision and Design Review would be handled
individually.
Director Tom Sullivan said that the Commission can simply deny the project with findings.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the
Planning Commission denied Application #SD -01 -001 and ED -01 -003 to subdivide
a single parcel into two parcels and construct two new single - family residences on
property located at 20440 Arbeleche Lane, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barry, Jackman and Kurasch
ABSTAIN: None
DIRECTOR'S ITEMS
Director Tom Sullivan reminded the Commissioners that the November 27, 2002, meeting has been
cancelled. The next meeting will be held on December 11, 2002.
COMMISSION ITEMS
Tree Ordinance
Commissioner Hunter reminded the Commission that Council would be discussing the Tree Ordinance
at next Wednesday's meeting.
Commissioner Garakani advised that he has received several calls about the Tree Ordinance. Some
find that a misdemeanor is too much and questioned why not increase the fines.
Saratoga Planning Commissic .inutes of November 13, 2002 Page 11
Director Tom Sullivan replied that this could not be done. The City Attorney and/or Judge could
reduce a misdemeanor to an infraction. Additionally, once a matter has been corrected, the infraction is
torn up rather than pursued any further.
Commissioner Garakani added that concerns were also raised about the ability to trim branches from a
neighbor's tree.
Director Tom Sullivan said that to do so would require a permit. That process gives staff the
opportunity to notice affected property owners.
Site Visits
Commissioner Hunter advised that morning site visits impact her ability to attend Heritage Preservation
Commission meetings as the Commission's representative as she has to leave these meetings early to
make the site visits. Proposed that the site visits be returned to 3 p.m.
Commissioner Garakani agreed that if the visits could not be done between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m., he
would support returning to 3 p.m.
Acting Chair Roupe agreed.
HPC Calendar
Commissioner Hunter advised that the Heritage Preservation Commission is distributing calendars for a
$10 donation. Said that she has a small supply available.
Library Commission
Commissioner Zutshi advised that there will be a Library site visit during the first week in December.
COMMUNICATIONS
City Council Minutes from September 24, 2002.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Acting Chair Roupe adjourned the meeting at 8:32 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday,
December 11, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk
L
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, October 23, 2002
PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Chair Jackman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL �
Present: Commissioners Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi
Absent: Commissioners Barry and Roupe
Staff: Director Tom Sullivan and Planner Christy Oosterhous
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of October 9, 2002.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the
regular Planning Commission minutes of October 9, 2002, were approved with a
correction to page 4.
AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barry and Roupe
ABSTAIN: None
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this
meeting was properly posted on October 17, 2002.
REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS
Chair Jackman announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an
Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision,
pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b).
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no Oral Communication Items.
Saratoga Planning Commissi. Qinutes of October 23, 2002 Page 2
CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar Items.
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1
DR -01 -035, UP -01 -013, ED -01 -002 (393 -25 -022) ST. ANDREW'S PARISH AND SCHOOL, 13601
Saratoga Avenue: The applicant requests Design Review and Use Permit Approval to construct new
facilities for St. Andrew's Parish and School. The Planning Commission will take public testimony and
will conduct a formal discussion of issues. The Planning Commission will not take action to approve or
deny the project at this time. The proposed project includes the demolition of existing buildings and the
construction of the following facilities: Performing Arts /Gymnasium, Sunday school Rooms,
Administration Offices, Classrooms, Clergy Offices, Parish Center and a Bell Tower. The project also
includes a memorial garden, covered walkways, an outdoor eating area, re- grading and reconfiguration
of the parking lot and eliminating off -site queuing. New building construction will total 72,345 square
feet and will include six new structures. The existing sanctuary is to remain. (OOSTERHOUS)
(CONTINUED FROM 10/9/02)
Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows:
• Stated that the applicant is seeking Design Review and Use Permit Approval for a new facility for
St. Andrew's Parish and School.
• Advised that this evening's meeting will consist of public testimony and Commission discussion but
that no action will be taken.
• Said that staff has recommendations for project revisions, which will be presented following the
applicant's thorough project description.
Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:15 p.m.
Mr. Scott Sheldon, Premier Commercial, Project Manager for St. Andrew's Parish and School:
• Informed the Commission that St. Andrew's Parish and School has been at this location since the
early 1960s, exhibiting good corporate and religious ties for and with the City.
• Advised that their team present this evening consists of Reverend Cockrell, Mr. McKay, the project
architect, the project landscape designer and their traffic consultant.
• Said that this has been an evolving process over the last three years with lots of thought and care
going into the proposal.
• Stated that he would explain how this project would mesh with the community and its neighbors.
• Assured that they have planned a first class project that meets the needs of the Parish and School as
well as the City of Saratoga.
Reverend Ernest Cockrell:
Said that St. Andrew's has been in operation since 1957 and built its current facility in 1962.
Stated that this 1962 era facility is no longer sufficient to serve the Parish and School.
Informed that there are more programs today. Therefore more meeting spaces are required.
Saratoga Planning Commissi ✓linutes of October 23, 2002 Page 3
• Said that this place never stops and that the Parish and School share facilities as much as possible
with every available room tightly scheduled.
• Declared that they need more room, updated technical support and improved security.
• Said that their space needs are drastic and not window dressing.
• Assured that their project would fit within Saratoga graciously.
Mr. Harry McKay, Head of St. Andrew's School:
• Agreed that they are desperately in need of space, which is a daily problem.
• Said that their library does not meet current standards and that their gymnasium is insufficient.
• Reminded that the school was built 40 years ago and that teaching and learning is not the same
today, as it was 40 years ago.
• Reiterated that they simply need more space.
• Assured that they will not increase enrollment.
• Stated that they want to conduct a 21S` Century program within a 21S` Century facility.
Mr. Jorge Rico, Project Architect:
• Presented a PowerPoint Presentation with the site plan and elevations.
• Stated that the current 40 -year -old school does not meet new needs and that the entire school would
be demolished with the exception of the Sanctuary, which will remain. Additionally, they will
replace the gymnasium, construct a two -story administrative /classroom building, another two -story
classroom wing and a two -story clergy /office building.
• Said that the existing 203 parking spaces would be maintained.
• Described site constraints including a sewer easement over which they cannot locate buildings and
the fifty -foot line at the creek embankment. There are also heritage Oak trees, which must remain.
• Informed that the new site layout will permit improved vehicle queuing with two pick up and drop
off areas, which will eliminate the current situation where queuing oftentimes ends up out on
Saratoga Avenue.
• Stated that the proposed gymnasium will include two volleyball courts, one basketball court and a
theater.
• Said that the classroom/administration building would house third and fourth graders, with the
kindergartners through second graders on the first floor. There is a State requirement to have K -3
located on a first floor level for emergency exiting reasons. The fourth through six grades would be
housed within a second story classroom wing.
• Said that on the main campus level, five Sunday school classrooms are planned and both Parish and
School administration buildings. There will be a gathering space for weddings, etc., a nursery, and
on the upper level classrooms for seventh and eighth grade English, History, etc., and offices.
• Said that the roof plan includes the use of mansard roofs to try to lower the height of buildings.
• Described the cluster of buildings as equaling a campus.
• Said that the gym would consist of light colored cement plaster over a darker cement plaster base.
• Stated that they have agreed to lower the entry element of the Administration Building by three feet.
• Said that a trellis component will tie buildings together as a unifying element.
• Stated that the Parish Building with clergy offices would be lowered by 2.5 feet to reduce building
height.
• Described the Bell Tower.
• Said that the project site is flat in the front with a bottom portion that drops 12 feet lower. This
change in grade will give the effect of lowering the appearance of these buildings.
Saratoga Planning Commissi Ainutes of October 23, 2002 Page 4
• Assured that they have made an effort to reduce heights using the property's topography.
Mr. Scott Sheldon:
• Stated that they held a series of neighborhood meetings as well as workshops with the Commission.
• Said that they have dealt with issues is a real straightforward way and worked with staff on a
number of issues.
• Advised that a revised acoustical report was provided to staff.
• Addressed traffic issues and assured that they don't want to impact either Saratoga or Fruitvale at
all.
• Made himself available for questions as well as any of the project consultants.
Commissioner Garakani asked if any projections have been done in response to the letter from a
neighbor concerning the visual impacts from this project in blocking their hillside view.
Mr. Jorge Rico said that they have done a projection and that they do not believe the project will block
views. Added that they have placed the tallest building in the middle of the site to diminish impacts on
surrounding residences.
Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Rico if he has any calculations to share.
Mr. Jorge Rico replied no.
Commissioner Garakani suggested to Mr. Rico that these calculations be prepared.
Commissioner Zutshi suggested photo simulations to show how these buildings might impact the
surrounding residences.
Director Tom Sullivan suggested a photomontage that accurately reflects what a building would look
like on site.
Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that there is a distinction between a public library and a school, with
different requirements.
Director Tom Sullivan said that the City has the right to excuse some particular properties from certain
requirements.
Commissioner Zutshi said that a private school could not compare itself to a public library.
Ms. Christy Oosterhous presented the staff recommendations as follows:
• Suggested that no increase in enrollment be permitted without Planning Commission approval.
• Added that there is no proposed increase enrollment.
• Recommended the reduction or elimination of the bell - ringing schedule.
• Suggested that the applicant recalculate the FAR since spaces above 15 feet in height have not been
double counted.
• Said that to deal with massing issues, the applicant should reduce the three -story element to a two -
story element and that the Parish and School classrooms be combined as possible.
• Reported that the applicant has agreed to reduce the mass and height of the entry.
Saratoga Planning Commissi, Ainutes of October 23, 2002 Page 5
• Suggested more detail elements on some buildings, that the roofline follows the hillside contours
and that the proposed Color #2 have more earthtoneality.
• Stated that staff finds the proposed bell tower to be too massive and imposing and recommended
either outright elimination or relocation further away from Saratoga Avenue.
• Advised that the revised Noise Study requested of the applicant was recently provided to staff.
• Recommended Exhibit D for site circulation be implemented. This plan would provide 1,000 feet
of queuing area.
• Advised that the Arborist supplied comments and found most of the features of the plan present no
major conflict.
Commissioner Kurasch asked about the recommendation to reduce the entrances of two buildings and
asked if it includes the defined area over the doorway.
Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. The buildings in question are the Clergy and Administration
buildings.
Commissioner Kurasch supported the reduction of three -story elements to two - story, pointing out the
30 -foot height limitation and stating that when there is a conflict between Zoning and General Plan, the
General Plan supercedes Zoning.
Planner Christy Oosterhous clarified that the number of stories is limited but not the height.
Director Tom Sullivan said that the General Plan indicates public /quasi public uses that can be
increased through issuance of a Use Permit.
Commissioner Hunter asked if the proposal from the school includes any increase in student population.
Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that any increase would be minor, with a fluctuation of less than
five percent.
Commissioner Hunter pointed out that with the expansion from 17 current classrooms to 18 proposed
classrooms, the assumption can be made that student population could be expected to grow by about 25.
Chair Jackman said that she sees the potential for an additional 22 students, which is a concern.
Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that a letter from the school proposes a student cap at 500, with any
increase requiring Planning Commission approval. Questioned the provision for parking if there should
be an increase to 500 students.
Planner Christy Oosterhous said that the applicant can be asked to evaluate that question. Pointed out
that the parking on site is necessary more for Sunday than during weekday school uses.
Mr. Scott Sheldon:
• Stated that the traffic report took into account 470 students.
• Assured that they would have no problem developing a photomontage and reminded that they had
placed story poles on site to depict proposed building heights.
• Pointed out that Code permits three -story buildings for quasi - public buildings.
Saratoga Planning Commissi, Qinutes of October 23, 2002 Page 6
• In response to staff's recommendation to reduce heights in the Administration /Clergy buildings,
they had prepared an extensive needs analysis. Additionally, the State has accreditation issues
regarding amount of square footage per pupil, etc.
• Said that their space needs have driven their proposed square footage.
• Said that they have tried to utilize the site's natural slope.
• Explained that the additional student population is a means to give some flexibility.
• Pointed out that student population is down from last year but that next year it could go up.
• Asked for that right within constraints.
• Said that there are no parking impacts with a student increase to 500 since none of their students yet
drive this being a K -8 grade school. Most students are dropped off.
• Added that they are proposing to enhance the landscape along Saratoga Avenue.
Chair Jackman asked Mr. Rico for the minimum legal height of a classroom.
Mr. Jorge Rico said that a classroom ceiling cannot be lower than 8 feet but that most are 9 to 10 feet
high now days.
Commissioner Zutshi expressed support for the new gymnasium, library and classrooms but not the
proposed bell tower.
Chair Jackman suggested treating the bell tower separately.
Director Tom Sullivan cautioned that the bell tower is part of this overall application.
Reverend Ernest Cockrell said that the bell tower is not a need but rather a tradition that they believe
would add to the beauty and be a gift to the community in Saratoga. It is more to the "glory of God."
Commissioner Zutshi said that there are many churches in Saratoga but only two with a bell tower.
Reverend Ernest Cockrell said that there are only 31 bell towers in the County.
Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that this bell tower is proposed to be situated in front of their
beautiful church building.
Reverend Ernest Cockrell said that they don't mind and pointed out that the bell tower will be
somewhat shielded by trees.
Commissioner Zutshi suggested a simulation of the bell ringing to demonstrate to the neighbors how it
would sound.
Reverend Ernest Cockrell said that they could shield the sound away from neighbors and would close
off the sound when practicing their bell ringing.
Commissioner Zutshi insisted on the need for a simulation.
Reverend Ernest Cockrell said that they have a sample CD.
Saratoga Planning Commiss, vlinutes of October 23, 2002 Page 7
Mr. Scott Sheldon advised that the sound impact from the bell tower is addressed in the acoustical
report.
Commissioner Zutshi again asked about a trial run.
Mr. Scott Sheldon said it would be impossible to provide it short of building the bell tower.
Reverend Ernest Cockrell:
• Assured that the bells are a gentle sound.
• Said that they cannot disturb regular school classrooms for Sunday school use.
• Pointed out that the Sunday school rooms will also serve as meeting rooms.
• Reminded that they have 64 parish organizations requiring meeting space.
• Declared that they are not just a school but also a parish.
Commissioner Garakani asked about trees to block the bell tower from view.
Ms. Rebecca Coffman, Landscape Architect for Project:
• Pointed out that there are several Live Oak trees and Redwood trees that would block the bell tower.
They are about 35 feet tall.
• Said that another Redwood tree could be added, a large 25 to 30 -foot specimen to provide additional
screening.
Commissioner Kurasch questioned the 18 -foot high parish hall located at the property line.
Mr. Scott Sheldon said that the parish hall is 15 feet off the easterly property line and is about 24 -feet
high at the highest point. Said that this height could be dropped down.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Expressed concerns about the intensity of use of this property.
• Said that she is trying to understand the needs.
• Pointed out that the additional 34,000 square feet represents an approximately 68 percent increase
over what is there now, which has an effect on the area and community.
• Said that she understands the importance to the applicant but needs to understand how it will work
on this property.
• Reminded that the General Plan supercedes the Zoning and sets a two -story limit.
Mr. Scott Sheldon said that they have tried to blend in the needs of the School and neighborhood by
using existing typography, using the natural slope and adding landscaping to make the School work.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Asked about the projections for space needs. There are 15,000 square feet of classroom space now
and 18,000 square feet would be what the proposed enrollment requires.
• Said she was wondering how to make it all work.
• Stated that she does not see the building stepping down from the slope.
Mr. Scott Sheldon said that they gave staff the list that outlines State school standards and that they
have tried to be judicious and brought their proposal down to minimum standards.
Saratoga Planning Commissi. Qinutes of October 23, 2002 Page 8
Director Tom Sullivan suggested continuing this line of discussion following the Public Hearing.
Mr. Harry Luoh, 19540 Tweed Court, Saratoga:
• Said that his home shares one common fence with the Parish and School.
• Said that he can understand the needs of the Parish and School.
• Stated that part of the design is inadequate for the area.
• Said that he currently has a strong objection until this project is modified.
• Said that the proposed Parish center would be located adjacent to his property.
• Demonstrated photos that depict his view of the School from his home and the view of his home
from the School.
• Declared that this existing building results in a big invasion of his family's privacy.
• Stated that the proposed 24 -foot height would block his views, views that he has enjoyed for a long
time and that he does not want to lose.
• Informed that he submitted a letter,
• Listed his objections and/or suggestions to include:
• Reduce the building heights to two story.
• Modify the setback of the Parish hall, proposed at 15 feet for a 24 -foot high structure.
• Modify the Parish hall's four big windows, which would overlook his property line and allow
people from the Parish hall to see into his living room.
• Reduce or eliminate the bell tower.
• Modify the plan to a maximum of two stories.
• Break up the massing.
• Increase the setback to 20 feet from his property line.
• Lower the height of the Parish center to 15 feet.
• Either remove or raise the height of the proposed four windows so that his property cannot be
looked upon.
• Advised that he has resided in Saratoga for eight years, enjoys his property and wants to be able to
continue to enjoy his property.
• Declared that he does not want to see a big building instead of blue sky.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Luoh if his home is a single or two -story structure.
Mr. Harry Luoh replied that his home is a single -story as are most homes in the area.
Ms. Susan Kranich, 19541 Tweed Court, Saratoga:
• Stated that she lives next door to Harry Luoh and has lived there since 1968, where her parents
raised their five daughters.
• Said that this project would impact her family greatly.
• Stated that she can understand the need for improvements to the school but has a problem with the
proposed heights, particularly for the Administration and northern classroom building, which are
closest to her home and yard.
• Said that she is concerned about the loss of view from her family home.
• Expressed concern about environmental impacts from car exhaust, as vehicles would queue toward
the creek area.
• Asked if a study of potential impacts has been prepared.
Saratoga Planning Commissi ✓Linutes of October 23, 2002
0
• Suggested that the bell ringing schedule might be problematic for her family and was concerned that
the potential move of the bell tower away from Saratoga might cause it to be located closer to her
home.
• Declared that they have had very little problem with St. Andrew's Parish and School over the years.
They have been good neighbors and it has been nice to hear the sound of children.
• Stated that this proposal seems like a huge addition to what is currently a park -like setting.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Ms. Kranich how many stories her home has.
Ms. Susan Kranich replied one.
Mr. Donald A. Carr, 19803 Merribruck Court, Saratoga:
• Said that he lives two blocks from the Church, has been a resident of Saratoga since 1980, a
member of the Church since 1989 and involved with the School since 1985. His daughter graduated
from St. Andrew's and went on to graduate from Mitty and USC.
• Added that as he is involved with the Church and since his daughter got off to a good start at St.
Andrew's, he is a proponent of this project.
• Stated that he would like to see the project go forward.
• Said that they cannot do things now because there is not enough room to accommodate the 64
different programs operated at the Parish and School.
Mr. Jim Stallman, 19750 Braemar Drive, Saratoga:
• Stated that St. Andrew's is a good neighbor and that he is excited about the bell tower.
• Said he notices a front path depicted and stated it is good to see this path.
• Asked if there would be a sidewalk along Saratoga Avenue.
• Pointed out that there is room to move the curb and add a sidewalk.
• Suggested that parking not be prohibited along Saratoga avenue since it could calm traffic to allow
such parking.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that he believes there will be sidewalk but not all the way.
Mr. Jim Stallman said that a sidewalk is needed from Mrs. Jorganson's onward.
Ms. Rebecca Coffman, Project Landscape Architect, reported that there will be sidewalk all along the
frontage of Saratoga.
Ms. Diana Luoh, 19540 Tweed Court, Saratoga:
• Said that her property is adjacent to St. Andrew's.
• Pointed out that the school replaced a trailer about two years ago. Instead of being angled like the
original trailer, the new trailer was installed parallel to her property. They were promised screening
trees but they are not there.
• Said that Saratoga traditionally does not have two -story classrooms but rather have a more park -like
campus.
• Said that while she can see the need for additional space, a 70 percent increase is too aggressive.
• Said that the big picture needs to be considered including traffic and noise concerns.
• Asked that activities near their shared fence should be limited to avoid noise impacts.
Saratoga Planning Commissi /Iinutes of October 23, 2002 Page 10
• Pointed out that there is a park on the other side where no residence would be impacted by noise
coming from this proposed building.
• Said that people don't always stay within the building and that conversations from the site infringe
on their use of their home and yard.
• Stated her opposition to any three -story building and expressed a preference for single -story
buildings.
• Suggested the outright removal of the bell tower and said that she would not enjoy hearing the bells
ringing every Sunday even though she does love music.
Commissioner Hunter pointed out that several schools have been renovated with multi -story buildings,
including Saratoga School with three stories and Redwood School, which has a two -story science
building. Asked Ms. Luoh if she was aware of the school when she purchased her home.
Mrs. Diana Luoh:
• Replied yes.
• Reminded the Commission that the trailer originally located closest to her home did not impact her
family until it was replaced and repositioned on the site.
• Pointed out that the school day is typically done by 3 p.m. However, the proposed Parish Center
will have extended hours, seven days a week.
• Concluded by saying that operations at St. Andrew's have changed since she purchased her home
and now has a greater impact.
Commissioner Zutshi had questions for the traffic consultant.
Mr. Sohrad Rashid, Project Traffic Engineer and City Consulting Traffic Engineer:
• Stated that currently cars dropping off students at St. Andrew's School often end up queued on
Saratoga.
• Added that with the proposed second drop off point, this would remove cars from queuing off the
street by increasing on -site queuing space by 70 to 80 percent.
Commissioner Zutshi asked if parking has been considered too.
Mr. Sohrad Rashid replied that with up to 1,000 feet of queuing space, allowing 20 to 25 feet per car,
would allow approximately 50 vehicles to queue on site.
Commissioner Kurasch asked about impacts with increased enrollment.
Mr. Sohrad Rashid replied that an additional 24 cars would not be an issue.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Rashid to explain a Level D intersection and potential impacts with
up to 470 to 500 students at St. Andrew's.
Mr. Sohrad Rashid replied that with no change from the current 439 students, there would be no
queuing onto Saratoga Avenue. Additionally, up to 470 could be accommodated on site.
Commissioner Zutshi asked if any provisions are being made to accommodate left turns from the site
onto Saratoga Avenue.
Saratoga Planning Commissi .Minutes of October 23, 2002
Mr. Sohrad Rashid replied that no change is proposed.
Page 11
Commissioner Garakani asked what impacts to the site's queuing might occur if people are waiting to
leave the property via left turns onto Saratoga Avenue.
Mr. Sohrad Rashid stated that cars waiting for left turn exiting would not impact queuing on site.
Commissioner Kurasch asked about meeting with neighbors.
Mr. Scott Sheldon:
• Advised that they had relayed copies of the sign up sheets to staff. There were three meetings and
two workshops. With the exception of Mr. Luoh, on one else who attended one of the meetings is
present this evening.
• Said that he wants to address needs for everyone.
• Pointed out that St. Andrew's has been a good neighbor as has been testified by neighbors.
• Stated that the intent and letter of Zoning regulations has been met.
• Said that they have addressed security issues for their students.
• Said that to satisfy the concerns of the neighbor to the east, the four windows that go in would be
changed to a clear story window, located up high. Additionally, they will reduce the height of the
roof so as not to impact neighbor views.
• Informed that they moved the lunch area near Mrs. Jorganson's property with her support.
• Stated that this is a good solution for all parties.
Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 8:40 p.m.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Stated her support of staff's analysis and recommendations.
• Said that the project needs to come more into balance with the rest of the area with less intensive
uses and lower building heights.
• Said that she could not support so many variations from standards.
Chair Jackman:
• Said that the intensity bothers her.
• Stated that she is not sure how to reduce some of these buildings but that they must fit better onto
the site.
Commissioner Hunter:
• Said that she has a great deal of compassion for St. Andrew's.
• Pointed out that most public schools have remodeled and include high buildings.
• Declared that kids are the most important thing in the world.
• Said that she sees St. Andrew's making a great effort.
• Agreed that one cannot teach today in a school built in 1962.
• Said that we have to prepare kids for the future.
• Agreed that something must be done about the building located closer to residences.
• Said that this will be wonderful for the community and for St. Andrew's and should be allowed to
go ahead.
Saratoga Planning Commissi ✓Iinutes of October 23, 2002 Page 12
Commissioner Kurasch questioned comparing this to public schools.
Chair Jackman said that St. Andrew's has a wonderful reputation and the security improvements for its
students is important.
Commissioner Zutshi:
• Said that she looked at the school today and found that it looks subdued and like a nice village
school.
• Expressed a problem with the proposed three -story buildings and bell tower.
• Said that she is trying to visualize this big project on this site.
• Stated a need to reduce bulk.
• Agreed that she too understands the need for proper classrooms for children.
Commissioner Garakani:
• Stated that he takes issue with the bell tower.
• Said he could not understand why neighbors have not been taken more into consideration.
• Said he basically would go with the staff recommendations.
Director Tom Sullivan advised the Commission that it has achieved what was desired this evening.
Chair Jackman called for a break at 8:50 p.m.
Chair Jackman reconvened the meeting at 9:01 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.2
APPLICATION #01 -044 (403 -28 -034) — AZIZI, 18360 Purdue: Request for Design Review
Approval to construct a two -story single - family residence on a 8,040 square foot lot. The floor area of
the proposed residence and attached two -car garage is 2,923 square feet. The maximum height of the
residence would be 20 feet. The site is zoned R -1- 10,000 (OOSTERHOUS)
Planner Chri sty Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that Sheet A -8 indicates a height of 21 feet but is actually 20 feet.
• Stated that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval for a first and second story addition to
an existing single - family for a residence totaling 2,923 square feet. The first floor would be
increased by 245 square feet and the second floor by 842 square feet. The maximum height would
be 20 feet.
• Described the lot as being 8,040 square feet within an R -1- 10,000 Zoning District.
• Said that staff finds that design policies have been met, that use of earthtones reduce the appearance
of mass and bulk.
• Informed that the applicant has provided evidence that their neighbors do not object with eight
letters of support.
• Recommended approval.
Saratoga Planning Commissi. dinutes of October 23, 2002 Page 13
Commissioner Kurasch asked whether this home could be brought back at a future date to increase the
height of the second story.
Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes.
Mr. Cove Britton, Architect:
• Explained the decision to go with a second story was made in order to preserve open space in the
yard for the two young children in the family.
• Said that the expansion to this smaller home is necessary to provide room for extended family
members to visit.
• Said that the interior height of the garage and guestroom would be the minimum allowed or 7 feet, 6
inches.
• Said that they have worked with neighbors to address any concerns.
• Pointed out that the windows along the property line are high to avoid any privacy impacts.
• Said that they have carefully tied the new construction with the existing residence.
• Made himself available for questions.
Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Britton about the front glass feature.
Mr. Cove Britton described it as a bow window.
Commissioner Kurasch asked what the purpose was for the slab at the side of the property.
Mr. Cove Britton replied a service area for maintenance of trash and recycle barrels.
Commissioner Hunter said that she did not believe there were any windows next door to be impacted
but rather a blank wall.
Commissioner Kurasch said that one does not see second story additions over garages much these days.
Mr. Cove Britton explained that actually only the Craftsman style architecture locates the largest mass
at the center of a house while other traditional styles do not.
Commissioner Zutshi said that she is impressed with the reason expressed for placing the second story
over the garage but said that it appears there is kind of a straight wall on the side elevation.
Mr. Cove Britton replied that the second story is moved back three feet from the first story.
Commissioner Zutshi said that three feet is not a lot of clearance.
Mr. Cove Britton said that they wanted a 4 and 12 pitch roof and that required windows to provide
egress from the bedrooms also impacted the need for this roof pitch.
Commissioner Hunter stated that this does not look like any other home in the neighborhood.
Mr. Cove Britton pointed out that this was not an issue for the neighbors who gave their support.
Chair Jackman said that it is different but fits in.
Saratoga Planning Commissi, Minutes of October 23, 2002 Page 14
Mr. Cove Britton said that it is a tradition northern European style.
Commissioner Hunter pointed out that only two two -story homes are found among the approximately
160 homes in the immediate area.
Mr. Cove Britton said that he felt it could be supported if neighbors don't object.
Commissioner Kurasch expressed concern over the facade of the two -story addition, which creates a
long mass. Additionally, the potential of this home being pushed up to 26 feet in height in the future,
without Commission review, is a problem for her.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that there is a penalty for building height above 15 feet, which would
require a reduction in the total square footage of house allowed. Added that the Commission has the
authority to place a Condition of Approval that would require any change in the site plan, elevation or
ridgeline be brought back to the Planning Commission for approval.
Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 9:22 p.m.
Ms. Suzanne Salehpour, 18421 Vanderbilt Drive, Saratoga:
• Said that the single -story ranch style character of her neighborhood is a key reason for her purchase
of a home in this neighborhood.
• Said that she wants to see the neighborhood retain its charm.
• Pointed out that most additions in the area are accomplished without going up into a second story.
• Said she would hate to see the neighborhood change in this way.
• Asked that the Commission not allow a two - story.
Mr. Anjan Lukkoor, 18373 Vanderbilt Drive, Saratoga:
• Said that he resides behind this property, which he purchased eight years ago.
• Said that there are only three two -story homes.
• Said that a single -story neighborhood offers a lot of privacy.
• Expressed his objection to a second story addition.
• Pointed out that there are a number of ways to add on without needing a second story as these are
fairly big lots.
• Added that he would not object to a basement addition.
Mr. Chris Wiles, 18363 Purdue Drive, Saratoga:
• Advised that his home is directly across the street and that he is here to support this request.
• Said that he was contacted early in the design phase and asked for his input.
• Said he is impressed with the work and design put into this project.
• Informed that he grew up in this neighborhood.
• Stated that this project's design will greatly improve the neighborhood, offering some style and
flare.
Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Wiles if his home is the one that had been removed.
Mr. Chris Wiles replied yes. His home had a single -story 1,024 square foot addition.
Saratoga Planning Commissi� Qinutes of October 23, 2002 Page 15
Ms. Maureen Williams, 18396 Purdue Drive, Saratoga:
• Said she is very much in support and finds this to be a great design.
• Identified her home as the other second story on the block.
• Said she has three small children and a single -story addition would have taken too much open space
from their lot. They remodeled about 10 to 12 years ago with a second story addition.
Chair Jackman asked how much square footage was added.
Ms. Maureen Williams replied 1,100 square feet. Said that since she did not get a letter of support in on
time she elected to come this evening to support the applicant's request.
Commissioner Hunter asked Ms. Williams if she had trouble getting her second story addition
approved.
Ms. Maureen Williams said that she installed a high fence with lattice as recommended by the
Commission to help screen the addition from the neighbor's home. There have been no complaints.
Commissioner Garakani asked Ms. Williams if she has a number of trees in her backyard.
Ms. Maureen Williams replied that she has just one tree in the back corner of her backyard.
Mr. Cove Britton stated that he believed this project could be approved with the impacted neighbors
expressing support. Added that additional landscaping could be installed if necessary.
Commissioner Garakani pointed out that the concern is over future two -story home additions in the
neighborhood.
Mr. Cove Britton said that those applicants would also have to obtain Commission approval.
Commissioner Garakani advised that this approval would establish a precedent for two story additions
in this neighborhood.
Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 9:30 p.m.
Commissioner Hunter:
• Stated that her main objection is that this house design does not look like any other house around
and that she does not understand the turret type element.
• Added that the home is not in keeping with the neighborhood.
• Said that while it is fine for neighbors to express support, there is a reason for having a Planning
Commission to review these proposals. If not, in the future, someone would look at this and
question "how did that get through."
• Said that her main objection is not the fact that this is a two -story but mostly because of the
proposed glass bow window feature.
Chair Jackman said that this home is not like the neighborhood and that a single -story addition could be
accommodated while still leaving a fair amount of open space available.
Saratoga Planning Commissik Iinutes of October 23, 2002 Page 16
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Agreed with the comments of Commission Hunter.
• Said that the larger and most important issue is lessening the impacts for everyone else including
the precedent for second stories.
• Stated that she cannot support a two -story home in an area with a predominately single -story
character particularly since there are options available for a single -story addition to the home.
• Suggested that the applicant try again with a smaller one story.
Commissioner Zutshi said she saw a lot of homes in this area with additions, one -story additions. There
are just two two -story homes. Suggested the applicant go for a single -story design to in keeping with
the style of the neighborhood.
Commissioner Garakani:
• Stated that this neighborhood was built 50 years ago and is about to change.
• Questioned what if three years from now others get to build a two - story. How will this applicant
feel then.
• Said that overall, this home would look better than the rest of the houses over there.
• Suggested going to a basement addition, which he could support, or providing better articulation.
Commissioner Hunter said that she could support this second story because it is only 20 feet high but
the design would need to match the neighborhood better.
Chair Jackman said that this is a nice proposed addition but that she has to say no to having it placed in
a traditional one -story neighborhood as it would change that neighborhood.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that staff has prepared a Resolution for approval. The Commission can
prepare denial findings this evening and staff could bring the revised Resolution to the next meeting on
Consent for final approval.
Commissioner Kurasch asked how the applicant would feel about a request for redesign.
Chair Jackman reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 9:40 p.m.
Mr. Cove Britton reminded the Commission that without a second story, this request would not require
Commission review.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that this statement is correct.
Mr. Cove Britton continued to say that if the project is denied, it won't need to come back and they also
would have the option to appeal the denial to Council.
Chair Jackman reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 9:45 p.m.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if the Commission has the authority to require the single -story redesign
to come back to the Commission.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that the Director has the option per Code to bring it back to the Planning
Commission if he or she finds it necessary.
Saratoga Planning Commissik linutes of October 23, 2002 Page 17
Commissioner Garakani said he cannot outright say only single -story but rather he would like to see
more articulation in the design.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the
Planning Commission denied a Design Review Approval to allow an addition to a
residence located at 18360 Purdue with the findings that there is a lack of
neighborhood compatibility, which is overwhelmingly single -story in character; due
to the design of the front window; and due to a conflict with potential privacy issues
as stated, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi
NOES: Garakani
ABSENT: Barry and Roupe
ABSTAIN: None
Director Tom Sullivan advised that the Resolution would be added to the Consent Calendar for the next
meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.3
APPLICATION #02 -197 (CITYWIDE) — CITY OF SARATOGA: The proposed Zoning Ordinance
Amendment would revise side yard setback requirements for structures over 18 feet in height in the R-
1- 10,000, R -1- 12.500, R -1- 15,000 and the R -1- 20,000 Districts. (SULLIVAN) (CONTINUED FROM
10/9/02)
Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that this amendment is the result of complaints regarding the interpretation of side yard
setback requirements, particularly as they relate to substandard lots.
• Said that the letter of the law requires the entire building setback to be moved in by one foot for
every foot above 18 -feet in height.
• Added that typically staff recommends that applicants apply for a Variance.
• Stated that staff has prepared an Ordinance Amendment to address how to handle substandard lots.
Another alternative would be to get rid of the 18 -foot setback penalty for height altogether.
• Advised that frankly the Ordinance as currently written is not working.
• Explained that for non - conforming lots, the first floor must meet the minimum standard and the
second floor must be moved in another five feet.
• Informed that this issue did rise up to the Council, who instructed staff to prepare and bring forward
this Ordinance Amendment.
Commissioner Zutshi asked for clarification regarding interior and exterior lots.
Director Tom Sullivan explained that an interior lot is located between two other lots while an exterior
lot would be found on a corner.
Commissioner Kurasch sought clarification that most complaints have been based upon non-
conforming lots.
Saratoga Planning Commissik Zinutes of October 23, 2002 Page 18
Director Tom Sullivan advised that most issues have been with remodels with second floors, usually on
substandard lots, particularly when the applicants seeking additions want to take advantage of existing
load bearing walls.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if the Amendment could be earmarked just for non - conforming lots.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that the Commission could make that recommendation.
Commissioner Garakani said that the current Ordinance offers the incentive to give a building
articulation and avoid straight walls.
Commissioner Zutshi said that straight walls could happen anyway with larger sized lots.
Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that a conforming lot width in R -1 -10 is 85 feet. Some older lots
have only a 50 -foot width.
Chair Jackman asked if McCoy Avenue has less than 85 -foot width.
Director Tom Sullivan said it could be that it does.
Commissioner Garakani asked what the advantage would be for conforming lots.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that if dealing with a new house, where the old house has been torn
down, the current Ordinance works find. When remodeling or on a substandard lot, it does not.
Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that the Commission mostly sees tear downs. Asked if there is an
advantage to having the Amended Ordinance apply in all circumstances.
Director Tom Sullivan replied consistency is the advantage if the same guidelines apply to new and
remodeled homes.
Commissioner Zutshi agreed that it would make it simple to follow.
Chair Jackman expressed that this Ordinance would create more open space.
Commissioner Kurasch added that the Design Review process would still allow consideration of bulk
and mass issues.
Director Tom Sullivan said that if the 18 -foot penalty rule is repealed, someone wishing to build up
would have to meet Design Review findings.
Commissioner Kurasch said that she had no problem with the proposed Amendment.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the
Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation to Council for approval of the
adoption of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Application #02 -197) that would
revise side yard setback requirements for structures over 18 feet in height in the R-
Saratoga Planning Commissi, Iinutes of October 23, 2002 Page 19
1- 10,000, R -1- 12,500, R -1- 15,000 and R -1- 20,000 Districts, by the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barry and Roupe
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.4
APPLICATION #02 -210 (CITYWIDE) — CITY OF SARATOGA: The proposed Zoning Ordinance
Amendment would increase regulatory requirements related to the removal and or pruning of trees.
The Amendment would also reduce the diameter of trees that would be protected by Article 15 -50 of
the Saratoga Code. (SULLIVAN)
Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that it had become increasingly clear that the existing Tree regulations needed to be
clarified and strengthened. The issue was last addressed 10 years ago.
• Informed that staff and the Tree Committee (Commissioners Kurasch, Hunter and Garakani) took
the work done 10 years ago and massaged it.
• Stated that this item was advertised as a public hearing and that the environmental determination
made longer noticing required.
• Added that this item has also been advertised for Council's November 20`h meeting.
• Recommended that the Commission move this item on to Council for action.
• Said that he had given the entire revised Ordinance to both City Attorney offices and that 85 percent
of their proposed changes have been implemented. For the most part, their changes included
turning "will" into "shall." Some of the other proposed changes from the City Attorney need to be
further explained to the Tree Committee, which can be done between this meeting and the Council
hearing.
• Stated that this represents a comprehensive update with definitions that are an important tool for
staff. Included are where to measure the size of tree. The industry standard is 4.5 feet above grade.
• Said that a significant change is that violations would go from being an infraction (with a $100 fine
as a penalty) to a misdemeanor (with more severe penalties). As a fall back proposal, first
violations could be treated as infractions while second violations would be misdemeanors.
Chair Jackman said that the severity of the first event might play a role.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that enforcement would have to be treated as is outlined in the Code.
Commissioner Hunter commended the work done by Commissioner Kurasch and Tom Sullivan.
Chair Jackman agreed that this has been an excellent effort.
Commissioner Kurasch replied if it works. They wanted to have something that was achievable
without diluting it down to nothing.
Commissioner Hunter said that it is important to see what other cities are doing.
Saratoga Planning Commissi� Qinutes of October 23, 2002 Page 20
Commissioner Zutshi mentioned a church in San Francisco that illegally removed three trees and will
be fined $1,000 per tree.
Commissioner Hunter added plus the fact that the infraction made the news.
Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that the revised Ordinance prohibits pruning the crown of a tree any
more than 20 percent.
Director Tom Sullivan added that up to 20 percent requires no permit while 20 to 30 percent pruning
would require a permit. Additionally, no pruning can be done to a tree that is rooted on a neighboring
property without a permit.
Commissioner Kurasch suggested definitions for crown versus canopy.
Director Tom Sullivan suggested adding the definition for crown.
Commissioner Kurasch advised that the crown is the same as the canopy, the green leafy area.
Commissioner Garakani added "the umbrella."
Commissioner Kurasch replied very good. She expressed the importance of the preparation of a Tree
Protection Plan, which would be a site plan.
Director Tom Sullivan asked for suggested amended language to the draft.
Commissioner Kurasch suggested adding the word "site." She added that the City Attorney
recommended omitting the tree valuation from the Ordinance.
Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 10:17 p.m.
Mr. Bill Breck, 20375 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, Saratoga:
• Thanked the City for spending time to do this and said that, while it is not perfect, it represents a
great start.
• Supported the approval of the Ordinance Update as soon as possible.
• Said that he hoped the City would allow amendments and/or adjustments to this Ordinance in the
future.
• Stated his wholehearted support.
• Said that it is good that affected neighbors would be notified of a tree removal permit.
• Suggested a longer appeal period.
• Pointed out that it takes just hours to cut down a tree.
• Asked to what extent this Ordinance allows grandfathering in existing conditions.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that the Ordinance is prospective and not retroactive. Added that
Council will hold two hearings and then 30 days later the Ordinance would be in effect.
Mr. Bill Breck asked what would trigger the requirement to get a permit.
Saratoga Planning Commissik linutes of October 23, 2002 Page 21
Director Tom Sullivan replied that encroachment into the root zone with almost anything would need a
permit.
Mr. Bill Breck questioned Section 070, 25(d) as it calls for pruning permits.
Director Tom Sullivan said that there are certain instances when greater than 30 percent pruning would
be required. A 20 percent standard was chosen to back off from that maximum level.
Mr. Bill Breck proposed removing ISA standards.
Commissioner Kurasch did not support that suggestion.
Mr. Bill Breck said that either ISA or specific rule should be enforced.
Commissioner Hunter asked whether PG &E is allowed to prune without standards simply by right.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that PG &E would require permits but he is not sure if the City has the
authority over how they actually do the pruning.
Mr. Bill Breck said that it would be prudent not to allow pruning of trees if trees are under City Arborist
remediation, under stress, gouged or with severed roots, etc Added the encroachment permit is not
defined.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that it is defined under Section 15- 50.20(H). The City Attorney put it in
with all other issues.
Mr. Bill Breck asked where.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that they are all on one form.
Commissioner Kurasch clarified that both removal and encroachment permits appear on the same form.
Mr. Bill Breck asked about penalties for damaging and encroachment of trees and where they are
specified.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that all provisions are for misdemeanors, which are criminal penalties.
Civil penalties need to be further addressed.
Mr. Bill Breck pointed out that under State law, if damage is over $400, it becomes a felony.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Pointed out that encroachment permits mostly would happen with development projects or activities
while removals may be different from development activity.
• Said that the Ordinance tries to accomplish a way to open the dragnet a bit.
• Said that the goal is to find something that is enforceable and achievable and to avoid and prevent
injury to trees.
Saratoga Planning Commissik Zinutes of October 23, 2002 Page 22
Director Tom Sullivan invited Mr. Breck to provide additional written comments within the next week
for his use when writing the staff report.
Mr. Bill Breck declared that the ISA formulas for valuing trees is way too low and agreed to submit the
rest of his comments in writing to Director Sullivan.
Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 10:35 p.m.
Chair Jackman stated that this is a good report and a big step from where we were. Reiterated that Mr.
Breck is encouraged to submit additional written comments.
Director Tom Sullivan added that he would schedule a meeting of the Tree Committee together with the
City Attorney to make final changes prior to the Council hearing.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the
Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval for a Zoning
Ordinance Amendment (Application #02 -210) that would increase regulatory
requirements related to the removal and /or pruning of trees, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barry and Roupe
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner Zutshi stated that lots of work was done on this and thanked those involved.
Commissioner Hunter asked when Council would have its hearing on this Ordinance Amendment.
Director Tom Sullivan replied November 20, 2002.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.5
APPLICATION #02 -210 (CITYWIDE) — CITY OF SARATOGA: Consistent with the provisions of
the City's Housing Element of the General Plan, this Zoning Ordinance Amendment will broaden the
opportunities to obtain a Use Permit for Second Dwelling Units on Residentially Zoned Properties.
(SULLIVAN) (Request to be continued to December 11, 2002)
Director Tom Sullivan advised that staff is proposing a continuance of this item to the meeting of
December 11, 2002.
DIRECTOR'S ITEMS
There were no Director's Items.
Saratoga Planning Commissik linutes of October 23, 2002 Page 23
COMMISSION ITEMS
There were no Commission Items.
COMMUNICATIONS
There were no Communication Items.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Chair Jackman adjourned the meeting at 10:38 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday,
November 13, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, October 9, 2002
PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Chair Jackman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi
Absent: None
Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner John Livingstone, Planner Ann Welsh and
Planner Christy Oosterhous
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of September 25, 2002.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
regular Planning Commission minutes of September 25, 2002, were approved with
corrections to pages 6, 10, 15, 18 and 21.
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this
meeting was properly posted on October 3, 2002.
REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS
Chair Jackman announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an
Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision,
pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b).
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no Oral Communication Items.
Saratoga Planning Commissic Iinutes of October 9, 2002 Page 2
CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar Items.
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1
APPLICATION #02 -013 (503 -69 -002) — AMINI- MOAZENI, 13815 Pierce Road: Request for
Design Review to demolish an existing single -story house and construct a new two -story house with
6,099 square feet on the main and upper levels and 2,569 square feet in the basement. The property is a
1.72 -acre lot in the Hillside Residential District. The height of the structure will be 26 feet. (WELSH)
(Continued from 9/11/02)
Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that Application #02 -013 seeks approval for a new two -story single - family residence on a
1.75 -acre parcel within the Hillside Residential District.
• Add that the existing single -story home will be demolished.
• Pointed out that this parcel is steeply sloped with an average slope of 25 percent.
• Described the proposed new home as including a three -car garage, Mediterranean style architecture
with a terra cotta tile roof. The maximum height will be 26 feet high.
• Advised that there are two frontages, one on Pierce Road and the other on Via Regina, which is a
private road.
• Informed that the applicant has provided signatures from 10 surrounding neighbors in support of his
project.
• Added that a letter from the Via Regina Homeowners Association denies the applicant's request for
an access easement to Via Regina and requires the removal of the existing fence.
• Advised that there are questions about the Arborist report that require clarification and an updated
tree report as it pertains to installing a driveway between two existing trees and the potential for
impact on the health of those trees and their canopy.
• Described options to deal with the driveway issue as including the reconfiguration of the proposed
driveway, the elimination of the eastern driveway and/or a redesign of the home to place the house
at the east side of the property.
• Recommended approval once the driveway issue is resolve and with the provision of an updated
tree report.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if staff is recommending the Commission proceed without the Arborist
report.
Planner Ann Welsh replied that this would depend upon how the Commission chooses to deal with the
driveway issue.
Commissioner Roupe asked whether the Commission could grant driveway egress from Via Regina
consider the fact that such access has been allowed for the last 15 to 20 years.
Saratoga Planning Commissk linutes of October 9, 2002 Page 3
Planner Ann Welsh advised that there is no indication of a recorded easement for access to Via Regina.
The Via Regina Homeowner's Association has denied that right of access. Therefore, the Commission
cannot legally grant access.
Commissioner Barry asked about the intent to protect the tree canopy on Pierce Road.
Planner Ann Welsh said that it is important to maintain the tree canopy to minimize the perception of
bulk of this structure. Added that initially it had been thought that these trees were healthy but later
learned that they may need to be removed. Said that staff believes a driveway could be placed without
damage to trees.
Commissioner Barry asked about the enclosed fence area.
Planner Ann Welsh clarified that there is a restriction of no more than 4,000 square feet enclosed fence
area, with the exception of enclosing a pool, and that this property is not currently in compliance. The
fencing would have to be brought into compliance.
Chair Jackman pointed out that enclosing the front of the property along Pierce Road would exceed
4,000 square feet.
Planner Ann Welsh agreed that this is most likely true.
Commissioner Garakani asked what the regulations are for a house near a main road as it pertains to
allowable fencing.
Planner Ann Welsh advised that there are some streets with special provisions, such as Quito and
Saratoga- Sunnyvale Roads, but that Pierce Road is not one such street. Therefore, the maximum height
that is allowed in the front yard is three feet. A property owner cannot put a higher fence closer than 25
feet from the front property line.
Commissioner Hunter sought clarification on the three oaks; two of which it appears may need to come
down.
Planner Ann Welsh advised that the third oak is healthy and there does not appear to be a reason to take
it down.
Commissioner Hunter stated that it has been proven in other situations that once one or two trees from a
cluster are removed, the remaining ones die.
Commissioner Zutshi asked if the proposed placement of the garage has been made known to the
neighbor. Said she would be interested in their comments.
Planner Ann Welsh replied the proposal was not favorably received.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that this house is close to the total allowable floor area ratio. Advised
that the area above the foyer will need to be counted twice since it exceeds height limitations.
Planner Ann Welsh said that this area, exclusive of the stairway space, has been double counted.
Saratoga Planning Commissit linutes of October 9, 2002 Page 4
Commissioner Kurasch asked about the net area of the site.
Planner Ann Welsh said that she is not sure. A lot of area (approximately 45 percent) is lost due to the
slope.
Commissioner Kurasch reiterated that approximately half of the site is not buildable.
Planner Ann Welsh replied definitely.
Commissioner Hunter pointed out the French doors in the basement area.
Planner Ann Welsh advised that the maximum allowable width of a light well is four feet.
Commissioner Kurasch inquired whether story poles are automatically required.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that the use of story poles were determined not be mandatory but rather
used when judged necessary.
Commissioner Hunter reminded that this applicant has sat through two meetings and had his application
continued.
Chair Jackman agreed that this applicant has been very gracious.
Commissioner Garakani stated that it is hard to see the need for story poles in this situation where there
are lots of trees around to provide screening.
Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:25 p.m.
Mr. Mike Amin], Applicant/Owner, 13715 Pierce Road, Saratoga:
• Informed the Commission that this process has been going on for the last seven to eight months and
that he has looked at the City's requirements carefully and designed a project that is careful not to
require the removal of any trees.
• Advised that the trees on this property are a key reason for his purchase of this property.
• Said that the City's Arborist pointed out trees with disease but did not include it in the report.
Subsequently, he hired his own Arborist.
• Pointed out that he has two small children, ages 7 and 11, and he wants fencing toward Pierce Road
for the safety of his children. He needs that fencing to be taller than three feet due to noise. His
wife wants the fencing for privacy and safety.
• Stated that his Arborist informed him that if the two diseased trees are removed, the third tree will
not survive. Therefore, the City is recommending the removal of this third tree.
• Said that he is willing to work with the City on the driveway to save trees but that he does not want
to change the placement of the garage to the other side as it would leave him without a yard space in
which his children can play.
• Stated that he has worked a long time on his design to meet the City requirements and his neighbors
are supportive of his project.
Commissioner Garakani asked if Mr. Amini is willing to work on the driveway issue.
Saratoga Planning Commissic Iinutes of October 9, 2002 Page 5
Mr. Mike Amini replied yes.
Commissioner Kurasch asked for the minimum width required for the driveway.
Planner Ann Welsh replied 14 feet per the Fire District.
Director Tom Sullivan said that the intent of Fire's driveway width requirement is to be able to get fire
apparatus close to a structure. This width is more critical when the home is located at the end of a long
driveway. It is not as important in this case as the home is located close to the street.
Mr. Mike Amini pointed out that for over 15 years the previous owner of his home had access from Via
Regina.
Commissioner Roupe said that nothing in the plans addresses fencing plans. Cautioned that a Variance
would be required to fence as much area as proposed.
Mr. Mike Amini said that one neighbor has asked that he not have any fencing between their properties
so that she can continue to observe the wildlife that returns to the area.
Director Tom Sullivan said that there is no application in for higher or additional fencing. This would
have to be treated as a different application at a later date.
Mr. Mike Amini asked if he could use the 4,000 square feet of fencing for his front yard.
Commissioner Roupe cautioned that this 4,000 square feet represents enclosed area and not linear feet.
Director Tom Sullivan suggested that the applicant could work with staff.
Commissioner Barry said that Mr. Amini's general direction seems to be supportable regarding the
safety of his children.
Mr. Mike Amini said that he has no problem without a fence along Via Regina or between neighbors.
Mr. Mike Moazeni, 21781 Via Regina, Saratoga:
• Said that they have obtained the consensus of the neighbors on this project.
• Said that a couple of trees block visibility from Via Regina.
Mr. Steve Lee, 21818 Via Regina, Saratoga:
• Identified himself as the President of the Via Regina Homeowners' Association.
• Said that they met with the applicants but turned down their request for access to Via Regina.
• Said that the main concern is visibility from Via Regina.
• Added that they want to see the existing gate there permanently closed.
• Said that the only other concern was construction. The residents have concerns about construction
vehicles and parking. They do not want construction parking along Via Regina and ask that this
restriction be made a Condition of Approval.
Chair Jackman agreed that the larger trailers would have to off -load and leave the area.
Saratoga Planning CommissiL /Iinutes of October 9, 2002 Page 6
Director Tom Sullivan agreed that there is no place to stay with a large truck.
Commissioner Kurasch asked about the canopy of trees.
Mr. Steve Lee said that he has no issues with trees. Their concern is visibility with the existing fence
and vegetation. An area needs to be opened up to allow visibility when pulling out.
Commissioner Barry suggested that the construction staging and management plan needs to be added to
the Conditions.
Director Tom Sullivan agreed that this could be added to the Resolution tonight.
Mr. Mike Arnim:
• Stated that his new driveway plan provides five to six parking spaces during construction without
bothering the neighbors.
• Said that while he is willing to keep the gate access closed, he feels it would serve as an excellent
fire access for his house and his neighbor's.
• Suggested letting the gate remain.
Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that he would not have a 10 -foot long driveway with the close of
the Via Regina driveway.
Commissioner Garakani supported keeping the gate for Fire access only.
Chair Jackman suggested obtaining a fire lock through the Fire District.
Commissioner Roupe reminded that a fire truck just needs to get onto the property but does not need to
go all the way to the garage.
Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that the neighbor across the street had their home reduced in size
during the approval process because of bulk and mass impacts that were considered to be too great.
Said that she was concerned about the size of this house and did not agree that the setback is sufficient
to buffer that bulk and mass.
Mr. Mike Amini said that his setback is almost twice required while that neighbor is right on the
setback.
Commissioner Kurasch said that the bulk is close to the street and will have an impact on the street.
Said that this is not compatible.
Mr. Mike Amini pointed out that the second story is located only in the center of the house.
Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that most of the roof is over 20 to 25 feet in height. Added that the
entry is extremely large and ostentatious and not compatible with the location.
Mr. Mike Amini disagreed and said that the entry matches the size of the house.
Saratoga Planning Commissic linutes of October 9, 2002 Page 7
Commissioner Kurasch stated that the structure is long.
Chair Jackman pointed out that the use of impervious surfaces is at the maximum and asked if Mr.
Arnim is willing to make some of the surfaces pervious.
Mr. Mike Amin] replied yes. He added that he is considering reducing the size of the patio.
Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:52 p.m.
Commissioner Roupe questioned whether the Commission can proceed without the Arborist report
given the limitations on construction within 10 feet of an oak tree.
Commissioner Barry said that it would be unwise to go ahead without the Arborist report and that she
would be very uncomfortable making a decision on the driveway without knowing the potential impacts
on the tree roots.
Chair Jackman suggested approving the rest of the project except for the driveway.
Commissioner Barry said that it needs to be combined in order to address what access Fire needs.
Commissioner Hunter stated she would like more information from the Arborist.
Commissioner Barry said that if the driveway is constructed differently, it may have impacts on other
trees on the property.
Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that Barrie Coate suggested removal of certain trees.
Commissioner Roupe asked how this project can be approved subject to development of the driveway
and whether this might best been done with a continuance.
Director Tom Sullivan said that the Commission has three options, a full continuance, action on the
project with caveats or a denial of the circular driveway.
Commissioner Hunter said that the safety of guests is better assured with a long driveway so they can
pull completely off of Pierce Road.
Commissioner Roupe supported approval with further driveway and tree considerations.
Chair Jackman said that one part of the existing drive could serve as a parking area.
Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that the applicant wants to keep that area for his yard.
Commissioner Barry said that off - street parking, Fire access and the protection of the tree canopy are
important issues. Said that she does not know the best solutions but that several options could be
considered. Stated her understanding for the applicant's desire to have a play area for his children.
Chair Jackman said that the consideration of the fence area needs to come back.
Saratoga Planning Commissi(
linutes of October 9, 2002
Planner Ann Welsh said that this item would need to be advertised separately.
Chair Jackman said that she is stuck on the issues of parking and trees.
Planner Ann Welsh said that options can be discussed with the applicant.
Commissioner Kurasch suggested that the applicant could make his proposal to Barrie Coate.
Commissioner Roupe supported going ahead with the approval, except for the driveway.
Commissioner Barry said her main issue is the fact that the house is too prominent for being as close to
the road as it is. This house will be seen quite a bit. Added that she should like to see a reduction,
particularly with the entry feature with its two -story roofline. Said that this is too much for where it is
on the road and is not compatible with the rural road and surroundings and therefore not compatible.
Commissioner Garakani said he has a different view. With eight large trees near the pool area, this
blocks views going up. Down from Pierce Road, there are five large trees that block the view of the
house. Said that some additional landscaping will take care of this issue.
Commissioner Hunter asked for the height of the entry.
Planner Ann Welsh replied approximately 20 feet.
Chair Jackman stated that she feels the entry looks balanced and would look off - balance if it were to be
smaller.
Commissioner Hunter reminded that the Commission lowered another project's entry to 16 feet and
despite that reduction she was amazed at how large it appears as it is under construction.
Commissioner Barry supported lessening the amount of second story roof.
Commissioner Kurasch stated that this is still an imposing and huge structure that she will not support.
Commissioner Barry agreed that it is too much.
Commissioner Zutshi said that it is quite massive but has been broken into three steps.
Chair Jackman said that it is massive but that it falls within the maximum square footage and that she
cannot say no.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the
Planning Commission approved the Design Review for a new two -story single
family house on property located at 13815 Pierce Road with the following additions
to the Conditions:
• Construction parking and staging shall be worked out with staff to assure no
on- street parking;
• The design and placement of the driveway leading to the garage shall be worked
out with staff and be brought back to the Planning Commission with the advice
Saratoga Planning Commissit Iinutes of October 9, 2002 Page 9
of the City's Arborist regarding impacts on the tree canopy, fire access and off -
street parking;
• An effort shall be made to reduce the impervious coverage;
• An Appropriate landscape plan and tree screening for the front of the property
to screen the house from Pierce Road shall be brought back to the Planning
Commission together with the driveway design; and
• A reduction in the front entry height to 16 feet.
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: Kurasch
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Jackman announced that she would have to recuse herself from Item No. 2 since she lives within
the notification area. She turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Kurasch at 8:17 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.2
APPLICATION #02 -176 (Reconsideration of DR -01 -006, TUP -01 -003, UP -01 -002 and related
applications) (APN's 397 -22 -017, 397 -22 -019, 397 -2 -015, 397 -22 -012 & 397 -22 -042) —
SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT, 14380 Saratoga Avenue and 20473 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road:
Request for Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, Lot Line Adjustment and General Plan
Conformity Determination for vacation and abandonment of George Whalen Way (City alley located
behind the existing fire station) and transfer of Heritage Plaza property from the City to the Saratoga
Fire Protection District for a new fire station with variations to setback and landscape standards.
Existing fire station and building at 14380 Saratoga Avenue proposed to be demolished, temporary
facilities proposed to be located at 20473 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road during construction of new fire
station proposed for 14380 Saratoga Avenue. (LIVINGSTONE) (Continued from 9/25/02)
Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised the audience that copies of the report are available in the lobby.
• Gave a rundown on the process to date.
• Said that Council denied an application to build a new fire station on September 5, 2001.
• Reminded that Council initiated a collaborative planning process by forming an Ad Hoc Committee
consisting of representatives from Fire, the Sheriff's Office, County Communications, the Post
Office, Federated Church and representatives from the Planning and Public Safety Commissions.
• Reported that on July 17, 2002, Council approved a Settlement Agreement with the Fire District and
that on August 7, 2002, Council approved sending the project back to the Planning Commission for
review.
• Advised that the Planning Commission is to review the project for general conformity with Scheme
A.
• Describe the plan to demolish the existing Contempo site building.
• Said that Code requires one parking space for each employee or 24 parking spaces for this project.
Eighteen are provided on site and six off site. The Fire District proposes to sell a portion of the
Contempo site to Federated Church with an easement for use of six spaces. Said that 18 parking
Saratoga Planning Commissi,
Qinutes of October 9, 2002
Page 10
spaces are provided on the Fire District property with 10 public parking spaces, which would be
controlled by the City.
• Mentioned the Public Works Director's memo, which outlines three parking and circulation
scenarios.
• Stated that staff is recommending Scenario 1 -A from that memo, which is a full circulation plan.
• Advised that the Post Office has not yet approved this newest proposal so staff is recommending
that all three options be ranked in the event that this one does not prevail.
• Pointed out that a desk item was distributed with the Parking Plan proposed by the City's
consultant.
• Assured that the five parking spaces in front of the Post Office have not been affected.
• Said that restriping along Saratoga Avenue will only slightly change centerline by one foot or less.
• Said that the Consultant is recommending the move of the pedestrian walkway, which staff
supports.
• Advised that a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and approved by the Fire District.
• Recommended approval of the Design Review and Conditional Use Permit applications, the
vacation of the right of way (George Whalen Way), the transfer of Heritage Plaza property and
acceptance of two easements.
Commissioner Roupe inquired if there is actually enough information to approve Scheme A.
Associate Planner John Livingstone replied yes. He added that the Settlement Agreement further
outlines the plan.
Commissioner Hunter asked if the sidewalk on Saratoga would remain.
Associate Planner John Livingstone replied yes. The pedestrian walkway will be moved further away
from the roadway for added safety.
Commissioner Hunter asked for clarification on the widening of Saratoga Avenue.
Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that the roadway would be striped differently.
Acting Chair Kurasch pointed out the various pieces of correspondence received as desk items.
Commissioner Barry asked why better neighborhood involvement was not achieved.
Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that staff noticed the neighborhood on September 15th
which was 10 days prior to the September 25th meeting.
Commissioner Barry said that she would like to question a Traffic Engineer on the room needed for the
two -way circulation scheme.
Acting Chair Kurasch pointed out the newest memo from Fehr & Peers, stating that the current plan
does not address concerns about left turns from Highway 9 or left turns from Saratoga onto the alley.
Associate Planner John Livingstone said that the Public Works Director is recommending the painted
island on Highway 9 is shortened to allow a left turn pocket.
Saratoga Planning Commissh ,tinutes of October 9, 2002 Page 11
Acting Chair Kurasch questioned the provision of construction parking.
Associate Planner John Livingstone said that the applicant did add to the back of the plan set a
construction plan. Additionally, staff has added a Condition that does not allow construction vehicles
and/or employees to park off site. The applicant will have to be creative.
Acting Chair Kurasch reminded of the request from the last meeting to include: a review by Caltrans of
the proposal; a Survey of the property; revised plans for the net site area; documentation of Caltrans
support and a San Jose Water verification of cooperation.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out pages 4 and 5, items 1 to 9.
Acting Chair Kurasch stressed the need to obtain verification of the agreements to be made.
Commissioner Barry stated that the letter from Caltrans does not appear to be a vote of confidence for
the traffic scheme.
Associate Planner John Livingstone:
• Said that a survey was done to try to clarify lot coverage and was stamped by a licensed land
surveyor.
• Stated that Public Works would work with Caltrans on the intersection, right turn lane and
encroachments of driveway entrances. The fire access /apron off of Saratoga Avenue is not looked
at by Caltrans.
Acting Chair Kurasch questioned the logic and reasoning for leaving the plaza and monument in place
during construction.
Associate Planner John Livingstone said he was not sure.
Acting Chair Kurasch opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:42 p.m.
Chief Ernest Kraule, Saratoga Fire District:
• Reminded that two weeks ago, they received directions from the Planning Commission.
• Advised that they have met with staff and made revisions.
• Agreed that they do not have much room but they have made the best use of space. They are trying
to work through the process to replace this building.
• Said that the bond issue was passed in April 2000 and that this has been a long drawn out affair.
• Advised that his job is to replace a worn out fire station.
• Pointed out that there has never been an accident or even a close call when leaving the site.
Ms. Mary McGrath, Consultant to the Saratoga Fire District:
• Stated that she has received the letter from the Neighborhood Association, has brought forward a
new color board and has letters from the Federated Church, agreeing to provide six parking spaces,
and Caltrans, with their review and comments.
• Described Phase I to now include the move of the arch, the demolition of the Contempo building
and closing the alley. Phase II will include modifications to Saratoga Avenue and Highway 9,
landscaping the pedestrian plaza and reconfiguration of traffic.
Saratoga Planning Commissik linutes of October 9, 2002 Page 12
• Advised that setback variations are required and assured that lot coverage is 30 percent maximum.
• Said that the architectural style is intended to compliment the Federated Church, using a Julia
Morgan style.
• Pointed out that the apron area is 64 by 60 feet and could be used by the contractor during
construction as a layout area.
• Added that a newsletter will be sent to the neighborhood about construction activities.
• Discussed site circulation and advised that they had revised their plan to relocate the drop boxes
more to the north of the alley. A two -way 24 -foot wide entrance will come off Saratoga.
Commissioner Zutshi asked Ms. Mary McGrath whether the Post Office has approved this newest
circulation plan.
Ms. Mary McGrath replied not in writing. They have the verbal agreement as long as the five spaces on
Saratoga are retained. The Post Office representative at the last meeting expressed this intent.
Commissioner Barry stated that the Post Office must clearly specify what they are approving.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked about the plan for pass through traffic associated with off -site circulation.
Ms. Mary McGrath said that the plan provides adequate parking for the Fire District. They have
worked with Federated Church for the placement of six parking spaces for Fire use. These spaces are
accessed via Park Place. Stated that this plan will remove traffic from Park Place.
Commissioner Roupe asked when the gate on the church lot is closed.
Ms. Mary McGrath stated that Arvin Engelson would address this issue.
Commissioner Garakani reminded that the church site is not under consideration tonight.
Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that the layout includes parking during construction on church
property.
Ms. Mary McGrath reiterated that no on- street parking will be allowed for construction vehicles.
Instead the apron area will be used.
Mr. Hal Toppel, Attorney for Saratoga Fire District:
• Assured that there is plenty of room on site for vehicles, equipment and materials storage.
• Said that the contract with the contractor will require that all construction vehicles and workmen
park on site. This would include a contractual obligation that Park Place not be used to travel to and
from the site.
• Said that while they hope to have an agreement with the church for the sale of property, if it does
not happen, the District would own the property.
• Stated that problems have been addressed and that even once the facility has been completed, the
rules remain in effect.
• Said that they have met with City staff on other issues and worked them out, including
responsibilities for improvements to the intersection.
Saratoga Planning Commissi
/Iinutes of October 9, 2002
Page 13
• Stated that the conditions are acceptable and that they are willing to go forward and that it is
appropriate to go forward.
• Advised that they will need encroachment permits from Caltrans that that they don't expect
problems.
• Made himself available for questions.
Commissioner Zutshi asked staff for the height limitations for construction enclosures.
Associate Planner John Livingstone said that he did not have that information.
Mr. Don Whetstone, 14768 Vickery Avenue, Saratoga:
• Described the Negative Declaration prepared as being both vague and opaque.
• Stated that the Village Green Homeowners' Association had a relationship with the Ad Hoc
Committee. Scheme A is not the work of the Ad Hoc but rather of the Fire District. It does not
represent a collaborative effort.
• Expressed problems with the elimination of setback requirements as rules need to be enforced.
• Said that the proposed staging plan on the apron could result in trucks backing out onto Saratoga
Avenue and that this area is not large enough to serve as a staging area.
• Said he is concerned about encroachment into his parking.
• Stated that the temporary emergency response path is unworkable and not okay.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked for Mr. Whetsone's opinion on the parking, both during construction and
permanent.
Mr. Don Whetstone said that it appears construction parking is non - existent. Added that if this site
were developed with an office building of the same size, 62 parking spaces would be required.
Mr. Arvin Engelson, 20381 Seagull Way, Saratoga:
• Identified himself as a representative of Federated Church.
• Said that he can address a couple of issues raised.
• Said that the intended use of the Contempo site by the church is for parking.
• Added that the church is actively interested in that part of the agreement.
• Said that they recently remodeled and are trying to reorient pedestrian access to the rear of their
building whereas previously 70 percent accessed from the front.
• Stated that if they are able to acquire this property, they would be happy to accommodate six spaces
for parking by Fire at shift change.
• Assured that the church shares the interest in preventing the use of their parking lot as a cut through
for traffic.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked how close the church and Fire District are to an agreement.
Mr. Arvin Engelson said that a value has to be established and that an appraisal is underway. The
church is willing to pay market value and there is an internal process whereas the church will have to
have a meeting to decide on the purchase.
Commissioner Garakani questioned whether the sale of this lot will result in a non - conforming lot.
Saratoga Planning Commissit Imutes of October 9, 2002 Page 14
Mr. Arvin Engelson said that it is his understanding that the parcel would be merged with the church
parcel.
Commissioner Garakani asked if there is a guarantee that the lot would only be used for parking rather
than being developed.
Mr. Arvin Engelson said that they would enter into whatever agreement is necessary.
Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that minimum lot sizes in the area are 12,000 square feet.
Commissioner Roupe clarified that a lot line adjustment would include this parcel into the overall
church property.
Associate Planner John Livingstone added that it would be connected legally to the fire station lot for
the provision of parking spaces.
Mr. Arvin Engelson stated that this has been a very public process and that they are looking at ways to
improve relationships with the neighbors. This is such an opportunity.
Mr. Aaron Katz, Bohlman Road, P.O. Box 116, Saratoga:
• Advised that he owns property a block and a half away.
• Stated that he has no hidden agenda and is prepared to speak objectively.
• Said that he does not believe that the Contempo property will be demolished.
• Declared that taxpayers paid $3 million for this property and it will be sold to the church for next to
nothing.
• Said that since 8,000 square feet of the new building is being dedicated to support services, adding a
second floor to the Contempo building could accommodate those support services.
• Asked that careful study be done and to stop rushing.
• Stated that the process needs to be slowed down and other options investigated.
• Questioned the plan to demolish both buildings and install a temporary station.
• Asked the Commission to read the Settlement Agreement carefully.
Ms. Denise Michel, 20375 Park Place, Saratoga:
• Identified herself as a Co- President of the Village Green Homeowners' Association.
• Said that this residential street is very concerned with cut through traffic.
• Declared that the development of this plan and Use Permit application has been a deeply flawed
process.
• Added that while the Fire District worked out their plan with the Post Office and Church, the
Village Green Homeowners' Association was not called.
• Stated that the District failed to adequately inform them of the process.
• Reminded .that the Village Green Homeowners' Association had commented on the previous plans
extensively and provided detailed testimony of its concerns at previous public meetings.
• Added that the Fire District was instructed by Council to work with the neighbors but the District
chose not to include us.
• Said that the plans were not shown in advance and that the only reason she has the plan at all is that
she called the City Manager last week and learned at that time of the pending Public Hearing.
• Stated that most residents were not aware of this meeting until October 7 t" or just two days ago.
Saratoga Planning Commissic linutes of October 9, 2002 Page 15
• Stated that six months ago, there was a commitment made by the City for them to be kept involved.
Fire and City staffs have dropped the ball.
• Declared this project too important to rush through.
Commissioner Roupe asked staff about noticing.
Associate Planner John Livingstone provided an affidavit for the noticing sent out on September 13,
2002, which included 20375 Park Place.
Ms. Denise Michel stated that she did not receive it. Added that for six months the City staff excluded
the Village Green Homeowners' Association and made it too hard.
Commissioner Zutshi asked what Ms. Michel means.
Ms. Denise Michel said that the City did not contact them and did not involve them in the plans.
Commissioner Zutshi asked about involvement in the Ad Hoc Committee.
Ms. Denise Michel advised that the work of the Ad Hoc Committee ended in April. Until that point,
she had served as a representative on that Ad Hoc Committee.
Commissioner Garakani asked about the letter from the Village Green Homeowners' Association.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that the message was forwarded by email to each Commissioner.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked about the testimony given before Council.
Ms. Denise Michel stated that the issues raised have not yet been addressed.
Commissioner Roupe asked Ms. Michel what problems she has with the new proposal.
Ms. Denise Michel. said that 50 to 70 percent of the traffic speeds near the Saratoga -Los Gatos Road
proposed entrance.
Commissioner Barry:
• Thanked Ms. Michel for her comments.
• Pointed out that extensive efforts were made to involve everyone in the Gateway project and that
she is unsure why similar efforts were not made by the Fire District to include the residents in the
review of this project.
• Pointed out that staff is simply responsible for mailing out Public Hearing notices.
• Stated that she is not happy that the Village Green Homeowners' Association was not included in
project review and that she believes the plan should be studied with these neighbors.
Commissioner Garakani said that he supports neighborhood involvement early in the design process.
Asked staff when the Village Green Homeowners' Association memo was emailed to the
Commissioners.
Saratoga Planning Commissic linutes of October 9, 2002 Page 16
Ms. Denise Michel stated that the email was sent to the City on Monday, October 7`h. Added that they
had been involved in the review process for one year, until April when the Ad Hoc Committee
concluded its work.
Mr. Bob Egan, 14890 Montalvo Road, Saratoga:
• Identified himself as the Chair of the Fire Committee for the City of Saratoga.
• Said that he has met with the City Engineer, City Manager, City Attorney and Council Members.
• Advised that Saratoga Avenue will not be widened but rather restriped. This will have no impact on
the five Post Office parking spaces along Saratoga.
• Stated that parking on the property has been resolved and that emergency response can get down the
alley and/or exit onto Highway 9 in the event that the Saratoga exit could not be accessed.
• Said that Denise Michel had called to set a meeting but they were unable to meet today, which he
regrets.
• Said that Council and the neighbors raised three issues.
• One, to eliminate the cut through traffic through the neighborhood. Added that the Fire District
can only control fire traffic.
• Two, to prohibit the use of the Village Green neighborhood for parking. Said that they have
notified Fire personnel only to use designated Fire parking spaces.
• Three, to preserve the historic integrity of the neighborhood.
• Stated that the contractor will be charged with keeping construction parking and traffic off of the
neighborhood streets.
• Added that he often is questioned by citizens as to why the new station is not yet built.
• Urged approval.
Acting Chair Kurasch stated that she is having a hard time understanding exactly what is the
construction phase parking and material- staging plan.
Mr. Bob Egan reminded that the contract for a contractor is not yet out. Added that no construction
would begin until the slab has been poured and cured.
Commissioner Barry said that one problem she sees with the construction staging plan is that the
applicants are only saying what they will not allow rather than what will actually be done. Added that
the neighbors want answers to that question.
Mr. Bob Egan said that they could tell people not to park on the neighborhood streets.
Commissioner Barry asked where they would be able to park.
Chief Ernie Kraule said that if they have to transfer construction workers to the site with a plan like Our
Lady of Fatima recently prepared, bringing them from West Valley College, they would make such
arrangements.
Commissioner Barry cautioned that such arrangements have to be made first. The proposal tonight is
not enough to satisfy concerns. Added that West Valley College neighbors would have to be dealt with
too.
Saratoga Planning Commissic. Iinutes of October 9, 2002 Page 17
Commissioner Hunter stated that the trust issue must include a leap of faith that Fire will take
community interests into consideration.
Commissioner Roupe stated that he tends to agree and can assume that they will enforce their
contractual agreements.
Chief Ernest Kraule assured that he will be involved with this project until it is finished.
Mr. David W. Dolloff, 20685 Seagull Drive, Saraoga:
• Identified himself as a member of the Ad Hoc Committee.
• Said that as a point on the lack of notification, no member of the Ad Hoc Committee received
notification of this evening's meeting. He found out from Don Whetstone, who lives within 500
feet and therefore received notification.
• Said that a major concern is the need for written statements from all parties verifying that they will
cooperate with the process and design.
• Cautioned that the Post Office has not yet agreed and that nothing can be approved until they do.
• Pointed out that hundreds of hours have been put into this project.
• Suggested that the Commission not take a leap of faith with these people.
Ms. Meg Caldwell, 20201 La Paloma Avenue, Saratoga:
• Distributed a written statement from Mr. Dave M. Solomon.
• Identified herself as the second Co- President of the Village Green Homeowners' Association and
will try to respond as well as she can to issues raised tonight.
• Stated that the circulation of vehicles has not yet been adequately addressed.
• Pointed out that the Village Green Homeowners' Association is a fairly reasonable group of people
with a demonstrated ability to work out issues and come to agreement. Such was the case four
years ago when Pinn Brothers was developing nearby as well as with Federated Church.
• Added that they are feeling like the "odd man out" in this situation since the conclusion of the work
of the Ad Hoc Committee.
• Stated that the construction phase will have an enormous impact on their neighborhood.
• Disagreed with the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration's contention that all impacts have been
fully mitigated. Rather real plans for mitigation are needed with public input.
Mr. Brian Rosevear, 20283 La Paloma Avenue, Saratoga:
• Said he is a graduate of Cal Poly with a degree in Architecture.
• Stated that he is a contractor and has lots of issues with the staging for this project.
• Said that it is important to have a clean access point.
• Pointed out that before the pad can be poured, the basement will be dug and electrical and plumbing
installed.
• Said that the neighborhood has not been given the opportunity to provide adequate input and issues
need to be worked out before this goes forward.
Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Rosevear if he has experience with such projects.
Mr. Brian Rosevear replied yes. He has constructed in San Francisco, including schools and office
buildings.
Saratoga Planning Commissic. Iinutes of October 9, 2002 Page 18
Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Rosevear if, in his opinion, significant problems will be raised in
managing this construction site.
Mr. Brian Rosevear stated that these answers are needed up front. There will be over 200 trucks
coming and going from this site and people want to know where they are going to go.
Commissioner Garakam asked Mr. Rosevear if he has issues with the building beyond the construction
phase.
Mr. Brian Rosevear replied that it is his personal opinion that this building is too big for its site.
Mr. Ed Farrell, 20877 Kittridge Road, Saratoga:
• Expressed concerns over parking.
• Pointed out that when Council overturned the Planning Commission approval for the firehouse, two
Commissioners supported overturning the approval.
• Suggested that the Commission looks at the 24 parking spaces carefully and asks the applicants to
count out the spaces.
• Reminded that the Post Office owns some of the parking and the fact that the Sheriff's office is
leaving is something that should be verified.
• Suggested that this is some sort of shell game when considering the spaces for shift change parking.
• Cautioned that there would be some overlap.
• Questioned the reasoning for selling off 40 percent of the Contempo site and proposed that it should
be kept for additional parking.
• Stated again that he wants to see a final count of parking.
• Said that neither the Post Office nor Caltrans has yet approved this project and that this project
should be contingent on Post Office and Caltrans actions.
• Thanked the Commission for its attention.
Mr. Victor Moma, Granite Way, Saratoga:
• Said that while it is nice to talk about the good intentions of the contractor, he has 25 years of
experience working with contractors.
• Challenged the Commissioners to provide their home phone numbers so that area residents can call
them when on one else is around to deal with problems from this site.
• Stated that in the real world, no one is around to receive complaints at 6:30 in the morning.
• Called this project the "Dolly Parton Project" with too much Dolly for too little dress.
• Said that there is no entitlement to build this building on this site so they must use the Use Permit
process to accommodate it.
• Declared that this is not a good site.
• Asked the Commissioners to be leaders, to have courage, to tell them no, to do the right thing or
find a site that works.
• Offered as a suggested alternate site the land between the library and church with this proposed site
being turned into a park.
• Stated that this project is not fair.
• Expressed support for a good firehouse in a place that is both proper and good.
Mr. John Thomas, Traffic Engineer, Caltrans:
• Advised that he was asked to speak by Commissioner Barry and the Fire District.
Saratoga Planning Commissic linutes of October 9, 2002 Page 19
• Said that the plan for a signal at Oak does not qualify and Caltrans would not approve it as it is too
close to the signal at Saratoga.
• Added that an emergency signal could be installed.
• Pointed out that Highway 9 traffic is too heavy to allow left turns onto this site.
Commissioner Barry expressed concerns about the travel path from the fire station to the Oddfellows
site and asked Mr. Thomas if he were the engineer who prepared a study for the Ad Hoc Committee.
Mr. John Thomas replied no. He added that he did give email comments on the study.
Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Thomas for his opinion on the location of the fire station.
Mr. John Thomas declined to give an opinion.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that a proposal for a signal at Highway 9 and Oak is not a part of this
application.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if there is an advantage to having an emergency signal installed.
Mr. John Thomas advised that the Fire Department has control of the signal now.
Commissioner Kurasch expressed concerns about the 12 -foot wide alley for an exit.
Mr. John Thomas agreed that it is narrow.
Mr. Reese Williams, 20119 Knollwood Drive, Saratoga:
• Identified himself as a 34 -year resident and native of Saratoga and member of the Ad Hoc
Committee.
• Stated that he is deeply interested in this project and that there has been a tremendous amount of
community involvement.
• Pointed out that many changes will occur outside the scope of this project. For example, five spaces
for the Post Office off of Saratoga Avenue.
• Said that strong support is expressed for a new fire station. This project has been well thought out
and has a creative design. The phasing and circulation has been well put together.
• Stated that this will be a civic cornerstone building for all Saratoga to be proud.
• Pointed out that Council adopted the Scheme A proposal.
• Advised that sleeping accommodations are not a support function but rather are an essential
operational function.
• Said that the process has been open and that communication is a two -way street.
Mr. Ron Vega, Assistant Fire Chief, Saratoga Fire Department:
• Discussed the traffic flow during and after construction.
• Assured that they have a standing policy not to use the Village Green neighborhood.
• Said that all their traffic flows on major roads, Big Basin, Saratoga and Highway 9.
Commissioner Barry:
• Pointed out that the Bond Issue was originally intended to make the station earthquake safe.
Saratoga Planning Commissic Iinutes of October 9, 2002 Page 20
• Asked Mr. Vega whether Fire is building a station for yesterday and today or for tomorrow.
• Asked what the future will be for a regional fire plan.
• Questioned how this plan accommodates the ability to fight a major Hillside fire or other such
major disaster.
Mr. Ron Vega replied that the plan is for tomorrow. Added that it includes increased staffing and
vehicles. The whole plan is to provide the best public safety services possible.
Commissioner Barry expressed doubt that the necessary equipment is in place to fight Hillside fires and
other major disasters.
Mr. Ron Vega pointed out that there would be a new patrol fire apparatus for those types of
applications, a new fire aerial truck. The whole plan is based on future fire service delivery.
Acting Chair Kurasch called for a break at 10:40 p.m.
Acting Chair Kurasch resume the meeting at 10:50 p.m.
Acting Chair Kurasch summarized the letter delivered this evening on behalf of Mr. Dave Solomon
20393 Park Place, Saratoga, expressing support for the construction of a new fire facility with some
concerns about cut through traffic and circulation.
Mr. Hal Toppel, Attorney for the Fire Department:
• Summarized the three categories of concern: the impact of construction on the neighborhood,
Caltrans and Post Office arrangements.
• Stated that all three areas can be addressed with Conditions.
• Suggested a Condition that the District, in collaboration with the Valley Green Homeowners'
Association, develop a construction staging and traffic pan.
• Suggested a Condition that requires the District to obtain all necessary encroachment permits from
Caltrans.
• Suggested a Condition requiring the District to obtain an easement from the Post Office. If it is not
possible, an alternative plan would be required.
• Stated that they have come up with plans that addressed all the Village Green Homeowners'
Association concerns.
• Added that he has heard no complaint from them on the project itself.
• Stated the need to move forward.
• Urged the Commission to take action tonight.
Acting Chair Kurasch questioned how to deal with two separate parcels with perhaps a covenant to
restrict them.
Mr. Hal Toppel said that there are two types of agreements. One to restrict the use of the Contempo lot
strictly for parking and another for the permanent dedication of 10 spaces for public use.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked Mr. Toppel whether the Fire District is agreeable to meeting with the
Village Green Homeowners' Association.
Saratoga Planning Commissi(- linutes of October 9, 2002 Page 21
Mr. Hal Toppel replied yes.
Commissioner Garakani pointed out that parking concerns have been addressed quite a lot. Wondered
why the Contempo property should be sold.
Mr. Hal Toppel advised that the sale of the Contempo property to the church makes parking possible.
Commissioner Garakani again asked why sell the property at all.
Mr. Hal Toppel:
• Reminded the Commission that the project has sufficient parking.
• Added that the new station has been setback so that trucks can back into the station.
• Said that the area with a zero setback faces onto a parking lot.
• Said that they are both trying to solve the neighborhood problem and generate money to finance the
project.
Acting Chair Kurasch said that without the sale of the Contempo property the fire station would have
more parking.
Commissioner Garakani said that he has concerns about parking lot circulation.
Mr. Hal Toppel pointed out that the more challenging parking spaces are restricted spaces with posted
signs while the public parking is easily accessed.
Commissioner Zutshi asked why not keep the Contempo building during construction of the new fire
station.
Ms. Mary McGrath advised that they solicited construction bids to renovate the Contempo building for
temporary use as a fire station. The cost of $220,000 was $40,000 more than the cost of demolishing
the existing Contempo building and installing leased modular buildings. In addition, the project gets a
parking lot.
Commissioner Garakani pointed out the 18,000 square foot size of the building.
Ms. Mary McGrath reminded that 2,500 square feet is basement.
Commissioner Garakani asked what has been added to require the additional 2,500 square feet.
Ms. Mary McGrath replied a training room and communications storage.
Commissioner Garakani asked why City property is needed to be transferred to this project.
Ms. Mary McGrath replied because of the requirement for 59 feet in front of the bay.
Acting Chair Kurasch advised that Design Review includes impacts and the Commission is trying to
understand the size of the building.
Ms. Mary McGrath advised that the size is totally operationally driven.
Saratoga Planning Commissic Iinutes of October 9, 2002 Page 22
Acting Chair Kurasch stated that the mass of this building is so large for this corner.
Ms. Mary McGrath state that it is 20 feet high in the rear and 30 feet high at one point. The project
complies with Ordinance as far as height. The project has less than 30 percent coverage and offers
sufficient parking.
Acting Chair Kurasch said that issues of bulk and mass still exist.
Commissioner Roupe asked about material colors.
Ms. Mary McGrath showed the materials sample display with muted non - glossy tile, copper gutters and
two -tone roof tiles.
Acting Chair Kurasch said that these materials are very nice.
Chief Ernie Kraule:
• Said that they seek an operating fire station with adequate staff to serve a community with a four -
minute response time.
• Pointed out that this location offers easy access in four directions and that they are able to respond
to Hillside fires.
• Agreed that better communication should have occurred with the Village Green Homeowners'
Association.
• Stated that they desperately need a fire station on this location.
Commissioner Barry asked if the Traffic Engineer from Fehr & Peers is present.
Mr. Jason Pack, Traffic Engineer, Fehr & Peers:
• Stated that he reviewed the latest proposed architectural layout with ingress one way from Saratoga
with right turns and a left turn pocket from Saratoga. The drive from Highway 9 is full access.
• Said that the 17 -foot aisle width for two -way traffic is less than the 20 to 24 foot width that is
preferred for two -way traffic.
Commissioner Zutshi asked about access to Park Place.
Mr. Jason Pack said that there is no access to Park from the Fire property but only from the Church.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked about the proposed left -turn pocket on Highway 9.
Mr. Jason Pack said that the proposal is to restripe the existing painted island for a left turn pocket.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that work is being done on a traffic study together with the Village
Green Homeowners' Association.
Acting Chair Kurasch said that the changes are really positive. Asked Mr. Pack for his suggestions on
staging.
Mr, Jason Pack replied that his expertise is only on -site circulation.
Saratoga Planning Commissic linutes of October 9, 2002 Page 23
Acting Chair Kurasch closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 11:27 p.m.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked Director Sullivan for a suggested order in dealing with the temporary Use
Permit, Negative Declaration and Design Review.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that the Negative Declaration was done by Fire as lead agency. The
Commission needs to develop two separate Resolutions. One for the Design Review and Use Permit.
The second is to make the determination that this project is consistent with the General Plan.
Commissioner Roupe asked if the Lot Line Adjustment is included in the first Resolution.
Director Tom Sullivan replied yes.
Commissioner Zutshi asked about other Settlement Agreement points such as setbacks and the
demolition of the Contempt building.
Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that the Settlement Agreement requires a specific number
of parking spaces, height and maximum 30 percent coverage. There are 10 City - controlled spaces in
the transfer of land.
Commissioner Roupe said that he had asked the City Attorney if the proposal was significantly in
conformance with the Settlement Agreement to act upon this and the City Attorney said yes.
Acting Chair Kurasch said that she questions the review of the Negative Declaration.
Commissioner Roupe stated that the Commission is simply reviewing it but has no approval authority
on it. Suggested changing the wording in the Resolution to read that Fire has made the necessary
findings for the Negative Declaration.
Commissioner Barry asked what would happen if the Commission finds the Negative Declaration does
not pass muster.
Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that the Commission does not have the standing to make
that statement.
Director Tom Sullivan suggested that the second sentence be deleted which make mention of Fire
environmental documents attached.
Acting Chair Kurasch stated that Fire has nothing to do with the actions of the Commission.
Commissioner Garakam:
• Said that as an ordinary citizen, he thinks this building looks good. It is a nice building with a nice
setback. However, as a Commissioner, he is not here to see what is nice or not nice but rather to
hear from the residents regarding the impact on Saratoga.
• Said that a lot of existing conditions do not work and something has to be done to make them work.
• Agreed that lots of effort went into designing the building but that little effort seems to have been
spent on parking and circulation design.
Saratoga Planning Commissio, linutes of October 9, 2002 Page 24
• Said that the City is losing land with the sale of the Contempo building that could be used for a
better arrangement of parking.
• Stated that he likes the building but would like a better circulation and parking plan.
• Pointed out the 8,985 square feet of land that the City is turning over to this project.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the land would be sold and not given.
Commissioner Garakani asked why the City does not assume that land.
Commissioner Roupe replied because the City does not have either the money or interest in the
purchase of that land.
Commissioner Garakani stated that he cannot look at the Settlement Agreement instead of Zoning
regulations in consideration of this proposal and that the Commission should look at the best scenario
for that corner.
Commissioner Roupe reminded that the Commission was directed by Council to look at this application
within the constraints of the settlement they made. This is a done deed.
Acting Chair Kurasch countered that this does not preclude Design Review.
Commissioner Zutshi said that the Agreement confines the bulk.
Acting Chair Kurasch reminded that it cannot exceed 30 percent coverage.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the setbacks required in order to turn vehicles constrains the
placement of the new station.
Commissioner Barry said that the language does not say zero setback.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that it does not preclude it either.
Commissioner Roupe stated that he thinks this is a good project that should go forward with the
requirement that the necessary agreements with Caltrans, the Church and Post Office be finalized.
Commissioner Garakani said that the existing parking area width is not adequate.
Director Tom Sullivan said that the spaces Commissioner Garakani speaks of are within the Post Office
parking lot where the Sheriff's office rents.
Commissioner Roupe suggested having the Fire District come back to the Commission before the
construction permit is issued to ensure that all necessary agreements have been finalized.
Commissioner Hunter:
• Pointed out how much quicker the library project progressed.
• Added that people often ask her why the fire station project is taking so long.
• Said that this will be a handsome fire station for the City of Saratoga of which she will be proud.
• Said that she has never experience a problem with fire station traffic.
Saratoga Planning Commissi(
iinutes of October 9, 2002
• Stated that it is time to move ahead and send it on.
• Declared that this is for our community and saving our lives.
• Reiterated that it is time to move ahead. It's a good plan, let's move along.
• Thanked Mary McGrath for the fantastic way she handled this project.
Commissioner Garakani:
• Said that this is a nice building but that it doesn't end there.
• Agreed that everyone wants a nice fire station.
• Added that it is important to avoid pitfalls and to look ahead.
Page 25
Commissioner Roupe said that with the right Conditions of Approval, this project can move ahead.
Acting Chair Kurasch:
• Stated that the Caltrans representative had no opinion about the location of this fire station but did
express concern regarding the 12 -foot alley for fire engine use.
• Added that she takes that concern seriously.
• Said that people impacted need to be involved in the process.
• Agreed that the library project was a smooth effort.
• Said that she would like to see an emergency signal at Oak Street.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Restated that he believes the project can go forward with appropriate Conditions.
• Cautioned that there will likely be an appeal of whatever decision is made.
• Said it is time to make that decision and move on with this.
• Stated that this is a good plan and building and that he would be proud of it.
• Suggested a motion and vote.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked for a straw vote.
Commissioner Zutshi expressed support for going forward with applicable conditions.
Director Tom Sullivan reminded that a tie vote represents denial.
Commissioner Garakani asked what happens with a denial.
Commissioner Roupe replied that the applicant would appeal to Council. Suggested approval with the
requirement that the applicant work with the neighbors on staging during construction, the necessary
agreements with Caltrans, Post Office and Church be work out and traffic circulation be fine tuned.
Commissioner Garakani asked what if things are no better when brought back.
Commissioner Roupe replied, deny the project.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked the Commissioners if they prefer a vote or continuance.
Commissioner Garakani said that he would prefer the applicants come back after working on those
issues outlined with clear directions from the Commission.
Saratoga Planning Commissi(
linutes of October 9, 2002
Page 26
Commissioner Barry:
• Stated that she would not agree to anything to allow Fire to circumvent honest work with neighbors.
• Added that she wants an agreement brought back to the Commission before an approval is granted.
• Said that it is not adequate to tie in to building permit approval.
• Advised that she would not vote for the project as it is.
Commissioner Garakani expressed support for a continuance rather than a denial.
Commissioner Roupe stated that this would be the worse decision the Commission could make. The
item has been heard twice. Expressed strong support for making a conditioned approval.
Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that any decision is likely to be appealed to Council no matter what
that decision. Council could remove some or all of these added conditions.
Commissioner Garakani said that the building looks good but he has problems with the design of the
parking area. Said that the land should be used properly to mitigate parking needs. Said he would not
support this proposal as a result.
Commissioner Barry said that she would like to have it come back in a public hearing with an
opportunity for a better site parking and circulation design to occur.
Commissioner Garakani said he would prefer a continuance or denial.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the
Planning Commission recommended approval of Design Review, Use Permit and
Lot Line Adjustment for the proposed new fire station at 14380 Saratoga Avenue
with the following added Conditions:
• Applicant to work with neighbors and City to develop a construction staging,
traffic, parking and circulation plan and will bring that plan back to the
Planning Commission for review and approval;
• Applicant to secure approvals and endorsements from Caltrans, Post Office,
San Jose Water and other interested parties whose agreements are necessary to
execute this project;
• Develop a traffic circulation plan for parking area of Post Office and Fire,
working together in a harmonious way, and bring the plan back to the Planning
Commission for review and approval;
• Issues of vehicle circuits, noise, dust and a parking sign with contact name for
24 -hour contact be put in place before permits issued; and
• The relocation of the monument before construction begins.
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Hunter, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: Barry, Garakani and Kurasch
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Jackman
The project is denied.
Saratoga Planning Commissi(
Iinutes of October 9, 2002
Acting Chair Kurasch suggested crafting another motion.
27
Mr. Hal Toppel, Attorney for the Fire District, advised that the Commission has taken its action and
denied the project.
Commissioner Barry expressed thanks to Mary McGrath for her design work and presentation.
Acting Chair Kurasch advised that the applicant could appeal this action.
Acting Chair Kurasch returned the gavel to Chair Jackman at 12:22 a.m.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.3 and ITEM NO.4
DR -01 -035, UP -01 -013, ED -01 -002 (393 -25 -022) ST. ANDREW'S PARISH AND SCHOOL, 13601
Saratoga Avenue: The applicant requests design review and use permit approval to construct new
facilities for St. Andrew's School and Parish. The Planning Commission will take public testimony and
will conduct a formal discussion of issues. The Planning Commission will not take action to approve or
deny the project at this time. The proposed project includes the demolition of existing buildings and the
construction of the following facilities: Performing Arts /Gymnasium, Sunday School Rooms,
Administration Offices, Classrooms, Clergy Offices, Parish Center and a Bell Tower. The project also
includes a memorial garden, covered walkways, an outdoor eating area, re- grading and reconfiguration
of the parking lot and eliminating off -site queuing. New building construction will total 72,345 square
feet and will include six new structures. The existing sanctuary is to remain. (OOSTERHOUS)
APPLICATION #02 -197 (CITYWIDE) — CITY OF SARATOGA: The proposed Zoning Ordinance
Amendment would revise side yard setback requirements for structures over 18 feet in height in the R-
1- 10,000, R- 1- 12,500, R -1- 15,000 and the R -1- 20,000 Districts. (SULLIVAN)
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Barry, Agenda
Items No. 3 and No. 4 will be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting
on October 23, 2002, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
DIRECTOR'S ITEMS
There were no Director's Items.
COMMISSION ITEMS
Saratoga Planning Commissik linutes of October 9, 2002 Page 28
Commissioner Hunter advised that she attended a meeting with Campbell, Los Gatos and Saratoga
representatives regarding Heritage properties. Commended Associate Planner John Livingstone for his
coordination of this meeting.
COMMUNICATIONS
There were no communication items.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Chair Jackman adjourned the meeting at 12:25 a.m. to the Annual Retreat on Saturday, October 12,
2002, at 9 a.m. and thereafter to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, October 23, 2002, to begin
at 7 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, September 25, 2002
PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Chair Jackman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi
Absent: None
Staff: Director Tom Sullivan and Associate Planner John Livingstone
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of September 11, 2002.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the
regular Planning Commission minutes of September 11, 2002, were approved with
corrections to pages 9 and 11.
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Zutshi
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this
meeting was properly posted on September 19, 2002.
REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS
Chair Jackman announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an
Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision,
pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b).
Saratoga Planning Commissik 4inutes of September 25, 2002 Page 2
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. William Breck, 20375 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, Saratoga:
• Reported continued tree damage from work related to 14480 Oak Place.
• Reminded that this is his ninth time before the City since January.
• Said that there is excessive cutting occurring on oak trees, which is causing distress to these trees.
• Said that the City's excuse is that 30 percent of a canopy can be trimmed per growth period.
• Added that there is continued construction of the wall despite a stop work order and that
sandblasting from this site is causing asthma problems to some in the neighborhood.
• Complained that there is no enforcement of the City's resolution.
• Questioned whether the Planning Commission could impose fines and pointed out a recent article
that demonstrated that Los Altos recently levied someone with a $27,000 fine.
• Asked that the Commission direct staff to pull (or rescind) permits, impose fines and enforce tree
protections.
• Advised that per his study of the Code, the Planning Commission can add an emergency item to its
agenda with four members' support.
• Pointed out that there has already been a three - and -a- half -week delay thus far regarding getting the
Arborist on site to evaluate the situation.
Commissioner Roupe asked Director Sullivan to elaborate on the Planning Commission's authority as
far as levying fines.
Director Tom Sullivan said that he had checked with Los Altos and also looked at their Municipal
Code. The Authority to levy fines rests with their Council also. The fine mentioned by Mr. Breck was
imposed for the illegal demolition of a historic structure. Saratoga does not have the same provision.
There are, however, provisions for civil remedies.
Mr. William Breck asked about the revocation of permits.
Commissioner Barry advised Mr. Breck that the Oral Request section of the agenda couldn't lead to any
action tonight. The Commission has heard what he has said and the information will be passed on.
Commissioner Hunter said that she just recently visited a friend whose property is adjacent to the Cutler
property. That friend's tree is being decimated.
Director Tom Sullivan stated that it took two weeks to obtain verbal and written permission from Mr.
Cutler to gain access to his property. The City had been on the verge of going to court.
Commissioner Hunter advised that the tree company that trimmed the tree on her friend's property
climbed a wall from the Cutler property in order to access her friend's property to cut the tree. Asked if
this is legal.
Director Tom Sullivan said that this is considered trespassing and the Sheriff should have been called
immediately as it was occurring.
Commissioner Kurasch asked what the next step should be.
Saratoga Planning Commissik Qinutes of September 25, 2002 Page 3
Commissioner Hunter said the City shouldn't wait until no trees are left.
Chair Jackman reminded that the Commission is unable to take action but can simply direct staff to
continue to work on the matter.
Director Tom Sullivan promised to bring the newest concerns raised by Mr. Breck with the City
Attorney the next day. He added that he tried to reach one of the three attorneys today but all were
unavailable. Stated that the Sheriff and Code Enforcement staff responded today and found no
infraction.
Commissioner Barry asked about developing an emergency resolution.
Mr. William Breck advised that action is needed today and quoted sections 2- 10.020(b) and 2- 15.050 of
the Municipal Code.
Commissioner Barry assured Mr. Breck that Director Sullivan will follow through on these issues to the
full extent that he has the legal authority to do so.
Ms. Holly Davies, 14478 Oak Place, Saratoga:
• Stated that the Houston's beautiful heritage oak was cut today.
• Added that on June 14`h, her tree was heavily cut.
• Said that on June 28`h, her tree was cut again very heavily.
• Said that she called Code Enforcement today and was told that a tree can be pruned up to 30 percent
of its canopy.
• Pointed out that in a report by Barrie Coate prepared on April 22, 2002, the tree was valued at
$10,000.
• Declared that if a tree is cut 30 percent each time, the tree could be gone in three weeks. The fines
are nominal, about $1,000 for an oak and from $100 -300 for pines.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Ms. Davies if photographs were taken today.
Ms. Holly Davies:
• Replied yes, the tree on the Houston's property was photographed today.
• Added that this lovely heritage tree is visible from her property and had been valued at
approximately $20,000.
• Advised that a new report is underway by Barrie Coate.
Chair Jackman advised that a Tree Subcommittee of the Commission is working up regulations to give
more "teeth" and provide more ability to take action. It is hard to enforce things if they are not in the
Code.
Commissioner Barry asked if Barrie Coate has been asked to expedite the report.
Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. He added that the four members who can enact an emergency
agenda item are Councilmembers. He added that a four - fifths vote is mandated under law to avoid an
action on items that the public has not been properly notified about. Should the Commission decide to
Saratoga Planning Commissit Iinutes of September 25, 2002 Page 4
interpret the Code differently, he advised that more than four votes be cast in favor prior to undertake
such action. He added that usually, Planning Commissions do not deal with urgency items.
Commissioner Kurasch asked what could be done with any emergency action.
Director Tom Sullivan replied only things that he would be doing anyway.
Commissioner Barry advised that the Commission has directed staff to take every action possible.
Commissioner Hunter said that since the Commission is the tree authority for the City, it is correct to
come to the Commission with tree- related concerns.
Director Tom Sullivan agreed but stated that the Commission has taken its action and provided
direction to staff. It gave 30 to 60 days for a new tree report to be prepared by Barrie Coate.
Ms. Lee Matas, 20385 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, Saratoga:
• Quoted from several communications from City staff:
• A June 21, 2002, letter from Director Tom Sullivan, in which he states that Mr. Cutler would be
required to fully implement the arborist's recommendations.
• An email from July 3, 2002, said that the City would do an inspection and if tree protection is
not adequate, no house permits would be issued.
• A June 6, 2002, letter from Ann Welsh which quoted section 16- 05.030(g), stating that the
Building Official shall not issue additional permits if violations exist until said violations are
corrected.
• Added that despite these communications from staff, on July 16, 2002, Mr. Cutler was issued
permits to remodel the main house.
• Declared that she could not understand why ten neighbors have no clout while Mr. Cutler is allowed
to do what he wants.
Commissioner Roupe asked Director Sullivan to reply to these comments.
Director Tom Sullivan said that the positions taken in both his and Ann's letters were overruled by the
City Manager while he was out of the office.
CONSENT CALENDAR (ITEM NO. 1 and ITEM NO. 2)
APPLICATION #02 -197 (CITYWIDE) — CITY OF SARATOGA: Adoption of a Resolution of
Intent to amend the Saratoga Code as it relates to side yard setbacks. (SULLIVAN)
APPLICATION #02 -210 (CITYWIDE) — CITY OF SARATOGA: Adoption of a Resolution of
Intent to amend the Saratoga Code as it relates to tree regulations. (SULLIVAN)
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
Planning Commission approved Consent Calendar Items No. 1 and 2 by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Saratoga Planning Commissik Iinutes of September 25, 2002 Page 5
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO.3
GATEWAY DESIGN GUIDELINES: Design Guidelines for the Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road Gateway
have been prepared to guide new development in this district. The streetscape improvement plan has
been adopted to address improvements within the public street right -of -way to create a new northern
gateway to the City. The Guidelines provide direction for the redevelopment and mixed -use projects
that introduce a component of residential uses within the Gateway district, as provided for in the
General Plan Housing Element. (SULLIVAN)
Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows:
• Reminded the Commission that this item had been brought before them for public input.
Subsequently, the Commission directed staff to coordinate one more Task Force meeting and
Commissioners Barry and Roupe were assigned to attend that meeting.
• Advised that two additional Task Force meetings were actually held. At the first, the bulk of issues
were worked out. At the second, the topic was mainly signage.
• Stated that good solid discussion was had.
• Advised that a summary was provided in the packet of the development standards with the June 6,
2002, final report.
• Said that for the July meeting, all commercial interests were notified.
• Stated that a table depicting proposed changes has been distributed and that both Co- Chairs were
given a copy of the table in the lobby this evening.
• Recommended that changes be made to either draft.
• Described some specific staff - proposed changes as follows:
• Page 2, Part I (Intro) — minor language changes on applicability. This proposed change has
been agreed to by everyone involved.
• Page 5, staff recommends that the Planning Commission policy requiring applicants to meet
with neighbors be added.
• Item 9, requires the inclusion of public amenities when they would not infringe on adjacent
residential properties.
Commissioner Barry asked about the maximum density of 20 units per gross acre in relation to a
mixed -use development.
Director Tom Sullivan:
• Advised that the net site is considered not the gross and that the whole use of the lot, both
commercial and residential components, would be considered.
• Item 16, advised that a lot of discussion was held regarding encouraging businesses that are limited
in size so as to be local serving as opposed to big box type commercial businesses.
• Added that no property in the Gateway is large enough to accommodate a big box type business.
Commissioner Kurasch asked where office uses would be permitted.
Director Tom Sullivan:
Saratoga Planning Commissit Iinutes of September 25, 2002 Page 6
• Replied that office uses would be permitted either the first or second floor. This upholds the status
quo.
• Page 8, staff suggested compromise language regarding the need for pedestrian connections and to
promote /encourage shared parking where possible. Added that they are not talking about parking
on one lot to patronize another lot but rather shared parking for mixed uses on one property, which
is a fairly common planning and development concept.
Commissioner Kurasch asked why #8 on page 8 was dropped regarding mitigating adverse impacts.
Director Tom Sullivan:
• Replied that the commercial folks thought it was onerous. Staff did not propose to add it back in
because it is already covered in design review.
• Page 9, #6, Buildings on Corners. Initially, there was a desire to have entrances and/or display
windows on both facades. That was changed at the July meeting. Staff is proposing another
change to include street frontage facades.
• Page 10, #15, would call for visible and identifiable entrances.
• #19 was slightly revised to include decorative paving materials.
• Page 13, #5, Screening. In July the Task Force wanted to take out screening so buildings are
visible from the road and parking lot. Staff is proposing that the site should be oriented to be a
pedestrian friendly environment.
• Page 14 — defines mature. Originally, a 20 -foot deep rear yard buffer was required between
commercial and residential lots. In July, that was changed to 5 -foot. Staff proposes to return this
to a 20 -foot minimum requirement.
Commissioner Kurasch asked what is now required between residential and commercial uses.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that in the C -V Zone, the rear yard setback is a minimum of 30 feet, with
10 -foot minimum side setbacks. In the C -N Zone, there are no minimum requirements unless the
commercial property is adjacent to R -1 at which time the minimum setback requirement is 30 feet.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if this precludes parking.
Director Tom Sullivan replied correct except for a minimum five foot landscape buffer.
Commissioner Roupe asked Director Sullivan to identify issues on which these Guidelines are more
restrictive than existing Code.
Director Tom Sullivan said issues such as landscape requirements to create screening, staggered
setbacks for first and second stories where adjacent to existing single -story residential developments,
which would have the second story portion of a building situated toward the center of the lot rather than
to the front or rear.
Commissioner Hunter said that she observed one office building with a 30 -foot strip while another had
a driveway at the rear near residential uses.
Director Tom Sullivan said that there is the ability to close the rear parking lot in that building in the
evenings and on weekends.
Saratoga Planning Commissik Zinutes of September 25, 2002 Page 7
Commissioner Hunter asked if a 20 -foot buffer is required.
Director Tom Sullivan replied no. He added that 30 -inch box trees would create screening within five
years. The landscape requirement is that the parking lot be 50- percent shaded within so many years.
Commissioner Garakani pointed out that no balconies or windows would be permitted at the second
story on sides and inquired about the rear.
Commissioner Kurasch asked whether there are any side abutting residential properties to commercial.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that he has told the consultant that his job is done and staff will take it
from here.
Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:02 p.m.
Ms. Zoe Alameda, Owner, Saratoga- Cupertino Funeral Home, 12341Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road,
Saratoga:
• Said that she has served on the Task Force since 1995.
• Thanked Tom Sullivan for his leadership, adding that he has a hard job and has done it wonderfully.
• Complimented Commissioners Barry and Roupe.
• Added that all involved staff have done a good job working with everyone and achieving
compromise.
• Said that she is happy with what has been developed.
• Said that she is pleased to obtain reassurance that in the event that her business burned down, she
will be able to rebuild.
• Acknowledged that if the property is to be more than 50 percent redeveloped, these new
development rules would kick in.
• Thanked everyone involved.
Mr. Al Saah, 1220 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga:
• Expressed appreciation to Tom Sullivan and Commissioners Roupe and Barry.
• Stated that this has been a difficult process and that many alterations have been made to the draft
guidelines.
• Said that some things have been removed that were unfair, namely the requirement for a 20 foot
buffer between single- family and commercial properties.
• Added that this causes a great deal of property to be unusable.
• Asked Director Tom Sullivan to come to his property to review the benefits and/or disadvantages.
• Declared that in his case, this 20 -foot buffer would be a taking and is excessive and would require
landscaping and ongoing maintenance of that landscaping.
• Added that under Code, the required buffer was five feet, which is how his building was built and
that he believes that this five -foot buffer is enough.
• Suggested that if the 20 -foot buffer were to be required, parking should be allowed there.
• Cautioned that this would have great ramifications.
Commissioner Roupe said that Mr. Saah's point is well taken and will be taken under consideration
during the Commission's discussion.
Saratoga Planning Commissit Iinutes of September 25, 2002 Page 8
Commissioner Kurasch asked what the buffer requirement is currently.
Director Tom Sullivan replied five feet although it is not always applied.
Commissioner Garakani suggested supporting the 20 -foot recommendation. This could always come
back to the Commission for change.
Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that these guidelines would only be used when more than 50 percent
of a property is redeveloped and that an applicant can always ask for an exception due to hardship.
Commissioner Hunter asked whether a 20 -foot setback would be imposed on a commercial property in
the future if a new house were to be built adjacent to commercial property.
Director Tom Sullivan replied no. This requirement applies only regarding existing single - family
residences.
Mr. Bill Benevento, 12270 Kirkdale Drive, Saratoga:
• Advised that he served on the Task Force.
• Pointed out that current maximum heights for commercial properties is 20 feet and was proposed to
be raised to 26 feet per the June 6`h draft (Page 5, #10). On July 26` ", the limitation of 18 feet
maximum height for commercial properties adjacent to residential properties was also removed.
With the change, it would be possible to have a 26 -foot high structure located 20 feet away from
existing residential properties.
• Stated that setbacks should be greater than 20 feet.
• Questioned what happed to the concept of privacy for adjacent residences, which are mostly single -
story residences.
• Said that allowing a 26 -foot height would result in buildings overlooking into the backyards and
homes of existing residents.
• Pointed out that on Page 2, #10, the required landscape buffer has shrunk to just five feet while he
understands that staff proposes to put it back to 20 feet.
• Said that when he originally got involved, he was interested in how the entrance to Saratoga
appeared but riders were added to the initial concept and he is uncomfortable with that fact.
Commissioner Barry asked staff for a clarification on height issues adjacent to residential properties
and potential privacy impacts.
Director Tom Sullivan:
• Said that on Page 6, Item #12, deals with mixed -use projects and #13 deals with commercial
buildings. The transition of setbacks is still there.
Mr. Jeff Walker, 20451 Seagull Way, Saratoga:
• Said that he has not seen the table distributed to the Commissioners.
• Said that he is not pleased with the current state of these guidelines.
• Pointed out that he participated in 10 to 12 meetings on these guidelines but that they now reflect
the interests of an overwhelming number of business owners and legal representatives.
• Added that the guidelines do not reflect the goals of beautification of the entrance and/or signs.
• Said that he recently took a walk in this area and found the signs there to be overwhelming.
Saratoga Planning Commissic linutes of September 25, 2002 Page 9
Commissioner Barry said that she too had noticed the proliferation of signs in the area.
Mr. Jeff Walker:
• Said that these guidelines have gone from being more neighbor - friendly to being more business
friendly.
• Suggested that they be sent back to the Task Force with more balance in its composition.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Walker what he would change.
Mr. Jeff Walker said that the building setbacks between commercial and residential should be 30 feet
both from the rear and side. Additionally, a 15 -20 foot landscape buffer should be provided. Signage
should depict character and be consistent.
Commissioner Roupe said that signs would be addressed in a broader review that would be Citywide in
scope.
Commissioner Kurasch said that it appears no consensus has been reached per the report.
Commissioner Barry said that issues such as lighting and signage are taken very seriously.
Director Tom Sullivan reminded that the August 23rd Task Force meeting focused on signage and that
some sign guidelines are included on pages 11 and 12 of the draft guidelines.
Mr. Bill Guthrie, 20422 Seagull Way, Saratoga:
• Said that setbacks and heights are his main issues.
• Said he understood the City's desire to allow denser development to improve the City's retail tax
base as well as to implement its Housing Element by enticing developers to build more housing.
• Said that changes to underlying Code will have to be made to implement this plan and that
extensive Zoning Code changes would also be required.
• Advised that the C -V Zoning District has a requirement for a minimum rear yard setback of 30 feet
with one additional foot added for each foot of additional height above 14 feet. In the C -N Zoning
District, the minimum setback is 30 feet. Both Zones have a maximum 20 -foot height at this time.
• Suggested that it appears that setbacks and heights need to be carefully considered.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Director Sullivan to address this.
Director Tom Sullivan pointed to Page 27, Item #14, that states that underlying zoning is still enforced
unless otherwise outlined within the Guidelines.
Mr. Bill Guthrie said that many buildings in the area already have exceptions to existing Code and that
exceptions should not be granted so easily.
Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that buildings can have a maximum height of 26 feet.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that a lot of properties back onto single - family single -story homes. For
commercial uses adjacent to R -1, the side and rear setbacks would be 30 feet.
Saratoga Planning Commissic linutes of September 25, 2002 Page 10
Mr. John F. Mallory, 12258 Kirkdale Drive, Saratoga:
• Informed that he has resided in his home since 1967 and has been a City supporter and participant
for 25 years.
• Stated he is lucky to live in a community with high standards.
• Advised that he joined the Task Force in 1995 and was again pleased to work on it until the project
was put on hold.
• Said that the Task Force was started again last year and he was glad to work on upgrading the area.
• Advised that he is concerned with mitigating the impacts.
• Said that he liked the consultant's vision and style and that design meetings went reasonably well.
• Suggested that the City needs an entrance it can be proud of, with design standards outlining new
goals and development standards for buildings.
• Added that things have not gone well in that respect and the group had trouble reaching consensus.
• Informed that at the July meeting, only four residents participated while there were 24 commercial
property owners. There were a lot of changes made without consensus. Letters from lawyers and
tense communication focused discussions on protecting property, which did not have good concept
for a Task Force with inconsistent representation.
• Stated that there was not a strong commitment to focus on goals.
• Added that there are unfinished items that need Planning Commission attention.
Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Mallory if he has seen the table put together by staff depicting the
various recommendations.
Mr. John T. Mallory replied yes.
Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Mallory what area or column he is dissatisfied with.
Mr. John T. Mallory replied all.
Chair Jackman asked staff what the Commission is to do this evening.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that the Commission would forward the Guidelines to Council with
recommendations. The Commission can elect to create a fifth column with its own recommendations.
The Commission's action is not final as the Council takes the final action. Another alternative is to
continue this item to a date certain.
Commissioner Barry suggested a continuance to a date certain and have the Commission create the fifth
column to the extent possible this evening.
Chair Jackman said that comments for a fifth column are possible but that perhaps a workshop would
be a better venue as well as receiving written comments from the public.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that the next action is for the Commission to take. Recommended a
continuance to the November 131h meeting.
Commissioner Hunter said that she hears the concerns expressed and has no problem continuing this
item.
Saratoga Planning Commissi( linutes of September 25, 2002 Page 11
Commissioner Zutshi questioned the imbalance between commercial and residential property owners
and how a better balance could be obtained.
Mr. John T. Mallory replied that he was unaware of the additional meetings and had scheduled a
vacation when they occurred.
Ms. Zoe Alameda, 12341 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga:
• Reminded the Commission that the commercial uses along this street pre- existed the residences.
Her funeral home has been on its site for 33 years. Therefore, people knowingly purchased their
homes adjacent to existing commercial businesses.
• Stated that signage will be addressed on a Citywide basis.
Mr. Al Saah, 12200 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga, suggested that a cost estimate and a study of
the damages that could be caused by these guidelines should be considered when developing this fifth
column to the table.
Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:52 p.m.
Commissioner Kurasch suggested reviewing the columns one by one.
Chair Jackman questioned whether it should be done this evening or later.
Commissioner Roupe suggested a Study Session at which time each Commission would have prepared
what they would like to have included on the fifth column. The hearing this evening can be continued.
Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that a Study Session was held just last week.
Chair Jackman pointed out that this was prior to public comment.
Commissioner Roupe said that he is willing to continue discussion or set up a Study Session.
Commissioner Hunter said that this is a process that the Commission needs time on and needs to slow
down this process.
Chair Jackman said that she too would like this item continued.
Commissioner Roupe asked what would be done between now and the next Planning Commission
meeting.
Chair Jackman said a meeting to develop a fifth column.
Commissioner Barry agreed and said that she would like to see the Commission's decisions published
as the fifth column and handed out. Asked if there are any comments on what has already been
covered.
Director Tom Sullivan stated that it appears the Commissioners want to draft a fifth column and
provide copies to all participants.
Saratoga Planning Commissic mutes of September 25, 2002 Page 12
Commissioner Garakani asked if the consultant could provide pros and cons on every specific impacted
property.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that he has neither budget nor staff available to do that level of detail or
to keep the consultant working any longer.
Commissioner Kurasch expressed support for a Study Session to generate another column and
distribute that information.
Director Tom Sullivan suggested that the Commissioners notify Kristin of available meeting dates for
early October.
Chair Jackman asked if the material could be posted on the Web site.
Director Tom Sullivan replied sure.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the
Planning Commission continued consideration of the Gateway Design Guidelines to
its meeting of November 13, 2002, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Jackman called for a break at 9:04 p.m. and turned the gavel over to Commissioner Kurasch since
she resides within the notification area for the next agenda item and will have to recuse herself.
Acting Chair Kurasch reconvened the meeting at 9:15 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.4
APPLICATION #02 -176 (Reconsideration of DR -01 -006. TUP -01 -003. UP -01 -002 and related
applications) (APN's 397 -22 -017, 397 -22 -019, 397 -2 -015, 397 -22 -012 & 397 -22 -042) —
SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT, 14380 Saratoga Avenue and 20473 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road:
Request for Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, Lot Line Adjustment and General Plan
Conformity Determination for vacation and abandonment of George Whalen Way (City alley located
behind the existing fire station) and transfer of Heritage Plaza property from the City to the Saratoga
Fire Protection District for a new fire station with variations to setback and landscape standards.
Existing fire station and building at 14380 Saratoga Avenue proposed to be demolished, temporary
facilities proposed to be located at 20473 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road during construction of new fire
station proposed for 14380 Saratoga Avenue. (LIVINGSTONE)
Acting Chair Kurasch advised that one speaker has asked to speak immediately in order to leave for
another meeting.
Acting Chair Kurasch opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:15 p.m.
Saratoga Planning Commissic. Iinutes of September 25, 2002 Page 13
Mr. Daryl Ishizaki, Manager for Post Office Operations, San Jose:
• Said that he has shared the Post Office's concerns throughout the process and believes that they
have been addressed to his satisfaction.
• Advised that of particular concern are the five parking stalls located at the street, in front of the Post
Office. They are firm in their requirement that these five spaces stay there in order to allow them to
continue to provide quality service to the community.
• Added that with that requirement met, they are willing to cooperate in support of the project.
Commissioner Garakani asked if backing out from those spaces is even safe at this point.
Mr. Daryl Ishizaki said that he has the same concerns but it is important to maintain access to these
spaces. If there are modifications to the roadway, the stalls must be maintained in a safe manner. To
remove these spaces impacts their ability to support this project.
Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Ishizaki to provide the Post Office's position in writing so that it would
be on the record and prior to the next Public Hearing.
Mr. Daryl Ishizaki said that the current project is acceptable outside of the possible loss of those five
parking stalls and roadway modifications and he is willing to put this in writing.
Commissioner Roupe asked that prior to the next hearing the Public Works Director address these five
spaces and the future roadway projects.
Mr. Daryl Ishizaki reiterated his agreement with the project with the two concerns met.
Commissioner Zutshi said that her experience parking in those spaces has not been that good.
Commissioner Hunter said that she uses this Post Office once or twice a week and backs out of these
spaces without a problem. Stated that this is a wonderful Post Office and extended her thanks to Mr.
Ishizaki for keeping it there.
Acting Chair Kurasch closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:25 p.m.
Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows:
• Pointed out that Page 6 is a duplicate and should be disregarded.
• Advised that the City Clerk provided a list of names to be notified and staff called each one as well
as sending notices.
• Stated that an updated project traffic assessment was prepared.
• Stated that the applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit, Design Review and Lot Line
Adjustment for both a new and temporary fire station.
• Suggested that this evening an initial review should be taken but that no final action be taken until
the Mitigated Negative Declaration is finalized. It has not yet been approved by the Fire District.
• Advised that the item should be continued to the October 9, 2002, meeting. The Public Hearing
should be open tonight and speakers allowed to address the Commission on the proposal and the
Commission can provide feedback.
• Gave a background on this project.
Saratoga Planning Commissio. .inutes of September 25, 2002 Page 14
• Stated that on September 5, 2001, Council denied an application for a new fire station at 14380
Saratoga Avenue. An Ad Hoc Committee was formed with representatives from many jurisdictions
including the Fire District, Sheriff's Office, County Administration, Federated Church, neighbors
and representatives of the Planning and Public Safety Commissions.
• Advised that on July 17, 2002, a Settlement Agreement was reached consistent with Scheme A.
• Said that on August 7, 2002, the application was made for the reconsideration of this project by the
Planning Commission.
• Advised that at the next Planning Commission meeting, the Commission will be asked to act on two
separate issues. The first is Design Review, Conditional Use Permit and Lot Line Adjustment for
the new and temporary fire stations with variations in setback. The second is to make the
determination on General Plan Conformity for the abandonment of the alley and the easement
transfer to the Fire District.
• Stated that the existing Contempo building would be demolished and a temporary fire station
(module buildings) would be placed on that site. The existing fire station would then be demolished
and a new fire station constructed. When the new fire station is completed, the module buildings
would be removed and parking added onto the Contempo site.
• Said that the abandonment of the alley and the transfer of Heritage Plaza property from the City to
the Fire District and pedestrian easements on Saratoga and Saratoga -Los Gatos Road are also part of
this project.
• Declared the project to be in character with the neighborhood, incorporating a Julia Morgan style
architectural design and using material that fit into the area. The new fire station will be pulled
back significantly from the road to improve sight distance.
• Described the parking requirements under Code to be one space for each employee. There are a
total of 24 employees. There would be 18 parking spaces on Fire District property with an extra six
spaces in the additional parking lot where the Contempo building is currently located. Ten public
parking spaces will be provided.
• Stated that draft resolutions have been provided and that necessary findings can be made for
General Plan conformity and for the Use Permit.
• Recommended that the Commission allow public comment and continue this item to October 9,
2002, to allow the finalization of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Commissioner Barry asked that all three traffic reports prepared for this project be provided by the next
meeting, including the one done by CalTrans.
Associate Planner John Livingstone said that he could obtain copies. Added that staff has suggested the
Fire District hire its own Traffic Report due to the City's involvement with the Traffic Engineer who
prepared one of the reports for the City.
Commissioner Roupe asked staff to have the differences between the three reports drawn out.
Associate Planner John Livingstone:
• Said that a consulting Traffic Engineer would review Fire's traffic report on the City's behalf. This
consultant prepared the Traffic Report for the Ad Hoc Committee.
• Stated that the General Plan conformity on the easement, roadway and transfer of property would be
forwarded to Council with a recommendation by the Commission.
Commissioner Garakam asked if the alley is City -owned land.
Saratoga Planning Commissi( linutes of September 25, 2002 Page 15
Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that it is public right -of -way.
Commissioner Garakani asked if land is being swapped.
Director Tom Sullivan said that other considerations are being provided including moving the
monument arch and 10 permanent public parking spaces.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked about the difference between a Variance and variations of standards and
why exceeding standards is necessary.
Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that they are necessary to develop the best possible fire
station for the public's safety.
Commissioner Roupe discussed the 10 parking spaces and substantial improvement of the intersection
and made the point that these issues have been decided as part of the Settlement and therefore the
Commission has no authority of fuss around these details.
Associate Planner John Livingstone agreed that these are directly from the Settlement.
Commissioner Hunter expressed support for achieving the best fire services possible for the
community.
Commissioner Garakani asked for ways to assure these 10 public parking spaces.
Associate Planner John Livingstone stated that there would be a legal agreement prepared by the City
Attorney.
Commissioner Garakani pointed out page 3 of the staff report, which depicts the maximum proposed lot
coverage as being 29.6 percent out of a maximum allowable of 30 percent. Said that upon review of
page 2 of the plans, the building represents 32 percent of lot coverage with 8,987 square foot building
lot coverage on a 30,274 square foot lot while the actual fire property is only 27,917 square feet.
Questioned which figures are correct.
Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that the 27,917 square foot lot does not include the alley.
With the alley, the total lot is 30,274 square feet. He added that several agreements will have to be
finalized with the Post Office, Fire District, Church and City.
Commissioner Barry asked if the Commission could call out these required agreements in the findings.
Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that they are included in the Conditions of Approval.
Commissioner Barry asked if one agreement fails to be finalized would this approval be null and void.
Director Tom Sullivan replied yes.
Commissioner Garakani asked if a survey could be provided.
Saratoga Planning Commissic linutes of September 25, 2002 Page 16
Associate Planner John Livingstone said he could provide revised plans.
Commissioner Garakani said he prefers to see the survey.
Associate Planner John Livingstone said that this could be provided at the next meeting.
Acting Chair Kurasch said with 18 on -site parking spaces for fire staff and 6 off -site parking spaces,
where would the 10 public spaces be located.
Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that spaces 17 through 26 are labeled on page 4 of the
plans.
Acting Chair Kurasch reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:55 p.m.
Ms. Mary McGrath, Representative of the Fire District:
• Described the phases of the project.
• Phase I includes the current conditions and the plan to bring two modular buildings onto the
Contempo site to house the temporary fire station. Additionally, a temporary shelter /cover
would be installed for the apparatus. The curb ramp at the alley exit would be reconfigured to
Saratoga for greater public safety. A total of 24 parking spaces would be provided. A variation
on rear setbacks is required to place the temporary shelter for the apparatus. The construction
period for the new fire station will extend for 12 to 14 months.
• Phase II includes moving the monument, demolition of the existing fire station, closing the alley
and the temporary relocation of the Post Office drop box. Described the site easements as
including an 8 foot pedestrian /bike easement, a 7.5 foot water utility line easement that the
Water District intends to vacate, an access easement for water and phones that will stay in place
and 10 public parking spaces permanently dedicated to the City. Said that in the future, the
Federated Church hopes to purchase a portion of the Contempo property to provide additional
parking and access for the church. Additional components of Phase II include the landscaped
pedestrian plaza, a new right turn lane from Highway 9 onto Saratoga, the widening of Saratoga
for an additional travel lane with the Fire District to pay for curbs, gutters and sidewalks and a
new apron area for the fire station.
• Stated that the total site as 30,274 square feet with a building footprint consisting of 8,987 square
feet for a total lot coverage of 29.6 percent.
• Stated that porous pavers and drainage basin are included to provide natural water drainage.
Commissioner Garakani said that he finds it difficult to combined two unconnected parcels when
evaluating this project's lot coverage.
Ms. Mary McGrath:
• Described plans for site circulation, including plans to relocate the Post Office drop box, a plan to
reverse the alley to improve traffic, plans for the sale of a portion of the Contempo site in the future
to the Church with an agreement to provide six parking spaces to the fire station and improved
access for Post Office parking.
• Stated that the total building consists of 15,435 square feet (within a basement, first and second
floor) and will incorporate four bays with three front line response vehicles with a goal to use a
Julia Morgan style vernacular.
Saratoga Planning Commissic Iinutes of September 25, 2002 Page 17
Commissioner Roupe asked where the mail drop would be moved temporarily.
Ms. Mary McGrath replied to the right of the temporary fire station.
Commissioner Roupe asked if this placement of the Post Office mail drop could interfere with the
operations of the fire station.
Ms. Mary McGrath stated that there is a doublewide access and that vehicles could go by.
Commissioner Garakani asked about the proposed generator.
Ms. Mary McGrath advised that this generator would be located eight feet underground.
Commissioner Garakani said that this is good.
Commissioner Barry asked about the concerns expressed by the Post Office official about the front
parking.
Ms. Mary McGrath said that this project does not interfere with those parking spaces. When the road is
widened and restriped, it may interfere.
Commissioner Barry pointed out that the road widening is related to where the fire station is placed.
Ms. Mary McGrath said that it is the City that wanted the street widened not the Fire District.
Director Tom Sullivan said that the Public Works Director could address these public improvements as
he would be in attendance at the next meeting.
Acting Chair Kurasch expressed concerns about a switch in direction of one -way alley use and
suggested that access be permitted from Highway 9 to reach the public parking as well as the drop box.
Ms. Mary McGrath said that the alley would be accessed from Saratoga. She said that Highway 9 was
really studied and it was determined that the alley egress and circulation is less likely to be blocked by
traffic on Saratoga than Highway 9 and its busy intersection.
Commissioner Hunter questioned the plans for the number of colors for the freeze band tiles.
Ms. Mary McGrath said that they are open to suggestions on colors for the tiles.
Commissioner Hunter offered Oak Street School 'as a good example.
Commissioner Garakani asked about the roof color.
Ms. Mary McGrath replied red tile with different hues.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked about public parking accessibility and proposed a no exit sign from the
alley to Saratoga but a two -way entrance at Highway 9.
Saratoga Planning Commissic inutes of September 25, 2002 Page 18
Ms. Mary McGrath said that she would have to study that suggestion.
Chief Ernie Kraule, Saratoga Fire, introduced the Fire District's Attorney.
Mr. Hal Toppel, Attorney for Fire District:
• Stated that the Post Office parking in front is not a subject of this application.
• Said that he had comments on a few of the Conditions.
• Suggested that the condition requiring a monthly newsletter to be distributed to area residents with
construction updates, be modified to quarterly and asked for clarification on the intended targeted
circulation.
• Said that Condition 9 needs to be clarified. While the Fire District is negotiating with the Church
for the sale of the Contempo property, no agreement has been reached.
Commissioner Barry asked if the Fire District is prepared to have an alternative design ready that shows
the Fire District retaining the Contempo parcel in the event that it is not sold to the church.
Mr. Hal Toppel, Attorney for Fire District, said that this is possible.
Commissioner Barry asked what would occur until that time.
Mr. Hal Toppel, Attorney for Fire District, said that until it is sold, the Fire District owns it all.
Associate Planner John Livingstone stated.that staff agrees with the applicant on Condition 9.
Mr. Hal Toppel, Attorney for Fire District, said that the church needs the access it would gain with the
purchase of the Contempo parcel and the Fire District needs the money that would be generated from
the sale. Asked that Condition 10 be deleted since the City is doing that.
Associate Planner John Livingstone suggested that a letter requesting these proposed changes be
provided so staff can work with the City Attorney.
Mr. Hal Toppel, Attorney for Fire District:
• Said that they are working on a bond for planting landscaping and relocating the trash enclosure for
the Post Office.
• Stated that Condition 25 -L, which calls for improvements to the signal has not yet been agreed
upon but they hope to have this issue resolved by the next meeting.
• Said that pertaining to Condition 27, they are willing to indemnify the City against third parties but
not itself.
• Asked that the project be approved at the next meeting.
Associate Planner John Livingstone said that feedback on Condition 8 is required. The applicant is
making improvements to the trash enclosure on Post Office property.
Acting Chair Kurasch reiterated that the necessary agreements need to be finalized to move forward.
Mr. Hal Toppel, Attorney for Fire District, suggested that this is work for the City.
Saratoga Planning Commissh Iinutes of September 25, 2002 Page 19
Commissioner Roupe expressed agreement with the reduction in newsletter frequency from monthly to
quarterly and suggested a distribution within 500 feet.
Commissioner Hunter suggested that the information provided should be much like the information
circulated by the School District on the bond issue.
Mr. Hal Toppel, Attorney for Fire District, said that the Fire District already sends out a regular
newsletter to the community.
Commissioner Hunter agreed that the newsletter does not need to be monthly.
Commissioner Garakani suggested that an ad in the Saratoga News might be a means of communicating
with the public.
Mr. Hal Toppel, Attorney for Fire District, said that an ad would not allow sufficient detail.
Commissioner Barry clarified that the intent of the newsletter requirement is to provide information on
construction related activities.
Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the entire community would be impinged upon during
construction.
Mr. Robert Egan, 14890 Montalvo Road, Saratoga:
• Identified himself as a Fire Commissioner.
• Thanked staff and reminded the Commission that the voters approved a bond for a new fire station.
• Expressed need for a safe and efficient fire station and that the Task Force worked on the project
and Plan A has been approved. This plan was reviewed with citizens to make this an ideal fire
station for the community. It was also reviewed with each shift.
• Cautioned that delays are costing hundreds of thousands of dollars to the project. The longer it
takes, the more costs go up.
• Asked the Commission to take into consideration the amount of work undergone to come up with
this proposal.
Mr. David W. Dolloff, 20685 Seagull Drive, Saratoga:
• Said that he served on the Ad Hoc Committee and never received notification of this evening's
Public Hearing, which he finds incredibly negligent.
• Said that he never approved Plan A but rather supports Plan D.
• Pointed out that three traffic engineers have prepared reports, one from CalTrans, one for the City
and one for the Fire District. All three stated that there would be access and egress problems.
• Suggested that CalTrans verification is necessary before the project goes forward.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked Mr. Dolloff for his comments on the proposed changes in circulation on
site.
Mr. David W. Dolloff said that during construction there is the ability for engines to go out on Highway
9. Said that it is critical to work with the Post Office. If the Post Office says no, the whole thing goes
down the tube.
Saratoga Planning Commissi( Iinutes of September 25, 2002 Page 20
Mr. John Keenan, 22215 Mt. Eden Road, Saratoga:
• Said if the staff had not requested a continuance he would have proposed one since he just learned
of this hearing two days ago.
Mr. Preston Wisner, 20400 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, Saratoga:
• Said that he is with Our Lady of Fatima Church and served as Treasurer of the Bond Measure for
this new fire station.
• Asked that the Commission approve this project at its October 91" meeting.
• Said he does not see an egress issue and that there is no history of a problem.
• Agreed that the longer the delay, the more costs incurred.
Mr. Arvin Engelson, 20381 Seagull Way, Saratoga:
• Said he is affiliated with Federated Church and served on the Ad Hoc Committee.
• Said that the Church is prepared to enter into an agreement for six parking spaces during
construction and is interested in the future purchase of about 40 percent of the Contempo parcel.
• Added that in the future, they would love to develop underground parking for about 80 cars on the
Contempo property.
Mr. Gordon Duncan, Assistant Fire Chief:
• Said that the orientation and direction of circulation for the alley has been looked at in great length.
• Said that they could technically respond in either direction if it became necessary.
• Added that if they should ever be prevented from leaving the site, they would call communications
and get another station to respond.
• Said that he had asked for FACT meeting notification and never received any.
Mr. Bob Egan said that he has met with CalTrans and they are very supportive of this proposal.
Commissioner Barry asked if documentation of that fact could be provided.
Mr. Bob Egan said he would obtain that support in writing.
Acting Chair Kurasch said that this would be helpful.
Acting Chair Kurasch reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 10:50 p.m.
Acting Chair Kurasch said that the Commission needs to formulate its feedback.
Commissioner Barry thanked all for their presentations.
Commissioner Hunter stated that Mary McGrath's presentation was marvelous.
Commissioner Roupe asked staff to carefully look at structuring the Conditions to take into
consideration the number of players (Church, Post Office, CalTrans, etc.) involved since he does not
want to see this project come undone if one of the agreements does not come to pass.
Acting Chair Kurasch agreed that future agreements may need to come sooner rather than later.
Saratoga Planning Commissic linutes of September 25, 2002 Page 21
Commissioner Roupe said that it is reasonable to have CalTrans comments in writing.
Commissioner Garakani said that he has a problem hearing that the Post Office parking considerations
for the five streetside parking stalls are not relevant.
Commissioner Hunter said that the City could consider the accident record. Added that it is vital, once
a bond passes, to have the project go forward. Stated that she hopes the Commission can make up its
mind at the October 91h meeting.
Commissioner Garakani said that he agrees but is concerned that the Post Office streetside parking may
already be unsafe.
Commissioner Hunter pointed out that this Post Office is open from 12 noon to 4 p.m. prior to heavy
traffic in the area.
Commissioner Garakani cautioned that he does not want to see a death occur before corrective action
takes place.
Commissioner Roupe stated that Public Works would look into this matter. Reminded that the Post
Office representative made it clear that their support for this project depends upon the retention of these
five parking spaces. A definitive answer on those parking spaces is needed by the next meeting.
Commissioner Garakani questioned whether there is any way to combine the two lots so they are one
parcel.
Commissioner Barry asked if he means legally or physically. Asked if the concern is that the second
parcel not be sold separately in the future and developed.
Commissioner Garakani pointed out that the permit is being based upon 29 percent lot coverage on two
unconnected parcels.
Commissioner Barry asked if there is a way to get past this legal issue.
Associate Planner John Livingstone said that the Fire District's attorney could address a way of dealing
with this issue.
Acting Chair Kurasch reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 10:57 p.m.
Mr. Hal Toppel, Attorney for Fire District, said that they are separate parcels but that some sort of
covenant will tie the parcels together legally but not physically to assure the provision of parking spaces
for the fire station site.
Acting Chair Kurasch reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 10:58 p.m.
Acting Chair Kurasch stated that usually parcels are not separated. The coverage is based upon an
aggregate. When you look at one lot, it represents 80 percent coverage. Suggested that the agreement
be crafted by the next meeting and that a land survey be provided. Finally, a study should be done on
the potential of reconfiguring the parking access for the public.
Saratoga Planning Commissic linutes of September 25, 2002 Page 22
Commissioner Roupe stated that the Sheriff's Office has not been heard from.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that the Sheriff is moving in a direction to solve their own parking
problem.
Acting Chair Kurasch stated that actual architectural comments would be discussed at the next meeting.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
Planning Commission continued consideration of the Fire Station project to its
meeting of October 9, 2002, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Jackman
Acting Chair Kurasch returned the gavel to Chair Jackman at 11:05 p.m.
DIRECTOR'S ITEMS
There were no Director's Items.
COMMISSION ITEMS
Tree Committee
Director Tom Sullivan advised that the draft of the revised Tree Ordinance is 95 percent complete and
will be agendized for the October 23, 2002, meeting.
Timing of Site Visits
Commissioner Garakani said that he couldn't make 2:30 p.m. site visits.
Chair Jackman suggested returning to 3 p.m. site visits.
Commissioner Barry said she is willing to try mornings.
Director Tom Sullivan suggested that the Commissioners try the next site visit at 10 a.m.
Housing
Commissioner Hunter said that she and Chair Jackman would be participating on an Affordable
Housing Tour on Friday, September 271h
Business Development Meeting
Saratoga Planning Commissic Iinutes of September 25, 2002 Page 23
Commissioner Hunter announced the new Business Development website that can be accessed via
saratoga.ca.us.
Library
Commissioner Zutshi announced a Library construction tour on October 2nd
COMMUNICATIONS
There were no communication items.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Chair Jackman adjourned the meeting at 11:16 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday,
October 9; 2002, to begin at 7 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, September 11, 2002
PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Chair Jackman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe
Absent: Commissioner Zutshi
Staff: Director Tom Sullivan and Planner Christy Oosterhous
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MOMENT OF SILENCE IN HONOR OF THOSE LOST 9 -11 -01
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of August 28, 2002.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the
regular Planning Commission minutes of August 28, 2002, were approved with
corrections to pages 2, 7, 8, 19, 21 and 23.
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe
NOES: None
ABSENT: Zutshi
ABSTAIN: None
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this
meeting was properly posted on September 5, 2002.
REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS
Chair Jackman announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an
Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision,
pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b).
Director Sullivan added that this is except for any actions dealing with tree regulations.
Saratoga Planning Commissic inutes of September 11, 2002 Page 2
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. William Breck, 20375 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, Saratoga:
• Requested that immediate tree protection fences be installed at 14480 Oak Place.
• Distributed photographs of the site.
• Stated that trees are being damaged and destroyed and that three trees were cut off of his property.
• Said that this is his eighth appearance before the City on this request.
Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Breck if he has read the Resolution.
Mr. William Breck replied yes and reiterated the need for immediate tree protection.
Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Breck if there has been any new damage since the last public hearing.
Mr. William Breck answered that there has been three days of sandblasting. He also distributed the
April 2°d Tree Report prepared by Barrie Coate.
Commissioner Hunter asked if there has been no tree protection installed since August 281n
Mr. William Breck replied no except for some orange plastic in place.
Ms. Holly Davies, 14478 Oak Place, Saratoga:
• Stated that there were two Tree Reports prepared by Barrie Coate.
• Advised that privacy that was previously provided by mature oak trees has been lost with Mr.
Cutler's trimming of her oak trees.
CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar Items.
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1
APPLICATION #02 -013 (503 -69 -002) — AMINI- MOAZENI, 13815 Pierce Road: Request for
Design Review to demolish an existing single story house and construct a new two story house with
6,099 square feet on the main and upper levels and 2,569 square feet in the basement. The property is a
1.72 -acre lot in the Hillside Residential District. The height of the structure will be 26 feet. (WELSH)
Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised the Commission that the applicant has requested a continuance.
• Recommended that the Commission opens the public hearing and continues this item to the next
regular meeting.
Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:17 p.m.
Ms. Geneva Sanjideh, 21700 Via Regina, Saratoga:
Saratoga Planning Commissic iinutes of September 11, 2002 Page 3
• Expressed concern about the lower area of land on this parcel and the impact of development on
animals.
• Pointed out that the area serves as a deer run.
• Added that she was told that there are no plans to fence this area but since this is a spec home,
intentions can change with future owners.
• Stated that she does not want to see animals or their habitat destroyed.
• Questioned whether an environmental nature study might be required.
Director Tom Sullivan assured Ms. Sanjideh that regulations are in place in this Hillside Zoning that
only allow 4,000 square foot of fence enclosure area, which is usually installed around the house itself.
Commissioner Hunter said that while she saw the property on the August 28`h site visit, she would like
to add it to the next site tour if possible.
Director Tom Sullivan said that it was possible to add this to the next site tour.
Ms. Geneva Sanjideh invited the Commissioners to access the area in question through her driveway.
Commissioner Kurasch agreed that it is important to see the area for issues such as steep slopes.
Commissioner Hunter asked Ms. Sanjideh to let staff know how best to reach her so that she can be
notified of the Commission's site visit.
Motion: The item was continued to the meeting of October 9, 2002, because of the heavy
agenda already scheduled on September 25, 2002.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.2
APPLICATION #02 -130 (517 -13 -024) — FU, 15000 Bohlman Road: Request for Design Review
Approval to construct a two -story single - family residence on a 39,986 (net) square foot vacant lot. The
floor area of the proposed residence and attached two -car garage is 5,140 square feet. The maximum
height of the residence would be 26 feet. The site is zoned R -1- 40,000. (OOSTERHOUS)
Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows:
• Stated that the applicant is seeking approval for a two -story single - family residence on a 40,000
square foot vacant lot. The total square footage is 5,140 and the maximum height is 26 feet. The
zoning is R -1- 40,000. The proposed home will be a contemporary stucco home with an entry
portico.
• Advised that the area is predominately developed with large -scale two -story homes.
• Said that the applicant filed for Design Review in the fall of 2000. The filing fees were refunded to
the applicant when they decided not to continue with the application.
• Informed that with the 2000 application an Arborist Report was submitted. Since that time, Tree
#16 was uprooted by a storm in 2001.
• Added that there are no trees proposed for removal and that an $8,000 tree bond will be posted to
assure the retention of the trees on site.
Saratoga Planning Commissic Iinutes of September 11, 2002 Page 4
• Stated that the adjacent property owners have requested screening landscaping but that staff does
not find that additional screening is required.
• Recommended approval.
Commissioner Kurasch asked about a large oak tree she noticed on the site visit and questioned whether
this oak tree is on this property or the neighboring property.
Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that the tree is on this property.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that it is depicted as Tree #17 on the Tree Report.
Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:30 p.m.
Mr. Henry Yang, Applicant's Representative:
• Thanked the Commissioners for their site visit.
• Thanked Director Tom Sullivan and Planner Christy Oosterhous for their efforts to expedite this
project, getting it before the Commission within 60 days.
• Made himself available for questions.
Commissioner Garakam expressed concern for worker parking during construction.
Mr. Henry Yang advised that the turnaround area would hold up to six cars and that the entire site could
accommodate up to 10 cars.
Commissioner Roupe cautioned that if parking becomes a problem for the neighborhood, it would be
the responsibility of the applicant to obtain some off -site parking and carpool workers onto the
construction site.
Mr. Henry Yang pointed out that many of his construction workers carpool and that they typically have
but four to five cars on a job.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Yang if he is willing to incorporate permeable pavers for the
driveway and parking area.
Mr. Henry Yang replied that they intend to use pavers like the neighbor's have used in order to match.
Added that he believes that this material is permeable.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Yang about tree protection.
Mr. Henry Yang replied that protective fences would be installed to keep vehicles far from trees.
Commissioner Kurasch suggested that existing leaf litter be retained beneath oak trees as it serves as
natural mulch.
Mr. Henry Yang replied that this request is okay with them, that it makes sense and is not a problem to
comply with that requirement.
Saratoga Planning Commissh Minutes of September 11, 2002 Page 5
Commissioner Hunter pointed out the fact that the Fire District does not find the water supply
acceptable.
Mr. Henry Yang advised that there is a fire hydrant off site but that it does not achieve the appropriate
pressure. They may have to use a pump.
Commissioner Garakani asked if one fireplace is to be removed.
Mr. Henry Yang replied that it is his understanding that they are permitted to have but one wood -
burning fireplace but as many gas fireplaces as they wish to include. Two chimneys will be retained
but a third will be eliminated.
Planner Christy Oosterhous clarified that there are three proposed fireplaces in this home, two gas and
one wood.
Commissioner Barry pointed out that non - functional chimneys can be a design feature and can be
approved or disapproved as such.
Commissioner Garakani stated his preference for not having too many chimneys.
Mr. Henry Yang advised that they only need one functional chimney.
Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Yang about the entry feature.
Mr. Henry Yang advised that they have reduced the previously proposed two -story entry feature to one
that is 16 feet high.
Mr. Ray McMains, 15015 Bohlman Road, Saratoga:
• Said that he speaks on his behalf and that of his wife, Tina.
• Said that they are satisfied with the resolutions to their concerns reached with the Fus.
• Complimented Director Tom Sullivan and Planner Christy Oosterhous for their efficiency in
providing information in a timely manner when asked.
Commissioner Barry stated that it is a pleasure to have neighbors cooperating.
Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:42 p.m.
Commissioner Garakani:
• Said that the design is very nice but that he does not like the inclusion of three chimneys.
• Said that the entry feature is still hard to visualize and looks tall.
• Added that overall the project looks pretty good.
• Suggested that the conditions raised by the neighbors be added to the Conditions of Approval and
that perhaps bushes would offer better screening than extra trees.
Commissioner Kurasch stated that there is a personal agreement for screening landscaping that does not
need to be conditioned. The applicant and neighbor came to agreement.
Saratoga Planning Commissic Minutes of September 11, 2002 Page 6
Director- Tom Sullivan added that these issues could be documented on the final landscape plan since
the applicant has agreed to them.
Commissioner Kurasch said that she is not in favor of maxed out houses but that this one is muted,
located off the street and is well nestled. Additionally, the neighboring homes have similar styles.
Asked that the oak tree leaf litter be documented as being left undisturbed.
Commissioner Hunter said that this is a nice project and will be good.
Commissioner Barry:
• Said that she missed the site visit since she was out of town.
• Added that she has no disagreement with her colleagues' comments.
• Agreed that calling out for the retention of leaf litter would be helpful.
• Questioned the piers.
Commissioner Roupe said that the project would receive geotechnical review.
Commissioner Barry said that she is concerned about drilling for piers and wants assurance that final
clearance would be reached.
Planner Christy Oosterhous advised that this project has obtained final geotechnical clearance.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Said that this is a good project and he supports it although it approaches maximum allowable square
footage.
• Sought assurance from staff that the foyer space has been counted twice in the total square footage
due to its height.
Planner Christy Oosterhous assured Commissioner Roupe that the foyer square footage was counted
twice due to its height.
Commissioner Barry asked the Commissioners if all were satisfied with the reduction of the entry.
Chair Jackman replied yes. Added that lowering it any further would hit into the roofline over the
living room.
Director Tom Sullivan stated that the design appears graceful.
Commissioner Hunter agreed that the home is fine the way it is.
Chair Jackman stated that she does not want to redesign it.
Commissioner Hunter added that this entry feature is a prevalent style in 2002 and will one day be
recognized as such just like other architectural styles can be dated to specific times.
Commissioner Kurasch said that she finds it ostentatious.
Commissioner Barry said that she is happy that it was reduced and finds it to be fine as it is now.
Saratoga Planning CommissiL Iinutes of September 11, 2002 Page 7
Commissioner Kurasch said that at least it is a step in the right direction.
Commissioner Barry suggested that the Arborist take a look at screening.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that the Arborist looks at landscape plans.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if having the Arborist reviewing landscape plans is standard procedure.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that the Arborist looks at landscape plans often particularly if there is an
issue.
Commissioner Roupe suggested that Barrie Coate add retention of leaf litter for oak trees to his
standard report.
Commissioner Kurasch agreed that this is a good suggestion.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
Planning Commission approved Application #02 -130 to allow the construction of a
new residence on a vacant lot at 15000 Bohlman Road with the following
conditions:
• Use of pervious pavers on the driveway;
• Use of stone veneer on the retaining wall;
• Oak leaf litter to be left in place beneath oak trees;
• City Arborist review of the final landscape plan; and
• Review of construction vehicles by staff so that there is no burden on the
neighborhood,
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe
NOES: None
ABSENT: Zutshi
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.3
APPLICATION #02 -173 (CITYWIDE) — CITY OF SARATOGA: The proposed Zoning Ordinance
Amendment would amend the Tree Removal Ordinance by requiring a person removing a tree to be
able to produce a copy of an approved Tree Removal Permit. (SULLIVAN)
Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that this is a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Section 15- 50.130, Possession
of a Tree Removal Permit.
• Gave background whereas he, the City Manager, City Attorney and Mayor have held meetings to
discuss ways of enforcing tree regulations.
• Stated that this proposed amendment would add the requirement that if someone is removing a tree,
that person must have in their possession a Tree Removal Permit.
Saratoga Planning Commissic kinutes of September 11, 2002 Page 8
• Added that this requirement will give Code Enforcement and/or the Sheriff's Office "teeth" when
enforcing complaints of illegal tree removal during off -hours such as evenings or weekends.
Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:10 p.m.
Mr. William Breck, 20375 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, Saratoga:
• Stated his support for the spirit of this action.
• Asked how the City defines a tree being cut down versus heavy trimming.
• Said that a clear definition is required.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that this is a first step to give the Sheriff a tool right now. Staff is in the
process of another amendment to require permits for any pruning and that proposal will be before the
Planning Commission in the Fall.
Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:12 p.m.
Commissioner Roupe said that this is a good idea and represents a step in the right direction, although it
is but the first step. Recommended approval.
Commissioner Barry agreed that this is an excellent and wonderful step and applauded staff's effort.
Commissioner Kurasch also agreed and said that she had personal experience with a tree trimmer who
refused to begin work until he saw the proper permit.
Commissioner Garakani said that he is glad that this will be a tool to allow the Sheriff to protect trees in
addition to people.
Commissioner Hunter said that she totally agrees.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
Planning Commission supported approval of Application #02 -173 to amend the
Zoning Ordinance which will require a person removing a tree to be able to
produce a copy of an approved Tree Removal permit, by the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe
NOES: None
ABSENT: Zutshi
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.4
APPLICATION #02 -124 (CITYWIDE) — CITY OF SARATOGA: The proposed Zoning Ordinance
Amendment would amend the Section 15- 19.020 (f) (4) to include the provisions that would allow the
review and approval of design and materials used in required sound walls. (SULLIVAN)
Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows:
Saratoga Planning Commissh Qinutes of September 11, 2002 Page 9
• Advised that the Zoning Ordinance has a section on Fences, Walls and Hedges, which allows sound
walls on arterials with materials and design approval.
• Pointed out the Commercial Zones also have a provision whereas the Community Development
Director can require installation of a sound wall between adjacent residences and commercial
property. However, there is no provision for aesthetics review.
Commissioner Roupe suggested the need for material and design compatibility.
Director Tom Sullivan suggested adding text "and is compatible in color, material and design with
residential properties."
Commissioner Kurasch agreed that this is good when these sound walls are required for noise
attenuation.
Commissioner Barry asked how this would work and whether review would be by the Director or
Commission.
Director Tom Sullivan replied by him. He added that if an applicant files an appeal on his decision, the
appeal would come to the Planning Commission.
Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 8:21 p.m.
Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 8:21 p.m.
Commissioner Garakani questioned whether the maximum height of eight feet for a sound wall is
enough.
Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. He added that it would not be advisable to go any higher. If
additional sound attenuation were required, other additional means would need to be used.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
Planning Commission supported approval of Application #02 -124 to amend the
Zoning Ordinance Section 15- 19.020 (f) (4) to include provisions that would allow
the review and approval of design and materials used in required sound walls, with
the added language as amended ( "and is compatible in color, material and design
with residential properties "), by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe
NOES: None
ABSENT: Zutshi
ABSTAIN: None
DIRECTOR'S ITEMS
There were no Director's Items.
COMMISSION ITEMS
Saratoga Planning Commissic inutes of September 11, 2002 Page 10
Commissioners' Subcommittee Reports
Commissioner Kurasch advised that the Tree Subcommittee would make a presentation at the next
meeting.
Commissioner Roupe advised that the Gateway Design Guidelines would be discussed at a Study
Session to be held on Tuesday, September 17, 2002, from 10:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., and will include a
site tour.
Commissioner Hunter advised that she attended the Heritage Commission meeting and that there are
lots of new members. They are presently going through the community to develop a list of heritage
homes. Additionally, they have produced a calendar, which will be sold to raise funds.
Consideration and approval of Resolution No. 02 -043
Director Tom Sullivan:
• Advised that the Resolution that had been provided in the packet at the last meeting was not what
the Planning Commission ultimately decided to go with.
• Added that he and the City Attorney worked together, reviewing the meeting tape, to put together
this draft.
• Reminded that Planning Commission decisions on tree related issues are final.
• Clarified that the first 190 feet of the wall was under a separate permit and is still under a "Stop
Work" order. That portion of the wall is in violation due to its height. A Notice of Violation is
being recorded. This portion of the wall is not a part of the appeal.
• Said that the next permit is for approximately 300 feet and was part of the appeal.
• Added that under Section 1, Page 2 of the Resolution, the two sections are being brought together
to capture the Planning Commission's intent for the entire wall.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Suggested that the City Arborist inspect, prepare and submit an assessment.
• Suggested added language to page 4 of 6 at the top of the page, Item #7, to add the language
...when construction and mitigation...
Commissioner Garakam had a question about Page 3, Item #3, end of paragraph.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that this pertains to being as a result of the damage.
Commissioner Roupe said that there must be a finite time.
Commissioner Kurasch suggested that the time limit to comply with mitigation be established.
Director Tom Sullivan said that these time limits will need to be set when the City Arborist sets the
mitigation plan.
Commissioner Roupe agreed that it is fair to set a time limit for compliance.
Commissioner Kurasch questioned what would be reasonable.
Saratoga Planning Commissi, Ainutes of September 11, 2002 Page 11
Commissioner Roupe replied that it would depend on what is required for mitigation, what time of year,
etc.
Director Tom Sullivan added that there would be a time by which work must commence and a time
when work must be completed.
Commissioner Kurasch agreed that the City Arborist can establish these times.
Commissioner Roupe suggested 30 to 60 days and to be careful to have a final completion deadline.
Commissioner Barry said that the Arborist could give a projected timetable, such as within 14 calendar
days of Planning Commission action.
Commissioner Kurasch said that for example the commencement could be required within 14 calendar
days of Planning Commission action as well as a completion date. Asked what would occur if the
property owner does not comply with the deadlines.
Director Tom Sullivan said that the matter becomes a Code Enforcement issue. He added that Barrie
Coate would be asked to provide necessary mitigation and timing for said mitigation.
Public Comments on Resolution #02 -043.
Ms. Cassandra Houston, 14466 Oak Place, Saratoga:
• Said that every time she has called the City, staff comes to measure the wall.
• Stated that action thus far by the City is very unsatisfactory and nothing has been enforced so far.
• Said that enforcement should be more quick and that this has been a very disillusioning process.
Commissioner Roupe reminded that enforcement action has been initiated for the first 190 -foot portion
of the wall as it is in violation.
Director Tom Sullivan assured Ms. Houston that staff is doing what it can as fast as it can do so.
Chair Jackman added that it is not always apparent what the City is doing to correct such situations.
Ms. Cassandra Houston said that although City staff have come over to her property to take the
measurements, etc., she never hears anything afterwards.
Mr. William Breck, 20375 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, Saratoga:
• Thanked the Commission for the full and thorough testimony taken at the last meeting.
• Said that he has some hope now.
• Added that the threats have now changed. Mr. Cutler has been blowing dust onto his recently
washed white walled house due to sandblasting going on at the Cutler property.
• Advised that this sandblasting has gone on for days and is causing respiratory distress for several in
the neighborhood, including those with asthma. His own children have been kept indoors over three
nice days due to this sandblasting work.
• Informed that Barrie Coate had sought admittance onto the Cutler property but was refused access
without a court order.
Saratoga Planning Commissic, Minutes of September 11, 2002 Page 12
• Said that a proper solution would have been to require design review.
Chair Jackman asked if a court order would be required to access this property.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that City Council would consider this situation next Wednesday and that
Mr. Cutler had indeed refused access to his property.
Commissioner Barry asked what will occur if Council feels immediate action is required.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that the Council would provide direction to one of the City's Attorneys.
Mr. William Breck said that he wants to see a separate resolution for dealing with the issue of tree
protection fencing on this property.
Commissioner Kurasch told Mr. Breck that the Commission cannot take such action tonight.
Mr. William Breck asked how such action can be initiated.
Commissioner Barry explained that the Planning Commission does not have the discretion to come up
with a new Resolution tonight.
Director Tom Sullivan clarified that Council will discuss this situation in Closed Session.
Mr. William Breck again asked when tree protection fences are to be required.
Commissioner Kurasch replied that this matter is now in the jurisdiction of the City Council.
Director Tom Sullivan:
• Pointed out that several "Stop Work" notices have been issue.
• Added that this project was never a Planning Commission project. It was a series of minor building
permits. For such permits, the City does not have the tools that it has in standard Design Review
applications, at least not yet. Staff is working to adjust the Code to add the necessary tools in the
future.
Commissioner Barry cautioned that this process might help in future cases more than it will help in this
case.
Commissioner Kurasch stated that she does not relish the role of being reactive and that the City is
doing everything possible to remedy this situation.
Mr. William Breck reminded that three trees have been illegally cut and at least 13 damaged.
Commissioner Kurasch reminded Mr. Breck that the Commission made the determination in his favor.
Mr. William Breck suggested that the appeal and its resolution should pertain to the entire wall and
reference to a second permit taken out.
Commissioner Roupe said that this suggestion would have to be deferred to the City Attorney.
Saratoga Planning Commissic. Minutes of September 11, 2002 Page 13
Mr. William Breck said that tree protection is not just for oaks. Said that there is a history of wiggle
room. Said that he would like to see specific dates, review and fines /penalties imposed.
Director Tom Sullivan said that the Courts have the authority for that action. While a citation has been
issued for the removal of the three trees, the fine is just $100, which is insignificant. However, there is
a Section in the Code that allows the City to exact mitigation for this improper removal.
Commissioner Garakam said that he understands that Mr. Breck is here to protect remaining trees and
the concern should be to preserve what is left.
Mr. William Breck said that the discussion is about not setting precedent with this project and also
requiring the replacement of trees.
Consensus was reached by the Planning Commission on revised Resolution #02 -043.
COMMUNICATIONS
City Council Minutes from Regular Meeting on July 17, 2002.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Chair Jackman adjourned the meeting at 9:14 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday,
September 25, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, August 28, 2002
PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Chair Jackman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman-, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi
Absent: None
Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Planner Christy Oosterhous and Planner Ann Welsh
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of July 24, 2002.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the
regular Planning Commission minutes of July 24, 2002, were approved with
corrections to pages 7 and 17.
AYES: Barry, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Garakani and Zutshi
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this
meeting was properly posted on August 23, 2002.
REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS
Chair Jackman announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an
Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision,
pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b).
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no oral communications
Saratoga Planning Commissiot mutes of August 28, 2002 Page 2
CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar Items.
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1
APPLICATION #02 -175, APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TO ALLOW THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A CONCRETE WALL WITHIN 10 FEET OF AN OAK TREE AT 14480
OAK PLACE (397 -22 -051) — APPELLANT, WILLIAM F. BRECK, 20375 SARATOGA -LOS
GATOS ROAD: The appeal is to have the Planning Commission revise an Administrative Decision to
conditionally allow the construction of a concrete wall within 10 feet of an oak tree pursuant to
Municipal Code section 15- 50.110. (SULLIVAN)
Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows:
• Read a portion of the letter of appeal from Mr. William Breck.
• Explained that Mr. Breck is appealing per Code Section 15- 50.110 for setback of new construction
from existing trees.
• Added that Code prevents construction of paving or a structure within 10 feet of an oak and 8 feet
of other protected trees, unless otherwise permitted by the approving authority.
• Said that the Commission would need to make a decision whether the concrete wall is pavement or
a structure. Pavement is not defined in the City Code
• Said that fences and walls are not considered structures under the Zoning Ordinance if under six
feet in height.
• Stated that the Commission would have to consider and make a determination as to whether the
horizontal footings adjacent to the concrete wall constitute pavement.
• Informed that there is an unwritten Building Department interpretation of the Uniform Building
Code to require permits for concrete walls when they are over four feet tall.
• Advised that the Notice of Appeal was filed in a timely fashion.
• Stated that the construction originally proposed by Mr. Cutler was a wood fence along this 300 -foot
section. After pouring concrete footings for the wood fence, Mr. Cutler changed his mind and
commenced construction of a concrete wall. The Building Department then informed Mr. Cutler
that he was required to obtain a Building Permit for the concrete wall. Mr. Cutler then obtained a
permit from the City. Mr. Breck appealed the Administrative Decision regarding tree protection
necessary for this Building Permit.
• Said that new footings for the concrete wall have been put in place, including pier construction.
• Advised that a Stop Work Order was issued for a section of the concrete wall, which had not been
poured. However, Mr. Cutler allowed that section of the wall to be poured. This work has resulted
in a Code Enforcement Action that will be treated separately.
• Said that the Commission must make its determination on the definitions and may become the
approving authority, one that can grant exceptions, or can deny the appeal. If the Commission does
not find the concrete footings to be paving, there would be no grounds for an appeal.
• Stated his availability for questions.
Commissioner Hunter asked for the dimensions of the wall.
Saratoga Planning Commissioi ,nutes of August 28, 2002 Page 3
Director Tom Sullivan:
• Replied that the wall is six feet high or less by the tree. The property owner had a survey
performed to determine the accuracy of the top of the forms and the City accepts that professional
verification. The wall will have to be surveyed again once the concrete is poured and prior to final
sign off by the City.
• Added that the structural design of the wall was reviewed by the Building Appeals Board and
found to be structurally sound.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the drawings show a cross section of the platforms and piers,
which is signed by a registered engineer.
Commissioner Hunter inquired whether other trees are within the purview of the Commission.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that the Staff Report mentions all the Ordinance - protected trees that are
closer than ten feet. Mr. Breck's appeal seemed to read as addressing a singular tree. He informed the
Commission that if it wants to address other protected trees and some mitigation for those it has the
authority to do so
Commissioner Kurasch asked what the Code provides for when there is damage inflicted on a
neighboring property's trees.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that the Tree Ordinance states that one cannot kill or destroy a tree
without a tree removal permit, but the Ordinance doesn't address whether it is your tree or another's
tree. If this becomes an issue, it would become a Code Enforcement action.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if the City's policies are enforceable.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that they are enforced as far as requiring permits to and inspections. He
added that per his interpretation of the Code, this wall does not constitute a structure under the zoning
ordinance definition.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Director Sullivan why he approved the wall.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that the footings were in place for a six -foot high wood fence. These
footings had done as much damage as was going to be done. He added that he is not certain that the
proposed wall is pavement
Commissioner Zutshi asked if the construction of the wall up to the tree area i-s was permitted.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that work on that portion of the wall was performed after issuance of a
Stop Work order.
Commissioner Barry asked if this has become a Code Enforcement issue that will be pursued.
Director Tom Sullivan replied yes.
Saratoga Planning Commission mutes of August 28, 2002 Page 4
Commissioner Kurasch inquired whether the five -foot wide concrete paved area is located above the
original footings.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that the footings are four -feet wide, but above the original footings.
Commissioner Barry mentioned having asked Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Cutler during the site visit about the
depth of the original footings and was informed that it was about one to two feet in depth.
Director Tom Sullivan agreed with that information.
Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:29 p.m.
Mr. William Breck, 20375 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, Saratoga:
• Thanked the Commissioners who visited the site.
• Stated he wanted to provide some clarifications.
• Said that his appeal is in regard to damage to all trees along the entire periphery of the wall.
• Said that the Commission has seen but one Arborist Report although two were prepared.
• Added that there has been a lot more damage to trees subsequent to the Arborist reports.
• Advised that his neighbors have reported problems to the City rather than the City discovering the
problems.
• Introduced his wife and asked that she be allowed to speak in order to return home with their two
young children.
Ms. Eileen Breck, 20375 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, Saratoga:
• Said that the character of Saratoga has not been preserved and trees have been killed one after
another and that she is hoping to leave this meeting with a changed impression.
• Said that Mr. Cutler should work with existing trees to create a more beautiful neighborhood for
everyone.
• Advised that friends have expressed shock and surprise at the damage they have seen.
• Implored the Commission to reinforce Saratoga's character.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Ms. Breck what she would like to see happen and/or change. What
would be a satisfactory resolution since the wall is already installed and not coming down.
Ms. Eileen Breck said that she wants the tree to be preserved. She added that a satisfactory resolution
would be some plan to let people live together peacefully. Stated that it would be sad to see this tree
die within a few years.
Mr. William Breck, 20375 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, Saratoga:
• Pointed out that 11 neighbors surround this property and presented a diagram with dots to show
trees damaged as a result of construction on Mr. Cutler's property.
• Said that three trees were previously cut down without permits and that he wears black tonight to
mourn the loss of those trees.
• Said that this is a whole mess and it is time to clean it up.
• Distributed a copy of the opening statement from the Tree Ordinance.
• Stated that trees are a reason for buying in Saratoga.
• Asked the Commission to consider this situation from a high level perspective.
Saratoga Planning Commissiol inutes of August 28, 2002 Page 5
• Advised that most of his neighbors are present this evening.
• Pointed out that he has a previous letter from Mr. Sullivan in which it is stated this is pavement
Asked for protection for remaining trees, passed out proposed resolution having four sections.
• Declared that there have been threats made by Mr. Cutler and attempted to play a tape recording of
a recent threat, and stated he would send a transcript.
Mr. Mitch Cutler vehemently objected to the playing of this recording, which he says was made without
his permission. Declared the use of this tape to be illegal and asked for the City's attorney to make a
determination of that fact.
Chair Jackman asked Mr. Cutler to be seated and for Mr. Breck to turn off the tape player.
Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Breck what he is proposing be done.
Mr. William Breck:
• Stated that his neighbors will also testify and report any threats they have received.
• Added that it is time to put teeth into the City's control of this project.
• Requested stop work on all work when there is a violation.
Commissioner Barry pointed out Mr. Breck's recommendation to remove the existing footings under
the City Arborist's supervision and asked if he believes it is possible to remove these footings without
doing further damage.
Mr. William Breck replied that it is worth looking at
Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Breck what he would like to see happen.
Mr. William Breck replied that they need relief and said that he had asked the City to issue injunctions
to prevent tree trimming.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the wall is built and the limbs have been removed.
Mr. William Breck replied that if the wall is removed there will be room to allow more trees to be
planted.
Commissioner Jackman asked if he is proposing no wall between neighbors.
Mr. William Breck said that this is not a problem. He added that the wall was built before tree
protection was put in place.
Commissioner Kurasch pointed out Code Section 16 -5.030 that states the Building Official can refuse
to issue permits for a project when there are violations.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that that Section says the Building Official can issue permits if a date
for correction is established and that with respect to the remodel permit the City Manager, Building
Official and Mr. Cutler have reached an agreement on a time frame for when the necessary corrections
are to be completed.
Saratoga Planning Commission mutes of August 28, 2002 Page 6
Ms. Anita Schiller, 14470 Oak Place, Saratoga:
• Read a brief letter that detailed the concerns of Alan and Carolyn King over the potential for 150-
200 year old trees that could die as a result of this construction.
• Said that now she speaks on her own behalf and for her husband, Jim Abrams.
• Explained that she moved into the area due to oak trees and the quaint and quiet atmosphere.
• Said that while her property does not touch the Cutler property she has a view from her rear yard
that is now a concrete wall.
• Added that she has had no direct interaction with the Cutlers.
• Said that she takes exception to the comments of Commissioner Kurasch about the wall not coming
down.
• Questioned why bother having a Building Code if it is not going to be enforced.
• Cautioned that allowing them to continue in this manner will set a precedent.
Ms. Holly Davies, 14480 Oak Place, Saratoga:
• Said that she speaks with some trepidation as she received a threat at 3:21 p.m. this afternoon from
Mr. Cutler that he will tear down a fence along the alley that she needs.
• Added that this fence is entirely on her property.
• Said that she has a civic right to address the Commission tonight.
• Stated that she is upset and frustrated.
• Advised that since January 2002 she began going to the Planning Department to express concerns.
• Informed that 13 oak trees have been damaged and many will not live through the experience.
• Added that Mr. Cutler has cut the canopy of her trees out of pure maliciousness. Bores were
augured into her oak tree roots and these trees cannot take that abuse.
• Asked the Commission to try hard to get control of this project as right now it is completely out of
control.
Commissioner Roupe asked Ms. Davies what the appropriate resolution is given this situation.
Ms. Holly Davies replied restitution for assessed value to damaged trees and to enforce the Tree
Ordinance by not allowing this seven to eight -foot wall so near oak trees.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that a licensed survey has verified the height of the wall to be six feet.
Ms. Holly Davies replied that from her property, the walls are from seven to eight feet high.
Director Tom Sullivan reminded that the initial part of the wall was not given final approval.
Commissioner Kurasch reminded Ms. Holly Davies that there are civil remedies available.
Ms. Holly Davies said that she is aware that some of these issues are actionable.
Ms. Beverly Goldman, 20360 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, Saratoga:
• Identified her property as sharing a portion of property line with the Cutler property.
• Stated that a threat was made by Mr. Cutler, of which she distributed a copy to the Commission,
that says he will do as he wishes since he has had no response from her to his request.
• Said that concrete was poured at the base of oak tree #1.
Saratoga Planning Commissio, inutes of August 28, 2002 Page 7
• Stated three things she would like to see happen. One, she would like to see the harassment by Mr.
Cutler stopped. Two, she wants a stop to the killing of yet one more oak tree. Three, she wants no
further installation of the concrete wall.
• Pointed out that on one occasion, Mr. Cutler cut branches from a tree and dropped the debris onto
the Davies property, leaving it for them to clean up.
Mr. Fred Shumaker, 14561 Westcott Drive, Saratoga:
• Said his property is to the east and backs up to the Cutler property.
• Said that the oak tree in question is on the property line.
• Added that he came home several months ago to find that a huge limb had been removed from the
Oak tree, reducing the tree by one third, and found a concrete wall with large footings in place.
• Stated that it is a shame that this was not prevented as Mr. Cutler has a history of cutting back tree
limbs.
• Said that he would like to see everything possible done to preserve what is remaining of the Oak
tree.
• Added that the footings should be removed and have an Arborist determine what can be done to
keep the tree alive. If not, the tree will be dead in five years.
Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Shumaker what tree he speaks of and if it is the tree mentioned in the
appeal.
Mr. Fred Shumaker replied that he believes so.
Commissioner Hunter said that the wall is already around it.
Commissioner Barry asked if Mr. Shumaker would like to see the wall and footings removed.
Mr. Fred Shumaker replied that he would like to see the wall and footings removed if the City Arborist
thinks that is what should be done.
Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Shumaker what should occur if the Arborist says removing the wall and
footing would be worse than leaving it. What would he like to see happen in that event.
Mr. Fred Shumaker said that he must defer to the experts.
Mr. Mitch Cutler, 14480 Oak Place, Saratoga:
• Stated that the first part of the wall was passed with permits and finaled with approval by Zoning
and Building and that he is giving the documents showing this to the Commission.
• Said that there are lots of unhappy neighbors but when Mr. Sullivan sent them a letter for a
Mediation, he was the only one who agreed to mediation.
• Stated that he has a letter from Holly Davies in which she gave written approval of the wall.
• Said that he has a permit that is signed, approved and finalized by the City.
• Pointed out that every single neighbor has a walls over six feet in height except for him.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Cutler if he believes he has made a good will effort to deal with his
neighbors given that his letters are threatening.
Saratoga Planning Commissio, mutes of August 28, 2002 Page 8
Mr. Mitch Cutler said no and that they are being looked at out of context.
Mr. Frank Mattis, 20385 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, Saratoga:
• Asked who at the City has the authority to permit a wall being constructed on an easement.
• Stated that he had a survey, which shows the wall has been constructed on his easement.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that no one gave permission for construction in the easement. He added
that the application was for the placement of the wall on the property line as depicted on the plans.
Commissioner Roupe suggested that it is possible there is an error on the plans.
Director Tom Sullivan said that the easement is a turnaround area on property that is owned by Mr.
Cutler. Two other property owners have access rights.
Mr. Frank Mattis stated that the concrete wall is located two feet onto his easement and suggested that
the wall be knocked down.
Ms. Delores Smith, 14560 Westcott Drive, Saratoga:
• Identified herself as someone who once lived on the subject property when she was a girl.
• Said that she recently discovered that her fence just disappeared.
• Advised that Mr. Cutler has been gracious to her about the noise from construction on his site.
• Expressed dismay at the acrimonious atmosphere that has developed in their neighborhood.
• Said that she has to work to keep calm.
• Said that all the neighbors are impacted, even Mr. Cutler, and the situation has escalated.
• Stated her concern for the tree mentioned by Mr. Shumaker.
• Said that she has total admiration for past efforts to preserve trees and support for continued
preservation of trees.
• Stated that neighbors have expressed fear of retaliation and that she hopes it does not come to that.
• Asked the City to reexamine its codes so this sort of situation does not happen again.
• Said that once its roots are cut, a tree dies in about five years.
Chair Jackman thanked Ms. Smith for her calming comments and expressed her personal support for
existing trees and for the planting of new trees for the future.
Commissioner Hunter advised that a Tree Committee is under way.
Ms. Delores Smith said she is delighted to hear that fact.
Ms. Anita Schiller, 14470 Oak Place, Saratoga:
• Stated that she has a six -foot fence with one -foot lattice.
• Added that she is willing to remove the lattice, if necessary, to reach equal enforcement.
Commissioner Barry asked if there are any piers within 10 feet of an existing large tree as part of her
fence.
Ms. Anita Schiller said that there is an oak tree in the middle of her fence but that the fence was already
in place when she purchased her home.
Saratoga Planning Commissio; mutes of August 28, 2002 Page 9
William Breck:
• Stated that he has addressed Council on four occasions.
• Pointed out that the five -foot wide concrete footings constitute pavement.
• Said that while they had considered Mediation, the earliest available opportunity was in early July,
which they felt was too late.
• Stressed the importance of the big picture and the importance of protecting trees.
• Said that he wants to see penalties, protection and full design review.
• Reported that Mr. Cutler demolished a barn and rebuilt it and that he believes the Cutler project is
over on allowable square footage.
• Added that the Cutler project needs tight control as there has been a lot of non - permitted work done.
• Said that this has been an endless pattern that cannot continued.
• Asked the City to take an aggressive stand as this situation has been going on for months and is out
of control.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Breck if there was any satisfaction with Council actions.
Mr. William Breck replied that they have been asking for construction tree protection fencing for
months and months. Asked the Commission to step up to protect trees although there are lots of
additional issues.
Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that the Commission has a narrow focus that does not include the
entirety of the wall around the Cutler property.
Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 8:39 p.m.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Said that there is a fairly narrow issue the Commission is asked to address. That is the one tree the
Planning Commission looked at during their site visit.
• Suggested that the Commission stay with a narrow focus.
Commissioner Hunter asked if the Commission could levy fines.
Director Tom Sullivan:
• Replied that the Commission does not have fine levying authority.
• Said if the Planning Commission finds it is pavement, the Planning Commission becomes
Approving Authority. The Commission's first function in this matter is to make a determination as
to whether the concrete footings constitute pavement. If it is, the Planning Commission's options,
at the approving authority, include the authority to require the removal of construction within 10
feet of this oak tree. If not defined as pavement or structure, he explained that they should deny the
Appeal since the Appeal is of an Administrative Decision regarding placement of pavement within
10 feet of an oak tree. Cautioned that the Commission does not have authority to take a more global
act in this matter.
Commissioner Roupe inquired about allegations made that the wall is over six feet tall.
Saratoga Planning Commissio. ,nutes of August 28, 2002 Page 10
Director Tom Sullivan reminded that the first 190 feet of wall is still moving forward as a Code
Enforcement violation. The action of tonight's appeal pertains to portions of a second permitted wall
section.
Commissioner Barry asked if the Commission has the discretion to say no further work can occur until
the Code Enforcement action is resolved and to say no further work can occur until there is a
determination whether mitigation will be accomplished with all trees and make that a condition of
moving forward with the project.
Director Tom Sullivan said the Planning Commission does have authority to require mitigation prior to
moving forward, but he does not believe the Commission has the power to rescind permits but that he
would ask the City Attorney for an opinion.
Chair Jackman reminded that the first question to answer is whether the Commission feels that the wall
constitutes either pavement and/or a structure.
Director Tom Sullivan read the definition of a structure from the Zoning Ordinance and advised that
fences and/or walls less than six feet in height are exempt from the prohibition of structures within 10
feet of an Oak tree. He reiterated staff conclusion the wall is less than six feet per the surveyor.
Commissioner Roupe said that the footing is apparently necessary to provide stability for this large
wall.
Chair Jackman pointed out that it is five feet wide, but it is a substantial wall if it not a structure.
Commissioner Roupe said that per the drawing, it is four feet wide.
Commissioner Hunter said that the applicant was allowed to remove three trees because of the footings
for his wall and is now going beyond that.
Commissioner Kurasch said that if this wall installation had been done correctly perhaps it could have
been done without damage to surrounding trees. She would like to look at mitigation for all the trees.
She stated that possibly in some situations a ten foot separation would not be necessary. Questioned
how best to assess damage and said that she would like to see an updated Arborist report.
Chair Jackman said that she would like report from Barrie Coate to see four to six new oak trees planted
as well as an updated report by Barrie Coate.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Suggested assessment of value of tree and the requirement for a long -term bond to cover if it does
not survive after five years.
• Reminded that the issue before the Commission was limited. While the Ordinance needs to be
looked at, that cannot be solved tonight.
• Agreed with Director Sullivan's assessment that this is .a wall and could be found not to be a
structure or pavement.
• Suggested that the dirt currently piled around the tree be removed and that the required tree
protection be put in place.
Saratoga Planning Commissioi mutes of August 28, 2002 Page 11
Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that the wall plans included engineered drawings.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Said that this situation goes to the intent of the Code.
• Said that she cannot imagine it is necessary for this wall design to have such large footings.
• Added that she feels it is a wall structure, such as a retaining wall or barrier, rather than simple a
fence.
Commissioner Barry stated that she feels it is pavement and that the significant amount of cement
impedes the health of the trees. Said that this is way over and above what is considered either a wall or
a fence. Even if we conclude this is pavement, there is still room for an exception. She wants Planning
Commission to determine this is pavement.
Commissioner Roupe disagreed, saying there is no intent for passage of people and the footings are part
of the structure.
Director Tom Sullivan reminded that there is need for a consensus on the pavement definition.
Commissioner Roupe moved to accept the definition of "pavement" attached to the Staff Report by the
Community Development Director and find that this is not a structure or pavement but part of the a wall
and its construction.
Commissioner Garakani said that if it is part of the wall, what is the height of the wall and does it
include the depth of the footings.
Commissioner Barry said that it would look like a massive structure.
Commissioner Kurasch asked how far down are the footings and stated that the footing constitutes the
bottom of the wall and the wall would exceed six feet in height.
Commissioner Roupe disagreed, saying that it is the portion above grade.
Director Tom Sullivan said that the height is measured from the top of the wall to the natural or finish
cut grade. It disallows measuring to fill grade. Staff determined height excluding the fill dirt.
Commissioner Barry stated she is ready to interpret the construction as pavement or structure or both.
Commissioner Zutshi asked what if the dirt is removed and this becomes pavement, a walkway.
Commissioner Roupe stated that removing the dirt would not make it pavement.
Motion: Commissioner Roupe moved, seconded by Commissioner Barry, that the Planning
Commission approve the definition that this wall is not pavement nor is it a
structure as defined in the City Code and is therefore exempt.
AYES: None
NOES: Barry, Garakani, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe, Zutshi and Hunter
ABSENT: None
Saratoga Planning Commissioi mutes of August 28, 2002 Page 12
ABSTAIN: None
Motion failed.
Commissioner Barry asked if the Commission wishes to exempt this wall as she is does not.
Commissioner Roupe said that the question pertains only to the 10 feet to the left of the tree.
Director Tom Sullivan clarified that the Commission is dealing with the wall constructed under the
second permit and that the Commission cannot address the 190 -foot was and that there is no exemption
from the 10 -foot rule for that wall.
Commissioner Kurasch questioned the scope of the appeal.
Director Tom Sullivan stated that the Administrative Decision was with regard to the entire 300 -foot
section. Planning Commission can read the whole appeal letter and come to a conclusion as to what is
the scope of the appeal.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that Mr. Breck's letter of July 3, 2002, mentions the portion of the
wall within 10 feet of one specific tree.
Commissioner Jackman said it is important to know the intent of Mr. Breck versus his letter.
Commissioner Garakani said the Commission should ask Mr. Breck his intent.
Commissioner Zutshi said that Mr. Breck's letter states his intent as being the whole wall.
Commissioner Kurasch said it appears clear the appeal is over the footings within 10 feet of an oak tree.
She sees this as regarding "trees" (plural).
Commissioner Hunter said that the intent stated in the Appeal Letter is to consider all Oaks within 10
feet of footings.
Commissioner Barry agreed that Mr. Breck is concerned over trees and footings (plural).
Commissioner Roupe says that the scope is more narrow and that this item was only advertised as an
appeal for one tree. Anything else is beyond the scope advertised for this Public Hearing.
Chair Jackman said that she thinks the letter refers in the lower paragraph to several trees, not just one
Chair Jackman reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 9:15 p.m. for the limited purpose
of inquiring of Mr. Breck the intent of his Appeal.
Mr. William Breck:
• Said that when he filed his appeal, a portion of the wall had not yet been poured. However, that
portion was later poured despite the Stop Work order. He stated his intention was to address trees in
area not poured at time he filed his appeal
• Added that he does not understand why his appeal does not pertain to the 190 foot wall.
Saratoga Planning Commissio, mutes of August 28, 2002 Page 13
Chair Jackman reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 9:16 p.m.
Commissioner Kurasch stated that the Planning Commission action can include protection as far as
bonds, assessment of the trees and Arborist supervision and that the Stop Work order continue to be
imposed on the section not yet completed until these things are done.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the Stop Work order was ignored. He suggested that one method
of remediation would be the removal of the portion of work installed in spite of the Stop Work order
being issued. However, it is important not to "throw the baby out with the bath water" and do more
damage with this step. He proposes talking to Barrie Coate about this.
Chair Jackman expressed support for a bond, an assessment by Barrie Coate (to leave or remove
footings and wall) and then bringing this matter back to the Commission for further action.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Suggested that Barrie Coate assess all oak trees impacted and come up with mitigation.
• Added that the assessment should include an assigned value for all trees for use in determining an
amount for the long -term bond on the livelihood of those trees.
Commissioner Hunter stressed the need for protective fencing.
Commissioner Kurasch asked for a time limit in coordination with other remediations and suggested
that remediation needs to be done prior to more work taking place on the wall.
Commissioner Barry agreed that remediation and further work have to be linked, with remediation
occurring first.
Commissioner Zutshi questioned what guarantees the City will have since the rules have not been
followed before.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that staff cannot provide guarantees beyond the rules and regulations and
staff's best efforts to enforce them.
Chair Jackman reminded that if removal causes more damage, it may be best to retain the wall.
Commissioner Barry expressed interest in finding out if part of the wall should be removed.
Commissioner Hunter said that this is an unfortunate precedent and has caused so much damage to so
many trees. The result should not be simply a slap on the hand. This is setting it up for people to
misbehave throughout the City. She said it is important to find out what would happen if this wall were
to come out.
Commissioner Kurasch agreed that it is unfortunate that this was done the way it was, but states that
Mr. Cutler does have some permitted uses. It is just the way it was done and the damages.
Saratoga Planning Commission mutes of August 28, 2002 - Page 14
Commissioner Roupe suggested considering all oak trees have been impacted, what mitigation can be
done, up to and including removal of some portion of the wall around those trees, and, then, given that
the damages may have been done that values be determined and require long -term bonding.
Chair Jackman said she wants to see trees planted in addition to long -term bond.
Commissioner Garakani asked if trees are planted where portion of wall is removed, what about privacy
concerns.
Commissioner Roupe stated that there are ways to address privacy.
Commissioner Kurasch suggested that remediation and further construction require Arborist
supervision at applicant's expense.
Commissioner Barry said that the intent is to complete fencing and some sort of plan needs to be
brought forward that is a mutually agreeable solution.
Commissioner Roupe suggested that the neighbors that abut the Cutler property should be allowed to
agree on the nature and height of the fence.
Commissioner Kurasch said that she would like this matter to be brought back before the Commission
with the updated Arborist report.
Commissioner Garakani asked if neighbors are notified when a shared fence application is considered.
Director Tom Sullivan said that the Code has no direction for notification of neighbors for installation
of a fence (as opposed to a wall) if it is under six feet in height and on the applicant's own property. It
would involve only a ministerial building permit.
Commissioner Garakani asked who determines the length of time for the bond.
Director Tom Sullivan replied the City's Arborist will recommend the term of the bond
Commissioner Kurasch asked if the work will still be stopped until the Arborist's assessment.
Commissioner Roupe stated that not only is the work stopped, but he is concerned over the tree with a
dirt pile beneath it.
Commissioner Kurasch inquired as to a deadline to address the removal of fill dirt around that tree.
Director Tom Sullivan recommended a deadline be established for completed Reports after consultation
with the City Arborist.
Commissioner Hunter requested all interested parties be given a copy of the City Arborist's updated
Reports.
Director Tom Sullivan reminded that there is a 15 -day appeal period.
Saratoga Planning Commissioi. nutes of August 28, 2002 Page 15
Motion: Commissioner Barry moved, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, that the Planning
Commission:
• Grant the Appeal;
• Find that the footings constitute "pavement" and that the totality of the
concrete wall constitutes a structure;
• Find that the Appeal applies to all Ordinance - protected oak trees potentially
damaged or impacted by the construction of the concrete wall pursuant to City
Building Permit No. 02- 00001510 and the footings located adjacent thereto;
• Link future work authorization to prior resolution of the existing Code
Enforcement issue;
• Require an Assessment Report of the damage to and current health of all trees
within ten feet of the footings and concrete wall to be prepared by the City's
Arborist and provided to the Planning Commission for its review and further
action;
• Require a Mitigation Plan containing remediation recommendations and bond
values for all impacted trees, to be prepared by the City's Arborist, and
provided to the Planning Commission for its review and further action;
• Require that any /all future construction on the wall will be performed under
the supervision of an Arborist at the applicant's expense to assure adherence to
each condition imposed by the Planning Commission;
• Require that all tree protective measures identified by the City Arborist in his
April 22, 2002 Report (including removal of all fill dirt within three feet of
Ordinance - protected trees) be completed immediately;
• Require that the remaining walls, footings and /or fencing proposed between the
Cutler property and the Breck property be brought back to the Planning
Commission for determination of compliance with City Code Section 15- 50.110;
and
• Require that the final decision as to the conditions to be imposed on the
construction of the Cutler concrete wall and footings under the second Building
Permit be brought back to be made by the Planning Commission.
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion approved.
Chair Jackman called for a break at 9:40 p.m. before going to the next Agenda Item.
Chair Jackman reconvened the meeting at 9:48 p.m.
Chair Jackman proposed consideration of Agenda Item 4 out of order as it is fairly routine and should
not take long. She also asked the applicant for item No. 3 if he would accept a continuance for two
Saratoga Planning Commissioi nutes of August 28, 2002 Page 16
weeks since Item No. 2 will be more complex and take a long time and therefore run the meeting quite
late this evening. The applicant for Item No. 3 stated that he would be willing to return in two weeks.
Chair Jackman recused herself for Item No. 4 since she resides within the notification area. She turned
the gavel over to Commissioner Kurasch to serve as Chair during this item.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.4
APPLICATION #UP -99 -021 (51 -10 -015 & 009) — OUR LADY OF FATIMA ASSISTED LIVING
FACILITY, 20400 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road: Resolution UP -99 -021 requires the applicant to return
to the Planning Commission prior to issuance of grading and building permits in order to address:
1. Affordable living units and preference to Saratoga residents;
2. Sound levels at laundry facility;
3. Construction period traffic and parking;
4. Evening shift parking; and
5. Twenty -four hour contact for complaints.
The public hearing is being scheduled to address these issues. (WELSH)
Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows:
• Stated that on October 11, 2000, a Use Permit application (UP -99 -021) was approved for an assisted
living facility. There were five issues that were required to be returned to the Commission
including below market rate units with first preference to Saratoga residents; mitigation for the
sound of the laundry facility; construction traffic management and parking; evening shift parking
and 24 -hour availability.
• Advised that the applicant has provided written response including the fact that 10 studio units are
counted as low - income units and that a preference will be given to Saratoga residents for those
units. Additionally, an acoustic consultant was retained to reduce noise impacts from the laundry
facility and hours of operation for the laundry facility are effective immediately. The construction
parking plan incorporates use of public transportation and off -site parking. Compliance with the
parking plan will be reported every 60 days. Evening shift parking will include chaining off
parking areas closest to adjacent residential properties. Staff met with adjacent property owners and
reached consensus.
• Recommended final approval of the Use Permit and issuance of building and grading permits.
Acting Chair Kurasch opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:54 p.m.
Mr. Andy Barker, Project Architect, made himself available for questions.
Commissioner Barry asked about the plan to ferry workers to the job site.
Mr. Andy Barker said that they have entered into an agreement with West Valley College for parking
spaces when needed. Said that he did not actually believe off -site would be required but they have this
formal arrangement with West Valley College for 10 spaces if they are needed. There are 20 on -site
spaces available for workers and an additional 14 for employees.
Saratoga Planning Commission nutes of August 28, 2002 Page 17
Commissioner Barry asked what hours the workers could park at West Valley College.
Mr. Andy Barker replied within Ordinance allowable hours and reminded that classes begin as early as
7 a.m.
Commissioner Barry said that the neighbors on Allendale need to be consulted and approve the
proposed use of these parking spaces.
Mr. Andy Barker said that he is willing to address the issue with neighbors.
Director Tom Sullivan suggested that Mr. Barker provide City staff with the assigned parking spaces
and staff can provide the addresses of neighbors within their proximity.
Mr. Andy Barker said that he would do this within the week.
Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Barker if he understands the limitations on noise.
Mr. Andy Barker assured that they plan to comply with all Ordinance requirements.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked if this off -site parking would be used only during construction.
Mr. Andy Barker replied yes, the parking would be available during peak construction periods. The
agreement with West Valley is for a full year, which is more than adequate.
Commissioner Barry pointed out the letter from Mr. Bob Dunnett regarding the good faith agreement to
use the laundry facility within the hours of 9:30 a.m. and 4 p.m.
Planner Ann Welsh said that this language could be added to the agreement.
Commissioner Roupe warned Mr. Barker that something must be done about the intercom system that
was so offensive during the site visit.
Mr. Preston, CEO for Our Lady of Fatima Assisted Living Facility, assured the Commission that this
intercom system was fixed this morning.
Commissioner Barry stated that the spirit reflected in this agreement is wonderful.
Mr. Preston stated his appreciation for staff's help, particularly Ann Welsh and Tom Sullivan. There
was a lot of cooperation and a good job was done with the neighbors.
Ms. Erna Jackman stated that this project will be a big asset to the community and that she is happy to
see it go forward.
Acting Chair Kurasch closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 10:06 p.m.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the
Planning Commission approved the recommendations for the five outstanding
issues for UP -99 -021 with two added conditions that the West Valley College
Saratoga Planning Commission. nutes of August 28, 2002 Page 18
parking agreement be reviewed with the affected neighbors and that the good faith
effort for the operations of the laundry facility be inserted into the Conditions for
the Our Lady of Fatima Assisted Living Facility located at 20400 Saratoga -Los
Gatos Road, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Jackman
Chair Jackman resumed the gavel at 10:08 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.2
DR -00 -051 & BSA -00 -003 (503 -30 -002) — WALKER, 13800 Pierce Road: Request for Design
Review and Building Site Approval to construct a two -story single- family residence on a 19,210 square
foot vacant lot. The floor area of the proposed residence and attached two -car garage is 3,609 square
feet. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The site is zoned Hillside Residential.
(OOSTERHOUS)
Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicant is seeking approval for a Design Review and Building Site Approval to
allow a two -story single - family residence on a vacant triangular lot. The proposed structure is
3,324 square feet with a maximum height of 26 feet. The zoning is Hillside Residential.
• Reminded that this proposal was before the Commission on July 10, 2002, and was continued to
allow the applicant the time to install accurate story poles and to provide additional information on
the site slope in the building area.
• Pointed out that three letters have been submitted expressing concerns about the stability of Pike
Road and the adequacy of off - street parking.
• Stated that the proposal does not meet privacy findings. Staff is recommending that French doors
be replaced with two by two windows at header height; that a proposed wraparound porch be
eliminated; that fast growing landscaping be incorporated and that the dining room window be
obscured.
Commissioner Kurasch asked staff if they agree with the point made in the Rose letter regarding FAR.
Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that the allowable FAR mentioned in the letter is based on gross
while the Municipal Code requires that FAR be calculated based on net square footage.
Commissioner Roupe clarified that the letter is in error.
Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes.
Commissioner Kurasch asked about the average slope.
Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that the slope of the building site area is 30 percent and the average
slope is 20 percent.
Saratoga Planning Commissioi. nutes of August 28, 2002 Page 19
Commissioner Zutshi mentioned the letter from Jean Lundeen, which states that the building pad must
be moved 50 feet rather than 20 feet due to liquefaction. Asked if this is true.
Planner Christy Oosterhous said that she would have to check the geotechnical report.
Chair Jackman clarified for the audience that staff summarizes letters received after the packets are
distributed.
Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that at the last meeting the Commission gave direction for changes.
Asked why there are no proposed changes.
Chair Jackman remembered a requirement for a 500 square foot reduction.
Planner Christy Oosterhous reminded that staff's recommendation had been for approval.
Mr. Tom Walker, Applicant, 13800 Pierce Road, Saratoga, thanked staff and expressed appreciation for
their recommendation of approval. Made himself available for questions.
Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Walker if his architect is present.
Mr. Tom Walker replied that his architect is ill with the flu.
Commissioner Barry:
• Stated that his architect has done him a disservice with his letter in which he stated that since
minimum Code requirements have been met the Commission should leave the project alone.
• Clarified that the Municipal Code is a beginning. It's what is expected to get through staff review
and to the Commission for final consideration.
• Pointed out that Section 15.45.455 codifies design review standards and that this is a legitimate
review.
• Declared that this architect does no favor with such a letter and it is good he is not here.
• Acknowledged that she is aware that Mr. Walker himself did not write that letter.
Mr. Tom Walker expressed regret that the Commission was offended.
Chair Jackman replied that it is not a question of being offended but his architect was incorrect in his
assumption.
Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that the design is the same and that there are still letters of concern
from his neighbors.
Mr. Tom Walker:
• Stated that he understood he was asked to consider a 500 -foot reduction and he did so. However he
felt the reduction would adversely impact his home.
• Pointed out that most new homes are larger than he is proposing.
Commissioner Kurasch clarified that they are not necessarily on a similar size lot.
Saratoga Planning Commissioi nutes of August 28, 2002 Page 20
Mr. Tom Walker stated that the proposal is less than allowed and that his story poles demonstrate that
the house will be set back in the area with trees. It fits in there and he hoped that fact would sway the
concerns of the Commission.
Commissioner Roupe asked about the stability and impact of construction on Pike Road, Asked Mr.
Walker if he has looked at the geotechnical report.
Mr. Tom Walker replied yes. He added that the geotechnical report was submitted and reviewed by the
City and accepted.
Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 10:20 p.m.
Mr. Tom Copenhagen, 14430 Pike Road, Saratoga:
• Said his interest is in the stability of Pike Road, which serves 35 houses and is a privately owned
and maintained street rather than a public City street.
• Stated that what is on paper versus what is actually constructed in the field does not always
coincide.
• Asked for guarantees on protection for Pike Road to ensure that it won't crack and crumble.
• Questioned how the protections called for in the geotechnical report will be enforced. Are they
recommendations or are there teeth in these recommendations.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that the Planning Commission's action would change them from
recommendations into requirements. Added that these recommendations also get peer reviewed by the
City.
Mr. Tom Copenhagen asked that their interests be assured. Asked about a hold harmless for the
residents on Pike Road such as are included within Condition 18 to hold the City harmless.
Director Tom Sullivan clarified that the hold harmless simply means that the City is not a party to a suit
if damage occurs. Added that a performance bond is a possible solution to concerns over the road.
Commissioner Roupe reminded that the residents also have a right to civil action.
Commissioner Barry asked if Mr. Copenhagen is recommending a construction supervisor.
Commissioner Roupe asked if the City Engineer serves in that capacity.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that the project engineer supervises the work on site.
Mr. Tom Copenhagen said that his concern is for the cut for the house and the potential impact on Pike
Road. Said that he seeks protection of their access road.
Commissioner Roupe said that a bond could be imposed during construction but there is a finite time
duration for said bond. Said that he believes the hillside will actually be more stable after the basement
is constructed than it is now.
Mr. Tom Copenhagen replied that this sounds reasonable.
Saratoga Planning Commissioi nutes of August 28, 2002 Page 21
Chair Jackman suggested that this be worked out with Mr. Walker.
Commissioner Roupe reiterated that a reasonable bond should be put up during the construction period.
Mr. Tom Copenhagen said he is willing to work this out with Mr. Walker. He said that he has no
problem with engineers and plans but rather with the actual adherence to those plans during
construction.
Ms. Dorothy Miller, 14440 Pike Road, Saratoga:
• Identified herself as a 45 year resident.
• Expressed concern over rain and the fact that they have experienced five dry years.
• Added that she has seen damage occur after a first rain following a dry period and that when the
rain comes, the dirt slides.
Commissioner Garakani asked Ms. Miller whether she would find this project acceptable as long as
drainage is properly addressed.
Ms. Dorothy Miller replied that she is fine as long as she does not slide down the road.
Commissioner Zutshi asked Ms. Miller when the last slide occurred.
Ms. Dorothy Miller replied four years ago when 14,000 cubic yards of dirt had to be removed from her
property.
Commissioner Zutshi said that it is in the Walkers' interest to make sure a slide does not occur.
Ms. Jean Lundeen, 13810 Pike Road, Saratoga:
• Thanked the Commission for its time.
• Said that the home appears bulky and large for the property.
• Said that she will see a massive wall from her property.
• Identified herself as an engineer and said it is worthwhile to get a second opinion from another
engineer.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that there has already been a second engineer's opinion of the plans.
Commissioner Garakani asked Ms. Lundeen if she has looked at the landscaping plan and whether
additional trees would make her happier. Asked for her suggestions for a solution to her concerns.
Ms. Jean Lundeen said that she would like to see trees. She added that she also would like to see a
house set back and of a size more compatible with a Hillside lot.
Commissioner Zutshi asked Ms. Lundeen about her letter stating the fact that the house must be moved
further back because of liquefaction.
Ms. Jean Lundeen said that she has no confirmation of that fact but had heard of it.
Mr. Lars Borg, 13845 Pike Road, Saratoga:
• Expressed concerns about Pike Road.
Saratoga Planning Commissioi. nutes of August 28, 2002 Page 22
• Said he bought his home in 1994 and has drainage problems on his own property. In 1995, a tree
fell down. In 1997, water drainage from a neighboring property was a problem. His driveway has
settled by one foot.
• Sought assurances that they won't have to pay for another landslide.
• Reminded that Pike Road is their only access.
• Pointed out setback requirements and said that the road easement is six feet wider than the actual
road, which may impact the placement of the home to meet required setbacks.
Planner Christy Oosterhous clarified that Pike Road is 60 feet and per the record of survey the property
line is 30 feet from centerline.
Mr. Lars Borg expressed doubt about the 30 percent slope.
Ms. Julie Wise, Perralta Court, Saratoga:
• Suggested that the bond be issued for more than the construction phase.
• Pointed out that Pike Road consists of 50,000 square feet of roadway. If it slumps, it will affect
them.
• Advised that a previous four foot cut in the early 1980's was enough to result in a major landslide in
1983.
• Added that she does not want to have to sue as the process is time consuming.
• Stressed the importance to have protection in place for people living on Pike Road.
Commissioner Barry asked if water comes from some of the neighboring properties.
Ms. Julie Wise said that the water came from one property, across the road and onward.
Commissioner Barry again asked if water is from the Pike Road homes.
Mr. Tom Copenhagen said that although Pike Road has a drainage culvert, the properties are still on the
Hillside.
Mr. Tom Walker said that he has owned this property since 1975 and has seen it through rain and
floods and has experienced no adverse water on site.
Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 11:05 p.m.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Said that she wants to see the house off the slope as much as possible.
• Stated that this is a smaller property than others.
• Added that it is hard to visualize a house of this size on the property and that she would like to
reduce the size and bulk of the house as it is too large.
Commissioner Garakani:
• Advised that he has no issue with the bulk and mass of this home as it is situated inside of the hill
and some trees will cover its visibility from Pike Road.
• Said that if landscaping is done correctly, this house matches the area and makes it better.
• Stated that putting a house here will prevent landslides due to footings and the basement.
Saratoga Planning Commissioi. nutes of August 28, 2002 Page 23
• Assured that nice landscaping will resolve most issues.
Commissioner Barry:
• Expressed mixed feelings.
• Said that she finds this to be a difficult lot and that she is concerned that this proposal is too much.
• Said that the Commission cannot mandate drainage and that the neighbors must get together.
• Mentioned the neighbors on Bohlman Road who have worked together to resolve water drainage
issues.
• Recommended that the Public Works Department review the safety and line of sight at the point of
Pike and Pierce Roads and that any recommendations made be incorporated into the Conditions of
Approval.
• Said that she has not yet made up her mind about the size.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Stated that this project is appropriate with conditions.
• Said that the findings made by staff for approval are appropriate regarding bulk and size.
• Added that the project meets guidelines.
• Said that landscaping will address view issues.
• Offered that the house would look big from Pierce Road but from Pike Road it will be hard to see it
from beneath the canopy of trees.
• Said that he relies on experts regarding geotechnical and engineering considerations.
• Expressed support for a bond during construction to protect Pike Road.
Chair Jackman:
• Said that this house is big for the site but that she will support it.
• Added that she wants to see good sized trees in front of the house itself.
• Supported the review by Public Works of the line of sight at Pierce and Pike Roads.
• Said that it appears there is a very good drainage plan although one cannot always predict and/or
prevent things from happening.
Commissioner Kurasch said that it is hard to see how a two -story home is compatible.
Commissioner Zutshi agreed that houses in the area are quite subdued.
Planner Christy Oosterhous pointed out that there is a two -story home on the other side of the Lundeen
property.
Commissioner Barry asked how far that house is set back.
Planner Christy Oosterhous did not have the answer to that question.
Commissioner Hunter stated that the bulk is too great, the slope too much and that, unless revisions are
made, she will not support this proposal.
Commissioner Zutshi said that she sees this house as really bulky for the area and especially from
Pierce Road.
Saratoga Planning Commissioi nutes of August 28, 2002 Page 24
Commissioner Barry:
• Agreed that the bulk would appear to be too great from Pierce Road.
• Reminded that the Commission had asked for some reduction in size regarding the length of the
second story so that it is less than the first story.
• Said that she would support some reduction.
• Proposed a Condition of Approval requiring some reduction of the second story.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that this home has to be a two -story due to the slope but supported
the proposal to pull in the second story.
Commissioner Barry said that the Commission can't design the home for them but had asked for a
voluntary reduction. Restated her proposal to approve with a Condition to reduce the second story.
Commissioner Roupe suggested the need for a measurable distance in reduction of the second story
from both ends.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the
Planning Commission approved a Design Review and Building Site Approval to
construct a two -story single - family residence at 13800 Pierce Road with the
following conditions:
• That the second story of the house shall be reduced in length on both ends so
that there is no immediate overhang to the lower floor and to equal at least 10
percent or 300 square feet;
• That no windows directly overlook neighboring homes;
• That fast - growing screening landscaping be installed with particular attention
to the landscaping between the house and Pierce Road;
• That a safety study on the driveway and the confluence of Pike and Pierce
Roads be performed by the Public Works Department with any
recommendations to become Conditions of Approval; and
• That the issuance of a bond be required during construction to protect Pike
Road;
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: Hunter and Kurasch
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO. 3 — CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 11, 2002, DUE TO THE
LATE HOUR
APPLICATION #02 -013 (503 -69 -002) — AMINI- MOAZENA, 13815 Pierce Road: Request for
Design Review to demolish an existing single -story house and construct a new two -story house with
6,099 square feet on the main and upper levels and 2,569 square feet in the basement. The property is a
1.72 -acre lot in the Hillside Residential District. The height of the structure will be 26 feet.
(LIVINGSTONE)
Saratoga Planning Commissiot nutes of August 28, 2002 Page 25
DIRECTOR'S ITEMS
There were no Director's Items.
COMMISSION ITEMS
Gateway Task Force
Commissioner Roupe advised that he has attended two Gateway Task Force meetings and that the
Commission would be well advised to have a Study Session prior to the item coming to Public Hearing
before the Commission.
Director Tom Sullivan suggested perhaps having the Study Session prior to the September 11`h meeting
and asked the Commission to advise of their availability.
Commission Terms
Chair Jackman advised that beginning in May 2003, the terms of the Planning Commissioners would be
staggered.
Tree Committee
Commissioner Kurasch announced that the Tree Committee will meet on Tuesday, September 10, 2002,
at 3:30 p.m.
Timing of Site Visits
Commissioner Garakani expressed continued concern about the timing of site visits.
COMMUNICATIONS
There were no communication items.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Chair Jackman adjourned the meeting at 11:42 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday,
September 11, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk
0
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, July 24, 2002
PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Chair Jackman called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Barry, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe
Absent: Commissioners Garakani and Zutshi
Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner John Livingstone, Planner Lata Vasudevan
and Planner Ann Welsh
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of July 10, 2002.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the
regular Planning Commission minutes of July 10, 2002, were approved as
submitted with a minor corrections on pages 7 and 11.
AYES: Barry, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe
NOES: None
ABSENT: Garakani and Zutshi
ABSTAIN: Hunter
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this
meeting was properly posted on July 18, 2002.
REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS
Chair Jackman announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an
Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision,
pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b).
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no oral communications
Saratoga Planning Commissic linutes of July 24, 2002 Page 2
CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar Items.
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1
APPLICATION #02 -072 (397 -24 -073) — RUEHLE, 20075 Spaich Court: Request for Design
Review and Use Permit approvals to construct a 925 square foot detached pool cabana with an 861
square foot basement. The height of the structure will be 12 feet and will be located on a 49,800 (gross)
square foot lot in the R -1- 20,000 zoning district. There is a 4,773 square foot single -story residence on
the site. A Use Permit is required because the proposed accessory structure will be located within the
rear yard setback. (VASUDEVAN )
Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicant seeks Design Review and Use Permit approvals to allow a 925 square
foot cabana with basement within the 60 foot required rear setback. The cabana would be a
maximum of 12 feet high and is proposed at 11 feet, 6 inches from the rear property line.
• Described the property as being within the Hayfield Estate development.
• Informed that the owners of 18907 Hayfield have raised several issues about potential impacts to
their property. As a result of those concerns, staff is proposing that a landscape plan be submitted
for this neighbor's approval.
• Stated that to alleviate any concern that this unit could be used as a secondary living unit, a
Condition has been added that prohibits any kitchen facilities in this cabana.
• Added that staff finds that the cabana compliments the existing home, that it conforms to the Design
Guidelines and that necessary findings to support the application can be met.
• Recommended approval with the added Condition for neighbor approval of the screening
landscaping.
Commissioner Kurasch asked what was the nature of the neighbor's concerns.
Planner Lata Vasudevan replied one neighbor, located to the northeast of the project site, has concerns
about the height of the proposed cabana.
Commissioner Barry asked to what side this neighbor is located.
Planner Lata Vasudevan answered the right side neighbor.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if the side yard setback has been met.
Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that the side yard setback is 15 feet.
Commissioner Roupe asked if the pending Basement Ordinance changes were considered in the review
of this proposal and whether any aspect of this proposal is contrary to this pending Ordinance.
Saratoga Planning Commissic linutes of July 24, 2002 Page 3
Planner Lata Vasudevan advised that Council has decided to allow basements under accessory
structures but not within setbacks.
Commissioner Roupe asked if that is the only issue and that everything else about this proposal was
compliant.
Commissioner Barry added that existing State Codes governs such things.
Director Tom Sullivan clarified that the Uniform Building Code standards are what are applied. The
single issue that differs from the draft Ordinance is allowing this cabana within the setback.
Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:17 p.m.
Mr. Steve Benzing, Project Architect:
• Advised that this is the third attempt to get a pool house on this lot.
• Said that when this house was originally approved a pool house was also approved. However, a lot
line adjustment occurred and the pool house was switched over to the other side of the lot and that
proposal was also approved. Later the location was flipped back to the current proposed location
due to Eucalyptus trees that would be impacted if left as it was proposed.
• Stated that the applicant contacted the neighbors about three weeks ago and no objections were
raised. The house, which will match the existing style of the home, will provide his clients with an
area for gatherings along with a guestroom. The basement will house a model toy train collection
that cannot be accommodated in the house. The cabana will include a sink, dishwasher and wine
area but there is no intention to include a kitchen.
• Stated that the original Landscape Architect has been dismissed and that he would assume the duties
to complete the landscape plan.
Commissioner Kurasch cautioned that the neighbors are looking for screening material such as shrubs.
Mr. Scott Petters, 18107 Hayfield Court, Saratoga:
• Said that he spoke with the applicants and had a nice conversation. They were very cooperative.
• Stated that he is in the process of landscaping his own yard.
• Expressed concern for the unknown and there are grade variations that might make this appear to be
a very large structure when viewed from his property. He added that there is already a cabana on
the property to the right of his.
• Pointed out that his is a $5 million dollar house and this concern is a big deal to he and his wife,
who is pregnant.
• Said that while they are not interested in stopping their neighbors from building their dream he is
asking that the Commission hold off on a decision and have a skyline installed to determine the
visual impacts of this cabana from his property and allow them seven days to look at this skyline.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Petters if he ever requested this of the owners.
Mr. Scott Petters replied that the owners do not reside in this house but their children do. He added that
the owners are out of town.
Commissioner Barry pointed out that in the past a Condition of Approval has been imposed that
requires an applicant to work out a landscape plan to the mutual satisfaction of both the applicant and
Saratoga Planning Commissic., linutes of July 24, 2002 Page 4
adjacent neighbors. Staff is allowed to negotiate the landscape plan and only refers it back to the
Planning Commission if necessary. Asked if Mr. Petters finds this to be an adequate solution to his
request for a continuance.
Mr. Scott Petters asked if a reduction in height by two feet or a lowering of grade by two feet might be
imposed. He added that they themselves reduced the grade on their property in such a manner.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Petters if they also installed a retaining wall.
Mr. Scott Petters replied yes and that it ranges from 12 to 30 inches high.
Commissioner Roupe asked staff if the cabana proposed would be lower than the house itself.
Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that the backyard is pretty level.
Mr. Scott Petters asked what the difference is in elevation grade between the house itself and the shared
back fence.
Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the cabana as proposed is but six inches above finish grade and
that the basement and cabana both have only eight -foot ceilings so lowering the building is not possible.
Commissioner Kurasch suggested that perhaps the roof could be flattened to lower the structure.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that the roof is already pretty flat.
Mr. Scott Petters said that he expected the cabana to be six feet higher than the fence and 35 feet long.
Chair Jackman said that perhaps this matter would need to be continued.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that the Commission would need to discuss the issues of the project
before continuing it.
Mr. Steve Benzing, Project Architect:
• Stated that while the cabana is 30 feet wide, the ridgeline is only six feet long. A very small portion
of the cabana will actually be 12 feet high.
• Added that the public was noticed and that neighbors were notified. This neighbor only raised this
issue in the last couple of days.
• Said that if they had been asked to do so earlier in the process, they would have installed story poles
but that at this late date it is unfair to request a continuance.
• Pointed out that this neighbor (Mr. Petters) has something built in his own backyard already.
• Stated that they have met all requirements.
• Distributed a site line drawing that he stated was rough and based on some guesswork.
Commissioner Roupe asked if the cabana roofline is below and covered by the home's roofline.
Mr. Steve Benzing:
• Replied that the neighbor would be able to see the roofline of the cabana.
• Asked that the project not be continued.
Saratoga Planning Commissic linutes of July 24, 2002 Page 5
• Added that if the Commission finds it necessary, they have no objection to installing story poles.
Commissioner Barry thanked Mr. Benzing for his site line drawing.
Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:38 p.m.
Commissioner Roupe said he would support this project with the condition that the applicant works to
develop a landscape plan that is mutually acceptable to the applicant and neighbor.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if such a condition is possible.
Director Tom Sullivan replied yes, the Commission has done so with past applications.
Commissioner Kurasch stated that she finds the cabana to be a bit large but that every effort has been
made to integrate it onto the site. Asked that adequate screening be provided.
Commissioner Barry said she has the same concern but that the lot coverage will end up at 31 percent
when the maximum allowable is 45 percent. Therefore, this request is reasonable.
Chair Jackman reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:40 p.m.
Mr. Steve Benzing said that as an alternative, his clients would be willing to move the cabana to the
other side near the Eucalyptus trees but beyond their dripline.
Chair Jackman reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:41 p.m.
Commissioner Barry asked if there is any merit to the proposal to relocate the cabana.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that the site plan is done as best as it can be done as proposed.
Commissioner Hunter stated that if the cabana is built near the Eucalyptus trees, the pool will be
impacted and the owners will be back to request cutting them down. With adequate landscape
screening this proposal should work out okay.
Commissioner Kurasch stated her support for the condition proposed by Commissioner Roupe
regarding the landscaping.
Chair Jackman said that the project has come this far and the applicant has rights too.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the
Planning Commission granted Design Review approval (Application #02 -072) to
allow a 925 square foot detached pool cabana with an 861 square foot basement on
property located at 20075 Spaich Court as proposed with the added condition that
a landscape plan be developed between the applicant and neighbors and mediated
by staff. The landscape plan would come back to the Commission if a satisfactory
solution cannot be worked out.
AYES: Barry, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe
NOES: None
Saratoga Planning Commissi( .1inutes of July 24, 2002 Page 6
ABSENT: Garakani and Zutshi
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.2
APPLICATION #02 -047 (517 -19 -040) — SIADAT, 14771 Montalvo Road: Request for Modification
of Approved Project to remove two provisions in the resolution for DR -99 -006. The applicant requests
that the requirement to dedicate and build a 10 -foot wide pedestrian trail on their property be omitted
from the resolution of approval. The applicant requests permission to allow a five -foot high fence
beyond the front yard of the property within the City right -of -way. This is a change of the requirements
that a three -foot fence be permitted in the front yard of the property as permitted by Resolution DR -99-
006. (WELSH)
Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicant is seeking Modification of a Design Review that was granted November
10, 1999. The home is now constructed. The applicants want to have Condition No 5 and
Condition No. 11 removed from the Resolution. Condition No. 5 requires a 10 feet dedication for a
pedestrian easement to allow access from Montalvo to Vickery. Condition No. 11 limits the fence
to be located in the front, within the public right -of -way, to three feet in height.
• Stated that staff is recommending that the requirement for the pedestrian access be upheld.
• Informed that staff has reviewed fencing along Montalvo Road. Twelve properties have five to six -
foot fences. Thirteen properties have no fence or hedge at all. Five properties have three -foot high
fences. Therefore, there is no clear precedent set.
• Reminded that the Montalvo Road fence would be located entirely within the City's right -of -way.
The encroachment permit for a three -foot fence should be upheld. The Vickery Road fence is
within the front yard and a Variance could be granted.
Commissioner Barry:
• Asked staff to clarify the legal liability issue raised.
• Stated that there is no change in liability as compared to having a sidewalk.
• Inquired if there is an exaction or taking here.
Planner Ann Welsh stated that the application required a Building Site Approval and a tradeoff was
made whereas the applicant was given greater floor area in trade for accommodating the pedestrian
access trail on the property.
Commissioner Barry stated that the legal liability and taking issues have been dealt with.
Chair Jackman pointed out that the Commission has received a letter from the applicant's attorney.
Commissioner Kurasch sought clarification about the encroachment permit and fencing in the right -of-
way.
Planner Ann Welsh advised that the Zoning Ordinance does not apply to property within the City's
right -of -way. The Public Works Department has jurisdiction over those areas within the public right -
of -way and issues encroachment permits for any construction activity on that occurs there.
Saratoga Planning Commissic linutes of July 24, 2002 Page 7
Commissioner Kurasch asked if this property was previously fenced.
Planner Ann Welsh replied not according to records.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if there are reports of accidents or injuries as a result of this area being
unfenced.
Planner Ann Welsh said that staff does not have enough history to know that. Added that Caltrans has
stated that there is no history in this area and that the pedestrian access path is not recommended.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if the flooding issues on the property have been corrected sufficiently.
Planner Ann Welsh said that the piping of the culvert addresses that issue.
Commissioner Hunter asked if such encroachments for fencing within the public right -of -way are
commonly granted.
r
Planner Ann Welsh replied that allowing this is unusual per the Public Works Director. The beneficial
result in this case is a lessening of the area that the City will have to maintain.
Commissioner Kurasch asked about maintenance issues in the right -of -way, stating her understanding
that every property owner is expected to maintain the right -of -way in front of their property.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that this varies. Added that most cities expect to maintain the right -of-
way.
Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8 p.m.
Ms. Lorraine Siadat, Applicant and Property Owner, 14771 Montalvo Road, Saratoga:
• Stated that she has resided in Saratoga for 23 years and is active in the community.
• Said that she seeks to replace a six -foot wood fence with a 5 -foot wrought iron fence, which is
needed for security and privacy.
• Pointed out that hundreds of people visit Montalvo for concerts, driving up their street to access the
venues.
• Added that the drainage system accumulates about four feet of water in winter months, which is
why they are seeking a five -foot fence.
• Stated that in her 17 years on this property, she has called the sheriff about 17 times to report
accidents. The last time was in April when a head -on accident occurred at the proposed location of
the pedestrian access path.
• Said that the proposed path would require construction of a bridge to go over the swale that is four
feet deep by eight feet wide. The proposed path would send pedestrians blindly onto Vickery and
Montalvo Roads.
• Pointed out that there are no lights in this area and that there are other safer options for pedestrians.
• Added that Caltrans sees no reason for this path and that neighbors oppose the path and support
their fence height variance.
• Asked the Commission to remove the Condition of the pedestrian access trail and to approve the
fence height variance.
Saratoga Planning CommissK linutes of July 24, 2002 Page 8
Commissioner Roupe stated that there is indeed a point in having the pedestrian trail access easement.
With it pedestrians can walk all the way to Downtown Saratoga without having to go onto Highway 9.
That's the point.
Commissioner Barry said that there was objection to the original proposed location of the cut through
and the Commission, neighbors and applicant reached a compromise agreement and moved the
placement of the trail access.
Commissioner Hunter said that she uses the path all the time.
Commissioner Barry pointed out to Ms. Siadat that she did not object once the placement of the
proposed trail access was moved.
Ms. Lorraine Siadat replied that the typography of her property has since changed to accommodate the
drainage system and questioned who would build the bridge necessary to cross the swale.
Commissioner Roupe reminded Ms. Siadat that she knew the culvert would be necessary to deal with
drainage issues.
Commissioner Kurasch asked for clarification that the newly constructed wood fence would be
continued on with the wrought iron fence.
Planner Ann Welsh advised that the three -foot fence would meet up with the six -foot fence.
Commissioner Kurasch proposed that the Siadats move the fence to the property line to have a six -foot
high fence and leave the fence at three feet on Montalvo and Vickery.
Ms. Lorraine Siadat said that all the nearby neighbors have five -foot fences.
Chair Jackman pointed out that the fact that this proposed fence would be on the public right -of -way is
the issue.
Mr. Bob Zager, 20292 Calle Montalvo, Saratoga:
• Said that he lives uphill from the applicant and is in support of the staff recommendation.
• Stated that the pedestrian path is a great idea and will be a benefit to people.
• Asked what type of improvements would be permitted within the encroachment area.
Planner Ann Welsh answered that the encroachment simply addresses the installation of the fence. If
necessary, the City could remove anything at will improperly placed within the public right -of -way. If
anything else is desired in the public right -of -way a specific encroachment permit would have to be
obtained.
Mr. Chris Allen, 20415 Montalvo Oaks, Saratoga:
• Expressed his backing for the City plan.
• Said that the three -foot fence is a good compromise.
• Said that the original plan should be supported.
Saratoga Planning Commissi( linutes of July 24, 2002 Page 9
Mr. James Hawley, Applicant's Attorney, Hoge, Fenton, Jones & Appel:
• Disagreed with the City and Commission's assessment of liability.
• Stated that the proposed pedestrian access trail would be more dangerous than current conditions.
Commissioner Barry:
• Asked Mr. Hawley if he personally looked at the area in question and found it to be dangerous.
• Stated that his clients received the benefits of the agreement and asked how to undo those benefits.
Mr. James Hawley replied that he had not personally looked at the area and offered no suggestions
about dealing with the benefits received with the original approval.
Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Hawley what new information he can provide to warrant excusing
these conditions.
Mr. James Hawley replied the requirement to construct a bridge and potential liability his client faces.
Commissioner Roupe stated that the Siadat's knew the swale was necessary and that this does not
represent new information.
Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:28 p.m.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Stated that the issue of the public easement was perfectly clear in 1999 and discussions were held
regarding tradeoffs.
• Said that the understanding was clear that the easement equaled convenience to the public.
• Concurred with staff's view and added that there is no need to relax the position taken at that time.
Commissioner Barry agreed.
Commissioner Hunter agreed that nothing has changed to remove the requirement of the easement.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Said that the applicant has received an encroachment permit and entitlements.
• Supported staff on both issues (pedestrian access and fence height).
• Pointed out that a beautiful home has gone up and the applicant must keep their bargain.
Commissioner Barry read out the condition from page 28 of the report that stated at that the property
owners shall dedicate a 10 -foot wide easement that shall be improved to minimum City standards prior
to final occupancy.
Commissioner Roupe reiterated that the owners knew the swale was necessary. Pointed out that the
requirement had been that the trail access be installed prior to occupancy. The owners were granted
leniency on that requirement and obtained a final subject to a bond. This work should have already
been done as part of the overall construction of the project.
Saratoga Planning Commissic linutes of July 24, 2002
10
Commissioner Kurasch said that she has no support for the five foot fence but rather supports
conformance with the Public Works requirements. Wondered how many other fences are located
within the public right -of -way. Since it is public property, the City has to be careful how it is used.
Commissioner Hunter concurred.
Commissioner Barry also concurred. She added that the three -foot fence would be fine and look nice.
Commissioner Roupe said that he supports the concept of the three -foot high fence. He added that no
new information has been presented to change the original decision and that he will stand by the
original decision.
Chair Jackman concurred.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the
Planning Commission upheld the original Conditions and denied a request for a
Modification of Approved Project for 14771 Montalvo Road.
AYES: Barry, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe
NOES: None
ABSENT: Garakani and Zutshi
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Jackman allowed Mr. Medhi Siadat to address the Commission.
Mr. Medhi Siadat, Applicant and Property Owner, 14771 Montalvo Road, Saratoga:
• Declared that his property was a piece of trash before he owned it.
• Said that he is being penalized with the limit to a three -foot high fence.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.3
Application #02 -127 — CITY OF SARATOGA, Austin Way: Request to designate all of Austin Way
a Heritage Lane to preserve the existing brick roadway that was built in 1904. (LIVINGSTONE)
Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows:
• Stated that the Heritage Preservation Commission is recommending that Austin Way be designated
a Heritage Lane, creating a Heritage Lane Zoning Overlay.
• Advised that 15 communications were received. Three were included in the packet and the
remainder distributed this evening. Three were not in support. Two were in support of the
preservation 'of the brick roadway but were not supportive of the 10 -foot review area. Ten were in
support.
• Added that the intent is to protect and preserve the brick roadway. The Heritage Lane designation
would allow the City to obtain grants for the preservation and maintenance of the brick road. The
proposal is that all of Austin Way be designated as a Heritage Lane. Although the old brick road is
not visible along the entire street, efforts will be taken to see if there is any old brick roadway
covered up further up the road.
Saratoga Planning Commissic linutes of July 24, 2002 Page 11
• Pointed out that Austin Way is also located across Highway 9 but that portion of the street is located
in Monte Sereno and would not be included in this Heritage Lane Overlay.
• Informed that Austin Way is named in honor of Daniel B. Austin, who bought the property in 1882
and co- founded a winery. A local school is named in his honor.
• Said that the Saratoga segment is one of the few brick paved highways left.
• Stated that the project meets necessary criteria and is consistent with the City's General Plan.
• Recommended that the Commission forward a recommendation of approval to Council.
Commissioner Hunter advised that there is already one Heritage Lane, Saratoga Avenue. The Heritage
Preservation Commission reviews changes to the homes on that street. Asked if that would also be true
in this case.
Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that the Section in the Ordinance allows flexibility. On
Saratoga Lane the homes are reviewed because these are historic homes. There are no designated
historic homes along Austin Way. The only section of these properties that would be subject to review
for any major changes is the 10 feet closest to the public right -of -way.
Commissioner Hunter pointed out that some letters indicate a concern over the impacts of this Heritage
Lane Overlay on their homes.
Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that any significant changes within 10 feet of the road
would require review.
Commissioner Roupe reminded that there are no historic homes. Added that any fences already in
place would be grandfathered and could be maintained and/or repaired.
Associate Planner John Livingstone said that Commissioner Roupe is correct.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if there are any additional restrictions on use of property as a result of
Heritage Lane Overlay and if the residents would be looking at any additional costs, fees or surcharges.
Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that there would be no direct costs imposed on the
residents. Staff did budget some funds to place new signs commemorating the Heritage Lane
designation. Additionally, any future patches would be more expensive for the City to install because
the patches would have to be done in brick rather than asphalt.
Commissioner Kurasch asked for the right -of -way distance.
Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that the right -of -way is 40 feet. The brick road itself is 18
to 20 feet wide but the City owns 40 feet. There could be up to 10 feet of City -owned shoulder on each
side of the brick roadway. The proposed Heritage Lane designation would add another 10 feet on the
private property for review when any major construction is proposed such as walls and fences.
Commissioner Hunter suggested limiting truck traffic on this brick road and asked if these large trucks
cause damage to the bricks.
Associate Planner John Livingstone said that he did not know the answer to that question but that the
Safety Commission could look into that matter and consider establishing limits.
Saratoga Planning CommissiL linutes of July 24, 2002 Page 12
Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the street is used for construction access as well as weekly
garbage collection and that these vehicles would have to continue to have access to provide these uses.
Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that the Chair of the Heritage Preservation Commission is
present as well as another member of the Commission.
Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:56 p.m.
Ms. Neema Malhotra, 19088 Austin Way, Saratoga:
• Asked whether it is known if this designation would affect property values in either a negative or
positive way.
Commissioner Hunter replied that the designation adds character and is a wonderful distinction.
Informed that this is an original road between Los Gatos and Saratoga.
Chair Jackman said that she believes the Heritage Lane designation would probably raise property
values. The other street so designated is Saratoga Avenue.
Ms. Neema Malhotra asked about additional restrictions.
Chair Jackman restated that the only area requiring review is the 10 feet of private property adjacent to
the public right -of -way.
Commissioner Barry added that the Heritage Preservation Commission would review only major
changes.
Commissioner Hunter pointed out that driving on brick roads slows traffic down.
Mr. Vino Malhotra, 19088 Austin Way, Saratoga:
• Stated that he is against the proposed Heritage Lane designation because there is no historic
significance. There are no structures, homes and/or landmarks on this street.
• Added that it is unclear what the City will do to the public right -of -way.
• Said that he finds this would create an unnecessary burden of additional review processes.
• Suggested limiting the designation simply to the 40 feet of public right -of -way.
Mr. Tom Keeble, 19041 Austin Way, Saratoga:
• Said that he has lived on Austin Way for 18 years and started a petition to preserve the brick road
several years ago when he began noticing that repairs to the brick road were being performed with
asphalt.
• Advised that he is interested in preventing repairs of the brick road with asphalt in the future.
• Responded to concerns raised about the noise of driving on this road by stating that as long as
posted speeds are met, there is no noise impact. Speed driving on the road does increase its noise
levels.
• Added that the concerns mentioned about wear and tear on vehicles from the brick road do not have
merit. The road is but 700 feet long and will not increase wear and tear of vehicles in any
significant way.
Saratoga Planning Commissik linutes of July 24, 2002 Page 13
• Pointed out that this is a 98- year -old brick road and that the only thing that has been done over the
last 18 years is the painting of double yellow lines twice.
• Encouraged the Commission to pass the proposal onto Council with a recommendation of approval.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Keeble if he feels this road is significant.
Mr. Tom Keeble replied yes.
Commissioner Hunter told Mr. Keeble that she was serving on the Heritage Preservation Commission
when he first brought forward his idea to preserve this brick road and thanked him for his efforts.
Mr. Willys Peck, 14275 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga:
• Said that he resides on the only existing Heritage Lane.
• Stated that this designation involves a trade off.
• Said that he does not argue with opponents concerns about the wear on cars but said that if
something is worth preserving, doing so can involve a trade off.
• Informed that the Heritage Lane designation for Saratoga Avenue came about because of rumors of
plans to widen it. Mr. Larry Fine circulated a petition.
• Proposed that the Commission preserve this scenic resource which he refers to as the "mellow brick
road."
• Added that the inconvenience can be offset by historic value of this roadway. It is worth preserving
some pieces of our historical past.
• Stated that he was disappointed when Monte Sereno paved over the only existing portion of the
trolley tracks there.
• Advised that he has lived here all of his life and had ridden the streetcars when they were there.
Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Peck if he felt that his property value decreased or increased with the
Heritage Lane designation for Saratoga Avenue.
Mr. Willys Peck replied that he cannot offer an opinion but pointed out that he paid $12,000 for his
home in 1951 and it was not so long ago appraised for $1.2 million.
Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Peck, a long -time member of the Heritage Preservation Commission,
whether he has any concerns that the Heritage Preservation Commission and/or City will be difficult
with property owners over the 10 feet adjacent to the public right -of -way and what kinds of things they
might recommend against.
Mr. Willys Peck replied that the HPB would probably not look at much more than fences.
Commissioner Kurasch asked about the long -term effect if the brick road is not designated a Heritage
Lane.
Mr. Willys Peck answered that it would likely be repaved with asphalt and at some point redone
altogether. Added that other brick sections along Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road have already been taken
out.
Saratoga Planning Commissic linutes of July 24, 2002 Page 14
Commissioner Hunter pointed out that people who deal with the Heritage Preservation Commission get
the opportunity to speak with Mr. Peck, the Town's historian.
Mr. Deon Glajchen, 19100 Austin Way, Saratoga:
• Thanked the Commission for their time.
• Said that he submitted an email and is supportive of the concept to preserve the historic road but has
concerns about the 10 -foot restriction.
• Added that he understands the spirit but is not sure why any restrictions are required for the 10 feet
of private property.
• Asked what is meant by major construction and whether it would impact plans to enlarge a fence.
• Suggested that any proposed restrictions be clearly stated now.
• Pointed out that the section of Austin Way across from the Fire Station serves as a parking area for
construction vehicles and that is something that should be looked into.
• Agreed that sticking to posted speeds would prevent noise issues from driving on this brick road.
Commissioner Roupe said that the road itself is 20 feet wide. There is a 10 -foot City right -of -way on
both sides of the street and the 10 feet directly adjacent on the private property to the public right -of-
way would require review for major construction. Agreed that the parking near the Fire Station is
unsightly but pointed out that it is not within Saratoga jurisdiction.
Associate Planner John Livingstone said that it is in the Caltrans right -of -way.
Commissioner Roupe suggested asking Caltrans to post this area as no parking if possible.
Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Glajchen to be more specific about his plans to enlarge his fence.
Added that there may be existing Codes that apply already to his plans.
Mr. Deon Glajchen agreed that existing Codes may exist but restated that it may not be necessary to
impose additional restrictions on the 10 feet of private property adjacent to the roadway.
Commissioner Barry said that having review of the first 10 feet is simply an insurance.
Mr. Deon Glajchen said that it would represent a burden on the property owners and that he fails to see
the value in such added restrictions.
Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Glajchen what he sees as being onerous with this requirement.
Mr. Deon Glajchen replied that it simply represents additional restrictions that don't exist elsewhere in
Saratoga.
Associate Planner John Livingstone clarified that significant changes includes only landscaping, paving
or construction. This would not include the planting of annuals but rather structures such as walls.
Added that there is already a limit to the amount that can be done anyway as it is within this setback
area.
Commissioner Hunter reminded that the Heritage Lane designation will allow the City to apply for
grants to return Austin Way's brick road to its original state.
Saratoga Planning CommissiL Iinutes of July 24, 2002 Page 15
Associate Planner John Livingstone assured that the 10 -foot review area does not represent an easement
and really only affects the installation of fences, colored paving or driveways. It is very limited in
scope but is intended to prevent extreme things from happening.
Mr. Deon Glajchen asked if the Commission has that jurisdiction now.
Associate Planner John Livingstone replied no. As long as a wall is three feet high or less only a
Building Permit is required.
Mr. Deon Glajchen stressed his belief that this requirement is too open ended and he still has concerns.
Commissioner Kurasch said that there are very limited things that can be done now within that 10 feet
other than a wall or fence.
Commissioner Roupe reiterated that existing walls or fences would be grandfathered.
Mr. Azmat Siddigi, 19102 Austin Way, Saratoga:
• Said that it is a privilege to be a landowner and to have Austin Way declared a Heritage Lane.
• Added that placing a commemorative plaque is a good idea.
• Agreed that brick roads do reduce speeds.
• Stated that the 10 -foot regulations are of concern.
• Pointed out that he has a stone retaining wall within this 10 -foot area that he wants to replace.
• Added that he currently has egress on two streets. His main driveway is on Highway 9. He would
rather have the main driveway off Austin Way and seal off the driveway to Highway 9.
Director Tom Sullivan suggested that Mr. Siddiqi discuss his plans with Public Works and Planning
staff.
Chair Jackman advised that this Heritage Lane designation will not change rules for a driveway.
Commissioner Barry agreed that this is not a Heritage Lane issue but rather is governed by existing
regulations.
Ms. Joty Lulla, 19099 Austin Way, Saratoga:
• Said that she supports the Heritage Lane designation but has concerns about the 10 -foot extension to
the shoulder, which may encroach on existing landscaping.
• Said that she has lived here for 20 years.
• Declared that the 10 -foot public right -of -way has not been maintained to this point and questioned
who would pay for improvements.
Associate Planner John Livingstone answered that it depends on resources. The City maintains the
entire right -of -way. As for existing landscaping, the City would work with property owners. There are
a lot of variables.
Ms. Joty LuIIa:
• Stated that the additional 10 -foot is bothersome and that she would like to see some specifications
about proposed restrictions in use of that 10 -foot area.
Saratoga Planning Commissi( linutes of July 24, 2002 Page 16
• Pointed out that the road is in dire need of repair as everyday another brick comes out.
Chair Jackman pointed out that Heritage Lanes have access to grants to finance improvements.
Commissioner Kurasch said that she is in favor of the Heritage Lane designation but questioned the
need to be restrictive for the 10 feet of private property.
Associate Planner John Livingstone stated that the dimensions given are approximate.
Ms. Dawn Glajchen, 19100 Austin Way, Saratoga:
• Said that she supports Heritage Lane designation but has concerns about further restrictions being
imposed in the future.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that to impose additional changes would require a series of public
hearings before the Heritage Preservation Commission, Planning Commission and City Council before
they could be adopted. These would be noticed meetings that have the same bureaucratic process that
has occurred with this proposal.
Ms. Dawn Glajchen stated that it creates a more difficult process and that she would hate to see more
restrictions at a later date.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Ms. Glajchen to define restrictions.
Ms. Dawn Glajchen said building restrictions including style of architecture.
Commissioner Kurasch restated that the proposed Ordinance deals with the road and 10 feet of private
property from the front property line. All that it results in is a review of proposed work. Questioned
what it is about that review process that results in a restriction.
Ms. Dawn Glajchen said that she has a three -foot fence now and she wants a larger fence in the future.
Said that this is too open ended and vague and more definition would be in order. Cautioned that it
would be easier to place more restrictions later down the line.
Mr. Norm Koepernik, Chair, Heritage Preservation Commission:
• Said that the intent is not to place restrictions on property but rather to preserve the only brick road
remaining in Santa Clara County.
• Added that another benefit is the ability to seek State grants.
• Assured that there are no major restrictions intended with this Ordinance.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that many in the audience seem to support the concept of preserving
the road. Asked Mr. Norm Koepernik if the 10 -foot review area on the private property enhances the
ability to obtain grants.
Mr. Norm Koepernik replied yes. It would give the City more clout with the State.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Norm Koepernik if he sees any need to - intensify restrictions on
Austin Way in the future and asked him to describe for those in attendance the process they might have
to go through with the Heritage Preservation Commission.
Saratoga Planning CommissR linutes of July 24, 2002 Page 17
Mr. Norm Koepernik said that there would be no intensification in the future and that the Heritage Lane
Overlay would not affect the review of people's homes. The present Ordinance on fencing is already in
effect. There would be no restrictions on planting. Added that the Heritage Preservation Commission
is more user friendly than the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Kurasch stated that the HPC would not prohibit but rather simply review proposals.
Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Norm Koepernik if the HPC is prepared to write up the
commemorative signs.
Mr. Norm Koepernik replied yes.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Norm Koepernik if there are any estimates on the costs to restore
Austin Way's brick road.
Mr. Norm Koepernik replied no. He said that all repairs would have to be put back to brick standards
and no more asphalt patches would be permitted.
Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 9:56 p.m.
Commissioner Barry said that Heritage Lane designation has significant benefits and not a lot of down
sides. Proposed add the following text to the draft Ordinance, "and subject only to the following..."
and "...construction (for example fences, walls or drainage_)
Commissioner Roupe stated that he has no problem with the added language.
Commissioner Hunter said she has no problem and supports the proposal. Stated that the brick road is
wonderful and is a piece of history.
Commissioner Kurasch said the term "significant" is a problem for her and needs to be more specific.
Director Tom Sullivan suggested "any drainage, fences, walls and paving."
Commissioner Barry suggested using "hardscape" and added that nothing is said about plants.
Chair Jackman proposed "significant construction such as drainage, fences, walls and paving."
Commissioner Roupe reminded that existing structures are grandfathered and repairs can be
accommodated.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that this is in the Zoning Ordinance already.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Asked if the requirement for review of activity within the 10 -feet of private property would remain
or not. She added that she was not sure this additional 10 -foot area for review was necessary.
• Said that she wants the public to be aware of the action as a positive improvement.
Saratoga Planning Commissit linutes of July 24, 2002 Page 18
Commissioner Barry said that if staff feels it is necessary to have review authority over the 10 -foot
private property area adjacent to the public right -of -way, she is willing to support them. Said that this
will help with the securing of grants. This Ordinance is as good as the Commission can get it before
passing it on to Council.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation to Council to designate all of
Austin Way as a Heritage Lane to preserve the existing brick roadway that was
built in 1904 with the added text as follows, "and subject only to the following..."
and "...that anv significant landscape, having or construction such as fences. walls
or drains within 10 feet..."
AYES: Barry, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe
NOES: None
ABSENT: Garakani and Zutshi
ABSTAIN: None
DIRECTOR'S ITEMS
Director Tom Sullivan suggested that the Subcommittee on Streamlining take up the issue of timeliness
in receiving written communications.
Chair Jackman said that the Commission can't read so much material at the last minute.
COMMISSION ITEMS
Site Visits
Commissioner Barry brought up the timing of site visits and asked how 11:30 to 1:30 worked.
Commissioner Kurasch said that it was better for her.
Commissioner Barry asked if the Commission was willing to try this time one more time.
Commissioner Hunter said the timing is inconvenient as it breaks up the day.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if the notice for the next site visit has been prepared yet.
Director Tom Sullivan replied not yet.
Commissioner Barry asked how 2:30 to 4:30 p.m. would work.
Director Tom Sullivan said that the Commission could try 2:30 to 4:30 p.m. for the August 13`h site
visits.
Commissioners' Retreat
Saratoga Planning Commissi� linutes of July 24, 2002 Page 19
Commissioner Kurasch inquired about the dates for the Retreat and asked if it is still planned for a
Saturday.
Director Tom Sullivan said that the Retreat is typically held on a Saturday. An agenda is prepared and
speakers lined up. Asked the Commissioners to call or email Kristin with bad dates to narrow the
potential dates down.
Tree Committee
Commissioner Kurasch advised that the Tree Committee has meet and gone over issues.
COMMUNICATIONS
There were no communication items.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Chair Jackman adjourned the meeting at 10:17 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday,
August 14, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk
N i
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, July 10, 2002
PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Chair Jackman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe
Absent: Commissioner Hunter and Zutshi
Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Planner Christy Oosterhous and Planner Ann Welsh
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of June 26, 2002.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded
regular Planning Commission minutes of June
submitted with a minor correction on page 11.
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Kurasch and Roupe
NOES: None
ABSENT: Hunter and Zutshi
ABSTAIN: Jackman
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no oral communications
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
by Commissioner Barry, the
26, 2002, were approved as
Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this
meeting was properly posted on July 3, 2002.
REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS
Chair Jackman announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an
Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision,
pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b).
. J
Saratoga Planning Commissior. nutes of July 10, 2002 Page 2
CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar Items.
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1
APPLICATION #02 -015 (503 -72 -034) — HSU, 21775 Congress Hall Lane: Request for Design
Review Approval to add 1,840 square feet to an existing 4,325 square foot house for a total area of
6,165 square feet on a 2.78 acre property. The maximum height of the addition will be 18 feet. The
property is located in the Hillside Residential zoning district. (WELSH)
Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicant is seeking approval for an 1,840 square foot single -story addition on and
existing 5,325 square foot residence. Design Review Approval is required because the home would
exceed 6,000 square feet.
• Stated that the subject property consists of 2,78 acres gross and 61,650 square feet net (since the
property has a 25 percent average slope.
• Described the home as featuring Spanish -style architecture with stucco walls and tile roof.
• Said that the proposal complies with requirements and the necessary findings to support this
proposal can be made. Additionally, there would be no tree removals and minimal grading
required.
• Recommended approval.
Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:07 p.m.
Commissioner Kurasch expressed confusion over a marking on the plans.
Mr. Hsu, Applicant/Owner, 21775 Congress Hall Lane, Saratoga:
• Clarified for Commissioner Kurasch that that marking represents a tree's canopy.
Commissioner Barry asked at what point the location of a fault precludes construction.
Mr. Hsu replied that this was a question for a structural engineer.
Director Sullivan elaborated that there is no set distance to a fault. The closer to a fault line, the more
significant the remediation requirements become.
Commissioner Roupe cautioned Mr. Hsu that the home includes a substantial deck area and that the
amount of area to be enclosed within fencing on a Hillside District property is 4,000 square feet.
Mr. Hsu assured Commissioner Roupe that he is aware of that fact.
Chair Jackman pointed out that there is no fencing now and asked if fencing is proposed in the future.
Mr. Hsu replied not in the foreseeable future.
Saratoga Planning Commissior. nutes of July 10, 2002 Page 3
Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:12 p.m.
Commissioner Roupe stated that this proposed addition is compatible with the house and neighborhood
and that he would support this project.
Commissioner Barry agreed.
Commissioner Garakani agreed.
Commissioner Kurasch agreed.
Chair Jackman said that this proposal was nicely done.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the
Planning Commission granted Design Review approval (Application #02 -015) to
allow an addition on an existing home located at 21775 Congress Hall Lane.
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe
NOES: None
ABSENT: Hunter and Zutshi
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.2
APPLICATION #02 -045 (503 -78 -004) — BLAETTLER CONSTRUCTION INC., 21888 Villa
Oaks Lane: Request for Design Review approval to construct a 5,825 square foot two -story home with
1,346 square foot basement on a 1.01 acre property. The maximum height of the structure is 26 feet.
The property is located in the Hillside Residential zoning district. (WELSH)
Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the subject site is a vacant lot consisting of 44,083 square feet gross and 37,911 square
feet net. The parcel has an 11 percent average slope.
• Described the proposed new single family home that would consist of 5,825 square feet and include
a three -car garage.
• Stated that the necessary findings can be made to support this request.
• Informed that comments were received from both the rear and adjacent neighbor. One neighbor is
requesting that a condition be imposed requiring that an access easement be granted.
• Said that the project preserves the natural landscaping and no Tree Removal Permits are proposed.
• Added that the home's design would minimize the perception of bulk. The home is of a similar size
to those in the neighborhood.
• Recommended approval.
Commissioner Kurasch sought assurance that this project would not cut into the buffer.
Planner Ann Welsh assured that there is enough room to sustain the visual buffer.
10
Saratoga Planning Commissioi. nutes of July 10, 2002
Commissioner Barry asked if setback issues have been remedied.
Planner Ann Welsh replied yes. This project's setbacks would be made conforming.
Commissioner Kurasch stated that the impact to the nearest neighbor appears to be minimal.
Chairman Jackman sought assurance that the light well would not encroach into the setback.
Planner Ann Welsh stated that the applicant is aware that they cannot encroach into a setback.
Pate 4
Commissioner Roupe pointed out an area below a terrace that includes a structural wall above. He
questioned the height and also whether this area would be enclosed. If so, it would need to be counted
as square footage.
Planner Ann Welsh pointed to Page A -4 and stated that this is a retaining wall and not a full wall.
Commissioner Roupe reiterated that he wanted it made perfectly clear that this area couldn't be
completely enclosed without being counted as square footage.
Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:23 p.m.
Mr. Michael Davis, Project Designer:
• Stated his agreement with the staff report and made himself available for questions.
• Added that the house is being rotated a bit to meet setbacks and that the retaining wall does not
encroach into the easement. The height of the retaining walls mentioned by Commissioner Roupe
is two to three feet.
Commissioner Garakani asked for the distance between the two retaining walls.
Mr. Michael Davis replied five feet to allow landscaping between them.
Commissioner Garakani asked what the applicant thinks about the neighbor's request for an emergency
access easement.
Mr. Pete Blaettler, Applicant, 21888 Villa Oaks Lane, Saratoga:
• Stated he is not agreeable to the easement request.
• Said that he sees this easement as having a detrimental impact on his property.
• Pointed out that there is another option for this easement through the Thomas property.
• Added that placing this easement onto his property would impact his backyard setbacks and would
require the removal of two trees.
Commissioner Roupe asked where was the current access.
Mr. Pete Blaettler replied off of Via Regina.
Commissioner Barry asked staff to give a briefing on the request for an emergency access easement.
Planner Ann Welsh:
Saratoga Planning Commissiot. nutes of July 10, 2002 Page 5
• Advised that the neighbors (The Rhetts) provided the proposed map for the emergency access
easement just the day before. The Rhetts are asking that this emergency access easement be made
a Condition of Approval.
• Stated that she faxed the proposal to the Fire Chief. He thought a secondary access would be
prudent and saw it as a public benefit.
Commissioner Roupe questioned whether the Rhetts themselves would be offering an easement through
their property.
Planner Ann Welsh stated that this request affects the design of the Blaettler property is that the
neighbors are proposing this very late in the process.
Director Tom Sullivan advised the Commission that the City Attorney had previously provided a
memorandum stating that the authority for the Planning Commission to exact dedications through
Design Review is very limited. This would not preclude the two property owners from negotiating an
agreement.
Commissioner Barry asked if this proposal is the only way to provide the secondary emergency access.
Planner Ann Welsh replied that the most logical access is though the Thomas property.
Mr. Pete Blaettler stated that Mrs. Thomas has indicated an openness to provide an access and has
discussed this matter with the Rhetts.
Ms. Marilyn Riding, 21836 Villa Oaks, Saratoga:
• Identified herself as a neighbor to the east of the subject property.
• Stated that it has been a pleasure working with the applicant through this process and that she has
provided a letter of support and is also here in person to support this application.
• Said that this home will be an asset to the neighbor and she believes the builder will be considerate
of the neighborhood. This will be the last property built here and she looks forward to seeing this
home constructed.
• Expressed concern over the easement issue and particularly the late date at which the Rhetts brought
the issue forward. Stated that the Rhetts were well aware that this project was underway and raised
this issue of an easement at the very last minute, which is totally unacceptable.
• Stated that she is not in favor of the emergency access easement through this project.
Ms. Hannelope Thomas, 21955 Via Regina, Saratoga:
• Stated that she is the neighbor to the west of the Rhetts.
• Added that she has been in court with the Rhetts.
• Said that she was willing to give a five foot wide easement, for a consideration, to allow the Rhetts
to access the sewer lines, provided that the necessary gravity is available.
• Added that the area is way too steep to serve as an emergency access road.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Ms. Thomas what she thinks about the design of this home.
Saratoga Planning Commission. nutes of July 10, 2002 Page 6
Ms. Hannelope Thomas replied that she thinks it is a nice home. She added that she will not even be
able to see it from her home. The story poles are hardly visible. She stated that the Rhetts are trying to
accomplish something under false pretenses.
Ms. Marilyn Riding, 21836 Villa Oaks Lane, Saratoga:
• Stated that the trees that would have to be removed to accommodate an emergency access easement
are, at 18- inches, very significant and would leave a hole in the landscaping screening.
Commissioner Kurasch asked about the plans for the landscaping of the rest of the property.
Mr. Pete Blaettler said that there are no plans for the rear yard. He added that the trees in question are
on the Rhett property rather than his.
Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:46 p.m.
Commissioner Barry:
• Commended Mr. Blaettler on his work with his neighbors in the redesign of this home, saying that
the Commission appreciates that effort.
• Said that this is a well designed home and setbacks have been dealt with.
• Declared that the Commission does not have the legal basis to require the requested fire road access
and that she finds that to be an unreasonable request of this property.
• Said that she would not support the requirement for the fire road access.
• Suggested the inclusion of native drought tolerant plans with the landscape plan.
Commissioner Roupe said that he is in support of the project and opposes the fire access easement.
Asked for clarifications to be put on the drawing that there would not be an enclosure on the lower
terrace.
Commissioner Garakani said that he supports this project and finds it to be a nice one. Said that he had
originally been concerned about the color of the roof and building but once he saw the samples he finds
them to be nice.
Commissioner Kurasch said that she supports this project and finds this house to be compatible with the
area. While she would not choose this size home for the Hillside, there is precedent in the area and this
proposal is compatible with what is there. Said that she is satisfied that the buffers will be maintained.
Chair Jackman said that she likes the design and the work done with the neighbors. Agreed that she
would not support the fire access easement since the Commission has no legal authority and also
because it was brought up at the very last minute.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Berry, the
Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval to allow the construction of
a new residence on property located at 21888 Villa Oaks Lane with the rotation of
the structure sufficient to meet setbacks.
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe
NOES: None
ABSENT: Hunter and Zutshi
ABSTAIN: None
Saratoga Planning Commission. nutes of July 10, 2002 Page 7
Chair Jackman reminded that there is a 15 -day appeal period.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.3
DR -00 -051 & BSA -00 -003 (503 -30 -002) — WALKER, 13800 Pierce Road: Request for Design
Review and Building Site Approval to construct a two story single - family residence on a 19,210 square
foot vacant lot. The floor area of the proposed residence and attached two -car garage is 3,609 square
feet. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The site is zoned Hillside Residential.
(OOSTERHOUS)
Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows:
• Stated that two letters in opposition were received today and distributed to the Commission this
evening.
• Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review and Building Site Approval to allow a two -
story single - family resident on a 20,000 square foot vacant lot. The floor area would include 3,609
square feet and an attached two -car garage. The maximum height is 26 feet and the zoning is
Hillside Residential.
• Said that the project meets all necessary findings except for privacy impacts. Staff is
recommending some modifications to mitigate privacy impacts on the adjacent neighbor to include
the replacement of French doors with 2 foot by 2 foot windows; the elimination of the wraparound
front porch on the right side and the inclusion of fast growing landscaping.
• Added that there is no fencing proposed at this time but that the applicant has been made aware of
the requirements for both corner lot and Hillside District fencing standards.
• Recommended approval with the requirement that Council must adopt the recently modified
Basement Standards.
Commissioner Barry asked Planner Oosterhous to review the two letters received.
Planner Christy Oosterhous stated that one email from a Ms. Dora Grans, 12451 Old Oak Way, is
asking the City to adhere to the Specific Plan mandates.
Commissioner Roupe asked how this application holds up to Measure A and the Specific Plan and
whether is conforms to requirements.
Commissioner Barry stated that this parcel may be a legal non - conforming lot. Measure A calls for one
building unit per two acres on a flat lot.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that similar projects have been approved.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that the Hillside Residential zoning district was created as a result of
Measure A. Stated that as long as a project is consistent with the Hillside Residential zoning
requirements, it will also be consistent with Measure A requirements. Added that this parcel has been a
lot for some time and that it was previously approved for a house.
Saratoga Planning Commissiot_ nutes of July 10, 2002 Page 8
Commissioner Kurasch stated that the Specific Plan states a parcel is exempt if it was created prior to
April 25, 1978. She asked when this parcel was created.
Mr. Tom Walker, Applicant, 13800 Pierce Road, Saratoga, replied that the parcel was recorded in 1956.
Commissioner Roupe asked staff if this parcel is then exempt from Measure A.
Director Tom Sullivan responded that the parcel is exempt from the minimum parcel size since it was
recorded prior to adoption of Measure A.
Chair Jackman pointed out that a letter signed by five neighbors on Pierce Road is asking that the rural
character of their area be preserved.
Director Tom Sullivan stated that this parcel pre- existed 1978 and is exempt. Even if a lot line
adjustment is processed, it will not lose its exemption.
Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:12 p.m.
Mr. Michael Rowe, Britt -Rowe, Project Architect:
• Stated that this is a unique lot.
• Pointed out that this proposed home is 800 square feet smaller than the 4,400 square foot home
previously applied for in 1979 and incorporates a walkout basement style.
• Said he was available for questions.
Commissioner Roupe said that this is a difficult lot with its topography and expressed concern about the
privacy for immediate neighbors. Asked if Mr. Rowe would consider the use of translucent glass for
the dining room windows, which overlook the neighboring property.
Mr. Michael Rowe replied yes.
Commissioner Roupe pointed to page A -4 of the plans and asked for clarification that the retaining wall
would be five feet high. Additionally, he asked if the retaining wall would encroach in the sideyard
setbacks and sought assurances that Mr. Rowe would agree to meet retaining wall requirements.
Mr. Michael Rowe replied yes. He added that on the title there was a public easement on the private
street, which is not permitted. The Title Company removed that easement and this gave them more
room to meet setbacks.
Commissioner Barry asked how far the house would be moved.
Mr. Michael Rowe replied about 10 feet.
Chair Jackman asked if the retaining wall was near Pike Road.
Mr. Michael Rowe replied yes.
Commissioner Kurasch asked what the maximum slope was in the buildable area of the lot.
Saratoga Planning Commissioi. nutes of July 10, 2002 Page 9
Chair Jackman asked the significance of the two story poles, specifically the taller one.
Mr. Michael Rowe replied that the taller pole represents the back ridge. However, the story pole is
actually five to six feet taller than the house will actually be.
Commissioner Roupe said that a reduction in height would take away some of the imposing character.
Commissioner Garakani questioned the stick placement on one side. He said that he measured it out
and the placement does not match the plans.
Commissioner Barry said that she had concern about the height and that a possible reduction by five
feet from the height depicted on the existing story poles, may work. Said that it was hard to determine.
Mr. Michael Rowe said that the size on the construction plans is accurate and assured that the pad
would have to be certified as being at the proper elevation prior to construction.
Commissioner Garakani stated again his problem with the placement of the sticks on the property.
Chair Jackman agreed that the Commission cannot envision something that's not correctly portrayed.
Commissioner Roupe said that the purpose of story poles is to help determine the impact on the
Hillside. Agreed that Commissioner Garakani has raised a legitimate point.
Chair Jackman agreed that she could not support if the markers are not correct.
Planner Christy Oosterhous said that the staking should be done by a licensed surveyor.
Commissioner Roupe said that the Commission cannot envision this project based upon the story poles
provided.
Director Tom Sullivan advised the Commission that it would need to develop specific standards for
minimum story pole requirements.
Commissioner Roupe stated that for a difficult site such as this one, the story poles need to be more
precise.
Commissioner Barry said she shares these concerns. Added that there was no applicant or
representative on site for either Commission site visit, which is unusual.
Mr. Dave Dennis, 18735 Cabernet Drive, Saratoga:
• Said that he hired the contractor to put the story poles up and was not given a lot of criteria for the
installation. They had two story poles and an outline of the borders and reminded of the difficulties
in this installation due to the heavy brush in the area.
Ms. Jean Lundeen, 13810 Pierce Road, Saratoga:
• Thanked the Commission for their concern over her privacy.
• Asked that the Commission work to conserve the rural atmosphere of her neighborhood.
• Expressed thanks for the efforts of the Commission.
Saratoga Planning Commissioi. nutes of July 10, 2002 Page 10
Commissioner Roupe asked Ms. Lundeen if the removal of the wraparound porch, the modification of
the French doors to be replaced with two foot by two foot windows at header height and an agreement
by the applicant to use translucent windows in the dining room, thus equaling no view onto her
property, would satisfy Ms. Lundeen's privacy concerns.
Ms. Jean Lundeen replied yes.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Ms. Lundeen if she agrees that this proposed home is large and imposing
and out of character for this area.
Ms. Jean Lundeen replied yes.
Mr. Tom Walker, Project Applicant:
• Stated that he obtained a Building permit in 1980 but was issued a red tag.
• Said that he came to Council meetings for over a year.
• Added that he was never notified that his permit expired and he understands that a permit expiration
cannot occur while a red tag is in effect.
• Stated that he has acted in good faith.
• Said that he should not have to pay fees again.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Walker for the average slope under the structure and questioned if
there is any way to shift the house away from the hill and neighboring property.
Mr. Tom Walker replied that perhaps the home could be moved forward to Pierce and down to Pike but
that this change may impact trees.
Commissioner Roupe cautioned that there may be setback problems.
Commissioner Kurasch expressed concern about the slope on which they would be building upon.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that the slope beneath the home would be 24 percent.
Commissioner Kurasch said she questions the actual slope of the building pad.
Commissioner Garakani reminded of the three setbacks on this property, two at 30 feet and one at 20
feet.
Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:52 p.m.
Commissioner Barry:
• Advised that she has no questions at this time but is not ready to support this project tonight.
• Suggested a Continuance to allow better story poles to be installed.
• Stated that she is concerned that this home may be too massive for this site.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Said that he shares those concerns and has trouble envisioning this house on this property.
Saratoga Planning Commissiot. mutes of July 10, 2002 Page 11
• Added that the story poles need to be close enough to give an accurate vision of what is proposed.
• Encouraged the idea of a Continuance.
• Suggested that the applicant attend the next site visit.
Chair Jackman expressed concern over the size of this proposed home, as it does not seem compatible
with the Hillside area.
Commissioner Garakani stressed the importance in having the story poles more exact.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Agreed with the need for better story poles.
• Said that this proposed home does not fulfill the intent of the Hillside area in size and compatibility
and six neighbors have sign a letter in agreement to that concern.
• Suggested both a Continuance and redesign of this proposal to deal with issues of size and scale.
• Asked that the applicant and City confirm the slope under the footprint and that she would
appreciate this being done to set her mind at ease.
Commissioner Barry said that it appears all Commissioners want a Continuance and some want some
redesign. Suggested that the Commission gives more specific direction and guidance as to what
changes it would like to see.
Commissioner Roupe agreed that specific direction on square footage and height should be provided.
Chair Jackman pointed out that the maximum square footage allowed is 3,880 and the proposal is for
3,609 square feet.
Commissioner Barry agreed that the applicant has met the Code requirements. Said that as a Design
Review issue, it appears this house is too much for this lot. Said that it would help if the second floor
were not as long as the first floor, which gives it a massive box -like appearance.
Commissioner Kurasch agreed and suggested a reduction in the second floor element and in the actual
size of the house overall.
Chair Jackman asked if an approximate 15 percent reduction might suffice.
Commissioner Kurasch suggested approximately 500 square feet.
Chair Jackman said that this would allow approximately 3,100 square feet. Concurred that this house is
too large for this lot.
Commissioner Garakani expressed support for the 500 square foot reduction.
Commissioner Roupe did not.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the
Planning Commission continued consideration of a new home on property located
at 13800 Pierce Road (DR -00 -051 and BSA -00 -003) to the Planning Commission
meeting of August 14, 2002, to allow the applicant to install better story poles and
Saratoga Planning Commission nutes of July 10, 2002 Page 12
to consider design changes to reduce the size and bulk of the home, including
reducing the second story, as well as to confirm the slope beneath the footprint of
the home.
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Jackman and Kurasch
NOES: Roupe
ABSENT: Hunter and Zutshi
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Jackman called a break at 9:10 p.m.
Chair Jackman reconvened the meeting at 9:18 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.4
APPLICATION #02 -035 (503 -72 -014) — LIU, 14805 Masson Court: Request for an extension of
approved plans to construct a 6,500 square foot two -story residence on a vacant lot. The maximum
height of the residence will be 26 feet. The site is 87,712 square feet and is located within the Hillside
Residential zoning district. The Planning Commission approved the previous Design Review
application. The approval was appealed to the City Council by neighboring property owners. Council
denied the appeal on May 17, 2000. (OOSTERHOUS)
Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows:
• Stated that the applicant is seeking a 12 -month extension of a Design Review approval to allow the
construction of a new home.
• Described the project as having a maximum height of 26 feet on an 88,000 square foot lot and
would incorporate a modern style design.
• Advised that the original approval was granted on December 8, 1999. That approval was appealed
to Council. Council denied the appeal on May 17, 2000.
• Added that the project received geotechnical clearance in 1999.
• Advised that staff met with the three original appellants and have developed a compromise
requiring the structure to be moved 18 feet to minimize visual impacts of this home on the
neighboring properties.
• Reminded that to date there have been seven public hearings on this project.
• Recommended approval of this extension with two added Conditions. One that the building
footprint be moved 18 feet laterally to the north with the requirement that further geotechnical
review be provided. If following such geotechnical review this move is not possible; the structure
would remain in its original proposed location. The second additional requirement is that the roof
material be changed to asphalt shingle.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if this is an Extension since the approval has actually already expired.
Director Tom Sullivan clarified that the applicant filed in a timely manner but the approval has since
expired.
Commissioner Kurasch sought clarification that if the geotechnical report shows that the move of the
building pad by 18 feed is not feasible, it would remain in the original location.
Saratoga Planning Commission nutes of July 10, 2002 Page 13
Chair Jackman stated that she thought the Council approved the project as the Commission had
approved it.
Commissioner Garakani asked if the building pad is being moved 18 feet forward due to proximity to
neighbors.
Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. The move tucks the house out of the neighbors' viewshed.
Commissioner Roupe said he had no problem with asphalt shingles but wanted to go on the record, as
believing that cooper roofing would not have had a significant environmental impact.
Commissioner Barry cautioned that for the Bay, copper is a significant problem. Added that a better
way to deal with runoff is to contain as much water on site as possible. Added that it was not in her to
approve a copper roof. Asked what would happen if there is a dispute on survey lines.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that this sort of dispute is a civil matter. Added that the City is not
requiring surveys at the beginning of an application process rather than at the time of building plan
submittal.
Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that Council mentioned the location of the house in their minutes.
Chair Jackman said she would be happier if the corners of the property were marked.
Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the issue at hand this evening is a one -year extension. While the
Commission can revisit and recondition this project, it has already undergone seven public hearings.
Commissioner Garakani questioned whether Design Review could be looked at again or if this is
simply an Extension application. Said that he was told the Commission could look at the whole thing
again.
Director Tom Sullivan said the Commission could consider the design but that this request is simple in
nature.
Chair Jackman said that she understood the house could not be moved because the land is unstable.
Commissioner Roupe said that the applicant may have more expensive remediation if the house is
moved. Asked staff how the Commission can determine when it is unreasonable to ask the applicant to
move the structure 18 feet. Questioned if there is a criteria of reasonableness that is applied.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that the criteria is not cost but rather if the remediation is a practical
solution. The guidance of geotechnical engineers would have to be considered.
Commissioner Barry asked if there is ever a point when a geotechnical engineer says that an area
cannot be built upon. Added that she had been told previously that engineers can fix just about
anything. Suggested specifying the requirement to move this home 18 feet.
Saratoga Planning Commissior, nutes of July 10, 2002 Page 14
Commissioner Roupe agreed that doing so makes this requirement crystal clear and leaves no
ambiguity.
Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:40 p.m.
Mr. Liu, Applicant and Owner, 14805 Masson Court, Saratoga:
• Said that the Condition to move his home 18 feet to the north would result in almost half of the
building being on landslide area, which greatly increases costs, difficulties and risk.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Liu if he has met with his neighbors.
Mr. Liu said he met with the neighbors previously but not prior to this hearing.
Commissioner Kurasch asked where the 18 foot compromise came from.
Planner Christy Oosterhous said that staff met with the appellants and came up with this 18 -foot
compromise. The applicant declined staff's invitation to participate in that meeting.
Director Tom Sullivan elaborated that this compromise is the result of a current discussion with the
appellants.
Commissioner Roupe said that it appears there is a difference of opinions. Asked staff to clarify that
the proposal is to move the home 18 feet to the right per the plans.
Director Tom Sullivan replied yes.
Planner Christy Oosterhous added that staff is recommending further geologic review to the previous
June 17, 1997, Geotechnical Report, which indicated that the building site area is located approximately
60 feet from the slide area.
Mr. Liu said that he was not sure that 60 feet is correct at this point.
Commissioner Kurasch said that Mr. Liu may not understand how landslide area is measured compared
to natural erosion.
Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the Geotechnical Report map does not show property lines nor
define building envelope.
Commissioner Roupe said that Mr. Liu may be looking at erosion rather than slide area.
Mr. Liu said that he would have to build more flat area, which may not be environmentally best.
Mr. Jon Kwong, 14581 Saratoga Heights Court, Saratoga:
• Said that during the review process numerous mistakes were made on drawings and on installing the
story poles.
• Stated that the neighbors find the proposed design highly unusual and incompatible with their
neighborhood.
J
Saratoga Planning Commissiot. nutes of July 10, 2002 Page 15
• Pointed out that the project has been on the market for two years and suggested that a more
conventional project would sell.
• Said that following the appeal process several meetings have been held between the applicant,
appellants and staff. Moving the structure 30 feet would have alleviated most concerns and an 18
foot compromise was reached.
• Advised that Mr. Liu recently had his property disced and the work encroached 100 feet onto his
property, destroying drainpipes.
• Asked, for the record, that the applicant be required to have professional survey markers placed
between properties to prevent such occurrences in the future.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Kwong if the issue of a compromise location was brought up earlier
in the process.
Mr. Jon Kwong replied yes. A compromise location was raised at meetings.
Commissioner Barry asked if the Commission has jurisdiction to require Mr. Liu to have survey
markers installed.
Director Tom Sullivan replied sure.
Commissioner Garakani stated that the applicant has said he would do so at the site visit.
Mr. Joseph Park, 14800 Masson Court, Saratoga:
• Advised that the design drawings were done without a site survey and intruded 10 feet onto his
property.
• Stated that he wants to make sure that there is a Condition in writing to require the move of the
structure by 18 feet.
Ms. Mable Sze, 14780 Masson Court, Saratoga:
• Asked the Commission to deny this extension, as the proposed house is incompatible with the
surrounding structures.
• Stated that many issues were raised before the original approval.
• Added that the proposal to move the home 18 feet was raised when the project was appealed to
Council.
• Said that instead the applicant extended the house but did not move it as agreed upon.
Commissioner Roupe asked staff if what was approved is different that what the Planning Commission
had originally approved.
Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that she has no plans on file with a shift in the footprint. The record
does not show a change and there was no Condition in the Council Resolution to make that change.
Chair Jackman said that she looked at the minutes and saw no mention of change. The Council
Resolution says that the project is approved as the Planning Commission approved it.
Mr. Liu:
• Assured that he would hire a licensed land surveyor and put the property markers in place.
Saratoga Planning Commission. nutes of July 10, 2002 Page 16
• Stated that moving the house 18 feet to the north results in unknown costs. However, he believes
the costs will be high but that his main concern is safety.
• Said that he is willing to cooperate with the neighbors and City staff to make this project work.
Chair Jackman asked Mr. Liu to make sure that the stakes placed are about three feet high.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Asked that the footprint of the house be marked by a licensed survey.
• Added that the design of the house was previously discussed at length. This is the quick issue of
granting an extension with 18 -foot move of the building footprint and with a good property survey
to mark out the property line and footprint.
• Suggested a Continuance.
Chair Jackman said that there should be a Record of Survey document prepared.
Director Tom Sullivan said that the applicant should also provide recorded data used to substantiate to
the City Surveyor.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Said that she agrees in concept to what is proposed and holds to the requirement for the move of
the structure by 18 feet.
• Added that the Council decision weighs heavily. Said that Council wanted the applicant to work
with neighbors on issues such as setbacks, encroachment and height.
• Pointed out that the Resolution adopted by Council upheld the Planning Commission "as
modified."
• Stated that a compromise would best suit this situation.
Commissioner Roupe said that it should be made clear that the structure will move by 18 feet. If not,
no deal or start over again.
Commissioner Barry:
• Said she supports Commissioner Roupe's point. It is important to be consistent and support
neighbor concerns. Council denied the appeal so this is the design. However, the home should be
moved by 18 feet.
• Stated that the story poles should have been installed in an accurate manner.
• Agreed that it is reasonable to require documented survey of the property.
Commissioner Garakani asked why install more story poles if the Commission is going to approve this
Extension tonight.
Commissioner Roupe said good point. He added that following a land survey and the moving of the
story poles by 18 feet, the Commission needs to go back and look at the site. Supported a Continuance.
Commissioner Barry also supported a Continuance with the requirement that the story poles be moved
18 feet to the north.
Saratoga Planning Commission nutes of July 10, 2002 Page 17
Director Tom Sullivan cautioned that the 12 months for the Extension begins at the previous expiration
date which was May 17, 2002.
Commissioner Roupe asked if there is any latitude in that fact.
Director Tom Sullivan replied no.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the
Planning Commission continued consideration of the request for an extension of
approval for 14805 Masson Court to a date uncertain and with the conditions that:
1. That a Record of Survey be prepared for the property and
2. That story poles showing the building envelope relocated 18 feet laterally to
the north from its original location, be installed.
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe
NOES: None
ABSENT: Hunter and Zutshi
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Jackman reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 10:30 p.m.
Mr. Liu, Applicant:
• Asked to be able to leave the original poles on the original location and put balloons 18 feet to the
north.
Commissioner Roupe stated that the poles are not in the right location as they are even for the original
approval.
Chair Jackman told Mr. Liu that the Commission has given him specific instructions.
Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Liu what the purpose would be to keep the poles where they are
with the balloons depicting the 18 -foot relocation.
Mr. Liu said to provide a comparison.
Commissioner Roupe said that the current placement is incorrect now.
Mr. Liu asked if he could use balloons instead of poles since the terrain is steep.
Commissioner Barry said that she has no problem with heights being depicted by balloons.
Chair Jackman reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 10:35 p.m.
DIRECTOR'S ITEMS
There were no Director's Items..
COMMISSION ITEMS
Saratoga Planning Commission nutes of July 10, 2002 Page 18
Chair Jackman asked about scheduling a Retreat.
Commissioner Garakani asked for more information on what a Retreat would involve.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that a Retreat offers the Commission a chance to discuss issues
informally (although it is an advertised meeting) and perhaps have guest speakers.
Commissioner Roupe suggested that the Commission think about issues to discuss.
Chair Jackman said the Commissioners should think about subjects and dates and asked how October
would be for the Commissioners.
Director Tom Sullivan said that mid - October would be good and said that Saturdays work best.
Chair Jackman advised that Council has made recommendations on the Basement Ordinance.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that Council has directed staff to make modifications so that if 80
percent or more of a basement is subterranean, the 20 percent that sticks out would still be counted as
basement instead of counted as floor area. Twenty -one (21) percent or more would be counted against
the floor area. Added that Council is appreciative of the Commission's efforts.
Commissioner Kurasch announced that she is not certain of her availability for the August 14`x'
Commission meeting as she has family obligations.
Commissioner Garakani suggested moving the times of site visits from 3 to 5 p.m. on Tuesdays to
11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. on Tuesdays.
Chair Jackman suggested trying this for the next site visit.
Commissioner Roupe asked staff for some standard boilerplate requirements for Conditions of
Approval.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that this issue falls within Commissioners Hunter and Barry's
Subcommittee.
COMMUNICATIONS
There were no communication items.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Chair Jackman adjourned the meeting at 10:48 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, July
24, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk
1
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, June 12, 2002
PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Acting Chair Kurasch called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Zutshi
Absent: Commissioner Jackman and Roupe
Staff. Director Tom Sullivan and Associate Planner John Livingstone
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of May 22, 2002.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi,
regular Planning Commission minutes of May 22, 2002, were approved
submitted with one correction to page 11.
AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Jackman and Roupe
ABSTAIN: Barry
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no Oral Communication Items
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
the
as
Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this
meeting was properly posted on June 6, 2002.
REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS
Director Tom Sullivan announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by
filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the
decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b).
Saratoga Planning Commission .iutes of June 12, 2002 Page 2
CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar Items.
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1
APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TO ISSUE A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT —
BILL BRECK, 20375 SARATOGA -LOS GATOS ROAD: The appeal is to have the Planning
Commission reverse an Administrative Decision to allow the removal of two Monterey Pines located at
14480 Oak Street.
Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that a Tree Removal Permit was issued for 14480 Oak Street.
• Identified the property owner as Mr. Mitch Cutler and the appellant as Mr. Bill Breck.
• Explained that the reasons for the tree removal are beetle infestation and old age.
• Added that on April 22, 2002, the City's Arborist prepared a report on two pines on the subject
property and the conclusion of that report was that the trees should be removed. Additionally,
another Arborist, Mr. James Scott, who was hired by Mr. Cutler, also recommended removal of the
trees.
• Said that Mr. Cutler will be required to plant two 24 -inch box trees in replacement of the removed
trees. Mr. Cutler is proposing oak rather than pine trees.
• Stated that staff moved this appeal hearing up two weeks to expedite consideration since there are
insurance coverage issues. Mr. Cutler's insurance carrier is now refusing coverage for any potential
damage caused by these trees.
Commissioner Hunter asked if the installation of the wall damaged the roots. Added that it is important
to consider whether any trees might be impacted when a request to install a wall is received.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that the plans indicated installation of a fence and not a wall. A fence in
this case would be exempt. However, what was installed was a wall. New plans will be submitted to
reflect this change from fencing to a wall.
Commissioner Barry asked for the reason for Barrie Coates' April review.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that Barrie Coates went to the site with a City Code Enforcement Officer
after complaints regarding tree damage were received.
Commissioner Zutshi asked for further information about the role of the wall.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that consideration of the wall is not a part of this evening's hearing.
Staff is working with the property owner on that issue separately.
Commissioner Garakani asked whether neighbors are contacted prior to approving a Tree Removal
Permit.
Saratoga Planning Commission, _tutes of June 12, 2002 Page 3
Director Tom Sullivan advised that the Code does not provide for such notification. That is one issue to
be worked out with the Code Update.
Commissioner Barry reiterated that walls require building plans but what had originally been planned
for the site was a fence.
Acting Chair Kurasch reminded that the wall would be handled under a separate venue.
Acting Chair Kurasch opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:20 p.m.
Mr. Bill Breck, Appellant, 20375 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, Saratoga:
• Described his home as being the larger white home with columns located on Saratoga -Los Gatos
Road.
• Stated that the Cutler property is located behind his on a flag lot.
• Advised that he speaks on behalf of 14 neighbors, including one who is currently recovering from a
heart attack.
• Suggested a continuance due to the schedule change, which brought this item before the
Commission earlier than originally scheduled.
• Stated that Arborist Barrie Coates' report was misrepresented by staff in that it actually says that the
property owner "wishes" to remove these trees rather than "should" remove these trees.
• Added that his main issue is why a tree described by Barrie Coates as being in a 90 percent
condition of health being removed.
• Said that it is unfair to replace a 70 -foot tree with a 24 -inch box tree that costs only about $350.
The 70 -foot tree provides visual privacy for five neighbors.
• Said that the penalty outlined in the Code for unlawful removal of a tree requires that the
replacement value at least match the monetary value of the tree being removed. A $350 tree does
not come close.
• Pointed out that the tree was damaged due to construction activity.
• Reminded that one of the two proposed trees for removal has already been removed. This removal
occurred before the Appeal with the City could be filed.
• Added that there is no mention of beetle infestation in Barrie Coates' report although it does state so
in another Arborist's report.
• Declared that beetle infestation is not terminal for a tree and rarely kills the tree.
• Said that many trees throughout the City have beetles and do not die.
• Said that this Tree Removal Permit merits further investigation and findings as to whether the tree is
dead.
• Reiterated his main points as being the fact that Barrie Coates had ranked the tree as being in 90
percent condition, that he is skeptical of the work done by the second Arborist, that many neighbors
are concerned and that other trees were removed from the site without permits. In fact, nearly 20
trees have received damage.
Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Breck where his residence is located in respect to the tree.
Mr. Bill Breck replied about 40 to 60 feet away.
Commissioner Garakani asked how this tree helps provide privacy from that distance.
Saratoga Planning Commission _nutes of June 12, 2002 Page 4
Mr. Bill Breck replied that his house is a three -level home with the bedrooms on the upper level.
Commissioner Garakani said that on his recent site visit he noticed two oaks on the other side of the
proposed removed tree as well as plenty of other trees and does not see a privacy issue. He added that
Mr. Breck's three -story home is more of a privacy issue for the neighbor than this neighbor would be
for the Breck property.
Mr. Bill Breck reminded that he is speaking on behalf of 14 neighbors.
Commissioner Garakani replied that there is nothing in the packet to substantiate that Mr. Breck is
indeed representing 14 neighbors. There is just Mr. Breck's own correspondence. He added that the
tree proposed for removal is hindering the growth of a more precious oak tree.
Mr. Bill Breck said that he does not believe there is an oak within 25 feet of this pine tree.
Commissioner Barry inquired of Mr. Breck, assuming the tree lives a while, what would he like to have
happen.
Mr. Bill Breck replied that he is comfortable with the provisions of the Ordinance.
Commissioner Barry asked what Mr. Breck feels would be fair.
Mr. Bill Breck replied something of equivalent monetary value or at least four planter box trees.
Commissioner Barry reminded that the applicant is proposing oak trees and asked Mr. Breck if he has
any opinion of other tree species.
Mr. Bill Breck said that planting more of them is the healthiest thing to do as far as oak trees are
concerned.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked staff for clarification as to whether this tree is considered as being
unlawfully removed.
Director Tom Sullivan replied no. He added that three other trees were unlawfully removed on site but
this one was not.
Acting Chair Kurasch said that the definition of unlawfully removed tree is clear.
Mr. Bill Breck said that it is not in the spirit of the Ordinance to replace a 70 -foot tree with a $350 tree.
Commissioner Hunter said that Mr. Breck's fight for trees is wonderful and stated that the tree looks
perfectly healthy. Asked Mr. Breck's reaction to concerns about proximity to the home.
Mr. Bill Breck said he would defer to Barrie Coates' opinion as to whether the tree is dangerous.
Pointed out that there have been no tree protection fences at all and that he would like to see more
conditions to protect trees on site.
Mr. Mitch Cutler, 14480 Oak Place, Saratoga:
Saratoga Planning Commission .nutes of June 12, 2002 Page 5
• Said that the facts speak for themselves and that Barrie Coates' has told them that the trees should
be removed.
• Claimed that this whole issue is a fabrication by Mr. Breck, who is unhappy about two easements
that run across the Breck property.
• Stated that this tree has gone through many legal challenges and that no citation has been issued.
• Added that when asked to stop work on the removal of the second pine by Director Sullivan he
complied.
• Accused Mr. Breck of trying to control his property.
• Informed that he has a contract for 10 to 15 trees to be installed.
• Clarified that Mr. Breck's home is 150 feet from the tree and is also separated by a guesthouse.
• Said that fencing and landscaping mitigation can be addressed and that he has lawfully cooperated
through the appeal process.
Commissioner Barry pointed out that staff received a complaint that the wall was in the process of
being built that was causing some damage to roots of the trees in question.
Mr. Mitch Cutler replied that there is no wall near the pines and only one -and -a -half foot tall footings to
support a six -foot wood fence. Said that they have changed their plan to a concrete wall all the way
around in order to keep Mr. Breck from his property.
Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Cutler if it was brought to his attention that the footings were causing
root damage.
Mr. Mitch Cutler advised that the footings were hand dug in order to be very careful of the roots.
Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Cutler what species of trees he was proposing to plant.
Mr. Mitch Cutler replied canary palm, cypress and oaks, depending on the Arborist's recommendation.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked Mr. Cutler if he was aware of Mr. Breck's appeal when he was removing
the first of the two pine trees.
Mr. Mitch Cutler replied no. He added that the appeal was filed on Monday at 1:30 p.m. while his tree
removal contractor was on site at 7:30 a.m. on that day. He added that City staff came on site at about
1:30 p.m. when they were mostly through cutting down the first tree. However, he had the crew stop
when asked to do so by City staff.
Acting Chair Kurasch pointed out that every reference made by Barrie Coates indicates that the beetle
infestation was caused by the construction of the wall, which caused root damage. In other words, most
of the damage was due to the construction of the wall. Asked what was the intention.
Mr. Mitch Cutler stated that these are 60 to 80 foot high trees on the southeast side of his property,
which served to cool his house. He pointed out that the home is now significantly warmer as a result of
the shade lost.
Mr. Bill Breck reiterated that Barrie Coates' report does not show beetle infestation and rather stated
that the tree is very healthy with a ranking of 90 percent condition of health.
Saratoga Planning Commission mutes of June 12, 2002 Page 6
Commissioner Garakani reminded that the Commission is considering whether this tree should be
removed at this point.
Mr. Bill Breck said that whatever decision is made should be based upon Barrie Coates'
recommendations.
Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that Barrie Coates has stated in his report that this tree would die
within two years. That evaluation is a main reason for Administrative Approval for removal.
Acting Director Kurasch reiterated that the paragraph above this statement states that the condition of
the tree was compromised as a result of construction activity.
Acting Chair Kurasch closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:53 p.m.
Commissioner Barry asked Director Sullivan to comment on the dollar amount for the replacement tree.
Director Tom Sullivan said that the Section of the Municipal Code quoted by Mr. Breck pertains to
unlawfully removed trees. In this case, however, the required replacement is on a one to one ratio. The
Planning Commission can change that requirement.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked if this is a gray area in that the tree, which should have been protected, was
damaged by unpermitted activity and whether this is taken into consideration.
Director Tom Sullivan said that the property owner filed a Tree Removal Permit application almost
immediately upon receipt of the Arborist's report and this is not considered an unlawful act.
Commissioner Barry said that the conclusion seems to be that the property owner managed to save
himself by getting his request in for a permit.
Commissioner Garakani:
• Suggested that it may not make sense to replant in exactly the same location.
• Said that it might be better to scatter the new trees around and that this might deal with Mr. Breck's
privacy concerns.
• Added that the tree should definitely come out at this time, as it is not safe.
Commissioner Hunter:
• Said that unfortunately she agreed and that the tree is too close to the owner's home and threatens
the children's bedroom.
• Said that she would like to see a good size replacement and not a canary palm.
• Added that she is sorry this has happened.
• Expressed that she is glad to learn that neighbors will be notified in the future of Tree Removal
Permits.
Commissioner Zutshi said that she is bothered by how the tree got in the condition it is now in but
agreed that safety is a good issue.
Acting Chair Kurasch said that it seems clear that the consensus is that the tree should come out.
Saratoga Planning Commission .nutes of June 12, 2002 Page 7
Commissioner Barry:
• Said that while she agrees the tree must come out there are a number of issues that need to be
considered in the future including what kind of scrutiny the City should require.
• Said that even if dug carefully, unfortunately, damage to tree roots is still possible. However, there
is no requirement for careful scrutiny for fence footings.
Director Tom Sullivan said that the Commission's Subcommittee on Trees will work to ensure that the
Tree Handout says the same thing as the Ordinance.
Commissioner Barry:
• Said that she would like to see the size of replacement tree increase and perhaps the number of
replacement trees. Additionally, the replacement trees should be indigenous trees that are
calculated to provide screening.
• Agreed with Commissioner Hunter's concern about the proposed use of canary palms. However, if
15 new trees are introduced, some could be canary palms.
• Stated that these are neighborhood trees that provide an environment.
Acting Chair Kurasch:
• Expressed agreement with all that has been said here.
• Added that she feels badly about the removal of these trees but sees no alternative, as they must
heed the evaluation that these trees will die. One tree is already gone and the other needs to come
out.
• Said that she is concerned about valuation but wants to be careful that what we ask for is supported
by Code.
• Said that it is reasonable to increase the replacement tree value to more closely match the value of
the removed tree.
• Said that these trees were killed by activity on site.
• Declared that these two neighbors need to be more proactive and less defensive.
• Added that this appeal was pretty understandable.
• Asked how this will be coordinated with the action underway on the other trees.
Director Tom Sullivan said that Mr. Cutler will present a landscape plan for staff review and asked for
guidance from the Commission on the size and number of replacement trees.
Commissioner Garakani suggested that the replacement trees not be put in the same area in order to
prevent overcrowding. Suggested a two -year bond with a two -year inspection to ensure the health of
the replacement trees.
Director Tom Sullivan said that a bond amount is typically based on the Arborist's report.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked about a bond for 20 percent of the tree value.
Director Tom Sullivan said that the bond is released in two years if the trees remain healthy.
Commissioner Barry said that she could accept two trees in replacement but larger ones.
Director Tom Sullivan gave the next two tree sizes as 36 and 48 -inch box.
Saratoga Planning Commission .nutes of June 12, 2002 Page 8
Commissioner Barry recommended 48 -inch box.
Acting Chair Kurasch:
• Suggested referring this matter back to Barrie Coates, as the Commission does not have the
expertise.
• Said that there is no real difference in canopy growth and that larger trees are slower to establish.
• Said that she would rather see more trees instead of larger trees and suggested four 36 -inch box
trees in replacement.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the
Planning Commission denied the appeal to reverse an Administrative Decision to
allow the removal of two Monterey pines located at 14480 Oak Place and added the
following conditions:
1. A bond for two years;
2. The replacement of the removed trees with four 36 -inch box trees to be
determined with the recommendation of the Arborist and preferably to include
indigenous trees that provide screening.
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Jackman and Roupe
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.2
Application #02 -034 (397 -06 -087) — NEQUIST, 14633 Quito Road: Request for Design Review
Approval to demolish the existing 3,821 square foot house and build a new single -story 5,847 square
foot house with three car garage. (LIVINGSTONE)
Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to construct a new 5,847 square foot,
single -story residence with a maximum height of 22 feet and demolish an existing 3,821 square foot
house.
• Reminded that typically a new single -story replacing an existing single story home is handled
through an Administrative Design Review but since the structure exceeds the 18 -foot height limit,
the project requires Planning Commission review.
• Stated that the home's design will minimize the perception of bulk. The new home will be located
in approximately the same location as the existing. There will be varying rooflines and a small shed
dormer. The home will be integrated with the environment, as there are very mature trees that will
be maintained. No protected trees are to be removed. The home will consist of natural earthtone
colors. It would be difficult to see the house from the public right -of -way.
• Concluded that overall this proposed home is in character with the neighborhood.
• Recommended approval.
Commissioner Barry inquired whether the topic of impervious surfaces has been discussed and whether
anything would preclude the use of an impervious material for the driveway.
Saratoga Planning Commission / nutes of June 12, 2002 Page 9
Commissioner Garakani asked if the existing driveway would be retained.
Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that he believes a new driveway is proposed.
Acting Chair Kurasch opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:17 p.m.
Mr. Marty Oakley, Project Designer:
• Made himself available for questions.
• Asked for one change in the Conditions so that the final landscaping plan would not be required to
be submitted and approved until final inspection rather than at time of issuance of building permits.
• Reminded that there is no site grading proposed and that it is impractical to ask for the final
landscape plan at the time of building permit issuance.
• Added that he does not usually contract with a landscape contractor until the home is 75 percent
completed to allow the landscape to fit into the site with the new home.
Commissioner Barry advised Mr. Oakley that it is the Commission itself that asked for earlier submittal
of final landscape plans.
Commissioner Garakam asked if there is a basement.
Mr. Marty Oakley replied no.
Acting Chair Kurasch pointed out that the Arborist's report indicates that there should be no lawn
planted beneath the retained oak tree.
Mr. Marty Oakley said that one does not typically put lawns beneath oak trees because it is not good for
the tree and because lawns do not grow well there. Said that the final landscape plan would clearly
show that no lawn will be placed below the oak and will depict the site irrigation.
Acting Chair Kurasch advised that this is the reason why the Commission wants to have a final
landscape plan submitted early.
Mr. Eric Nequist, Applicant and Property Owner, 14633 Quito Road, Saratoga:
• Said that they have been removing any ivy that might adversely impact protected trees.
• Added that they are also removing a lot of backyard patio.
• Assured that there would be no lawn planted beneath the oak tree and said that they are also
removing all driveway area beneath the tree.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked about the proposed pruning of the oak tree.
Mr. Eric Nequist advised that this would be done at the request of the Arborist.
Acting Chair Kurasch recommended that Mr. Nequist have a certified Arborist do this pruning and that
not more than 30 percent should be pruned.
Mr. Eric Nequist said that they would be careful, as they want to preserve this tree as it offers privacy.
Saratoga Planning Commission, _nutes of June 12, 2002 Page 10
Acting Chair Kurasch agreed that there is a good chance of retaining this tree if they follow the
Arborist's recommendations.
Acting Chair Kurasch closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:27 p.m.
Commissioner Hunter stated that the owner is well informed and the proposed plan is fine. Said that is
sad to see a nice house go but the new home will be good.
Commissioner Garakani explained to Mr. Nequist that the reason for early submittal of a final
landscape plan is to consider any large construction such as waterfalls and rivers on site. Agreed that it
is important for a landscape designer to see the character of the house in order to plan the landscape.
Commissioner Barry agreed and said that drainage is a serious concern and landscaping ties into that. It
is difficult to get a handle on drainage issues without a landscape plan. Supported use of indigenous
trees and asked Director Sullivan if the Commission has any latitude on that matter.
Director Tom Sullivan:
• Advised that the Arborist's report includes a recommendation list. The Planning Commission
usually adopts a Condition to comply with the recommendations contained within the Arborist's
report.
• Added that if the final landscape plan submitted for staff review is an upgrade to what is required,
staff handles the review. If the final landscape plan is less than required, it would be brought back
before the Planning Commission.
• Said that another reason for early submittal of a final landscape plan is that this is where it is
depicted as to where the utilities and irrigation will go in.
Acting Chair Kurasch said that she is in favor of the requirement for early submittal of a landscape plan
and does not find that to be an unreasonable requirement.
Acting Chair Kurasch Reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:32 p.m.
Mr. Marty Oakley:
• Said that he understands the reasons given for the early submittal of a final landscaping plan.
• Pointed out that the utility trench is shown on the final building plans.
• Extended his request for a later submittal of the final landscaping plan as he has already prepared
the submittal for building permits and has it ready to submit following the 15 day appeal period in
order to avoid delay of that submittal.
• Asked for at least 90 days for the submittal of this final landscaping plan.
• Said that the only proposed new irrigation would be for new plants and lawn.
Acting Chair Kurasch Reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:35 p.m.
Commissioner Barry said that she hopes word gets out that the Planning Commission is serious about
its requirement for final landscaping plans. However, this is an unusual situation here since so much of
the landscaping is already in place.
Saratoga Planning Commissioi. .nutes of June 12, 2002 Page 11
Commissioner Hunter agreed that the plants are already there. This is not a bare piece of ground. The
Commission can be flexible in different situations. In this case, most plant material will stay where it is
currently.
Commissioner Zutshi asked about the driveway material.
Commissioner Barry suggested a Condition of Approval to require the use of pervious pavers for the
driveway.
Acting Chair Kurasch:
• Suggested having the Arborist look at the plan for the driveway.
• Proposed added text to Condition 8 to read "before the beginning of construction."
• Stated that this proposed house is very appropriate and has her approval.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the
Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval to allow the construction of
a new single- story, 5,847 square foot home on property located at 14633 Quito
Road with the added Conditions:
1. Removal of ivy;
2. Change Condition 8 to add "before the beginning of construction."
3. Use of pervious pavers for the driveway, if possible.
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Jackman and Roupe
ABSTAIN: None
Acting Chair Kurasch reminded that there is a 15 -day appeal period.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.3
Application #02 -055 (389 -06 -002) — STURLA, Saratoga Creek Drive: Request for a 36 -month time
extension to the approval of SDR 99 -006, a 2 -lot land division in the Professional Administrative
Office Zoned District. The property is located on Saratoga Creek Drive, just south of Cox Avenue.
(SULLIVAN)
Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows:
• Stated that the applicant is seeking a 36 -month extension of a two -lot parcel map, which was
approved on May 10, 2000.
• Advised that this request was filed in a timely manner.
• Stated that all agencies have reviewed.
• Said that because the project and property have undergone extensive litigation and due to current
market conditions, the applicant is seeking another three years to allow conditions to change for the
better.
• Recommended approval.
Commissioner Zutshi asked what the maximum amount of time would be allowed for an extension.
Saratoga Planning Commissioi. ..nutes of June 12, 2002 Page 12
Director Tom Sullivan replied three years. Added that a recent change in State law allows one three -
year extension. Extensions used to be for one year at a time.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked what the options would be if the map expired.
Director Tom Sullivan responded that the parcel would remain a single parcel or the applicant would
have to start the process all over again.
Acting Chair Kurasch opened and closed the Public Hearing on Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:45 p.m.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the
Planning Commission granted a 36 -month time extension to the approval of SDR
99 -006 for a two -lot subdivision for property located on Saratoga Creek Drive
(APN 389 -06 -002).
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Jackman and Roupe
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.4
Application #02 -023 (397 -06 -075) — HILLS, 18588 Woodbank Way: Request for Design Review
approval to substantially remodel the existing single -story house. A portion of the existing house will
be demolished and rebuilt in approximately the same location. The remodeled portion will include a
new 1,438 square foot basement. The total proposed house size with garage and accessory structures
will not change. (LIVINGSTONE)
Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows:
• Said that the applicants are seeking a Design Review approval to substantially remodel a single -
story residence.
• Added that the floor area ratio would not change.
• Said that while this structure is currently legal non - conforming, this proposal would not increase
that status.
• Said that the proposed home will minimize the perception of bulk and at 22 feet in maximum height
this home would be four feet less than the maximum height of 26 feet.
• Said that the home will be situated on the same location as the existing home and that the existing
landscaping would be retained.
• Added that the home will include a varied roof elevation and articulation in the front elevation and
will include stone accents. The home will be integrated with the environment due to mature trees
and landscaping. The home will incorporate natural earthtone colors and a stucco finish.
• Stated that this home will protect the privacy and views of adjacent properties.
• Said that a detailed map was provided to surrounding neighbors and no neighbors are directly
negatively affected.
• Advised that this home meets energy guidelines. Solar heating is currently heating the pool.
Saratoga Planning Commission nutes of June 12, 2002 Page 13
• Informed that four trees will be removed although none are in exceptional condition. The Arborist
has recommended replacement.
• Advised that there is no correspondence and that the applicant has talked with all of his neighbors
and each neighbor was shown the plans.
• Stated that this home is in character with the neighborhood.
• Recommended approval.
Commissioner Zutshi asked if it is allowed to have the owners remove a shed in order to extend the
square footage of the house.
Associate Planner John Livingstone replied yes. This shed is counted as square footage as it is on a
slab foundation. It is more than a typical shed. As long as it does not increase square footage overall, it
is okay.
Commissioner Barry pointed out that there will be 34 percent coverage and proposed the use of
pervious pavers to reduce that percentage.
Associate Planner John Livingstone deferred this matter to the applicants.
Commissioner Hunter asked if pervious pavers are more expensive than concrete.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that there is a range of prices available.
Commissioner Garakani asked for clarification that this matter is before the Commission only because
of its height.
Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. This project is too high to be approved with an Administrative
Design Review.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked whether this structure could be reconstructed if burned down.
Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that the site would lose its legal non - conforming status. If
more than 50 percent is demolished, it would be looked at as a new project. This proposal is at 40
percent and meets the intent.
Acting Chair Kurasch opened the Public Hearing on Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:55 p.m.
Mr. Ron Hills, Applicant and Owner, 18566 Woodbank Way, Saratoga:
• Thanked the Commission for the opportunity to be here.
• Said that he and his wife have worked for five years and with four major redesigns to come up with
an authentic hacienda design. This has been a lot of effort.
• Said that they have tried to make this home design good for the City and the neighborhood.
• Advised that they have met all requirements including basements.
• Stated that the tree in front appears to have tapped into their water line and is causing lots of
problems including damage to the slab floor.
Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Hills if he is willing to improve their 34 percent use of impervious
coverage by using pervious pavers on their new driveway.
Saratoga Planning Commission_ mutes of June 12, 2002 Page 14
Mr. Ron Hills:
• Pointed out that his home is situated on what used to be an orchard pond area. Their home is on
clay. The previous owner had to install a culvert across the street to help manage water. They deal
with flooding in rainstorms, as the water does not sink. Additionally, the hillside behind them
drains down onto their site. Together with their neighbor, they have installed a French drain
system.
• Declared that they have a real water problem.
• Pointed out that he is a former Planning Commissioner and member of the Parks and Recreation
Commission so he well understands the review process.
• Added that the adjacent neighbor supports his project.
Mr. Carl Peterson, 18600 Woodbank Way, Saratoga:
• Stated that he has lived here since 1965 and is excited about this new addition to his neighbors'
home.
• Said that he liked the proposed design and is looking forward to it.
• Stated that his home is set back far off the road and that he will not see this home nor be impacted
during construction since big oak trees shield sounds and sight impacts.
• Said that he enjoys construction as he is a retired engineer and supports his neighbors.
Mr. Ron Hills added that his home would look modest from the front. They are eliminating one
building from the property and have met all requirements.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked about the use of pervious pavers and whether the driveway is being
replaced.
Mr. Ron Hills said that they had not planned to change the driveway at this time as it represents a lot of
area.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked Mr. Hills if he is certain that the drainage problems cannot be corrected
with proper engineering.
Mr. Ron Hills replied that they have black adobe clay within a couple of feet.
Acting Chair Kurasch closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:09 p.m.
Commissioner Barry:
• Said that Mr. Hills supporting report is a thing of beauty and contains a tremendous amount of
information. It should be used as a model for other applicants.
• Advised that she had a major issue as to whether or not to treat this application as a new project or
remodel. However, staff has said that the necessary findings can be made.
• Stated that this is a nice project and she is prepared to support it.
Commissioner Hunter:
• Asked to see the color board.
• Said that the project sounds great and is fine by her.
• Thanked the Hills for the beautiful report.
Saratoga Planning Commission. .nutes of June 12, 2002 Page 15
• Added that she is looking forward to seeing this new house in about a year and a half.
Commissioner Zutshi said that her issues about square footage have been clarified and that this is a nice
house for the neighborhood.
Commissioner Garakani said that he is in favor of this application.
Acting Chair Kurasch said that she too had problems with this change to an existing non - conforming, as
she does not feel that this represents incidental alterations.
Commissioner Barry clarified that per Code, this requests meets the definition of incidental as it is less
than 50 percent.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the
Planning Commission granted a Design Review approval to allow a substantial
remodel to an existing single -story residence on property located at 18588
Woodbank Way.
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Jackman and Roupe
ABSTAIN: None
NON - PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO. 5
GATEWAY DESIGN GUIDELINES: Design Guidelines for the Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road Gateway
have been prepared to guide new development in this district. The streetscape improvement plan has
been adopted to address improvements with the public street right -of -way to create a new northern
gateway to the City. The Guidelines provide direction for the design of mixed -use projects that
introduce a component of residential uses within the Gateway district, as provided for in the General
Plan housing element.
Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that this is a non - public hearing at which the Commission is to receive a report, ask
questions and take testimony. Following that, the Commission should direct staff to agendize this
matter for Public Hearing to allow formal notice to property owners.
• Added that there has been one piece of written communication received tonight.
Mr. Bob Eck, Consultant to the City, Design Studios West, Denver, CO:
• Said that he has been working together with Greg Ing Associates out of San Jose.
• Said that they have worked to develop draft guidelines for use in conjunction with the Master Plan
that includes improvements within the street right -of -way to the cost of $3 million dollars.
• Added that the Design Guidelines for the Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road Gateway are to address
development adjacent to the right -of -way, on private property. The direction is for the design of
mixed -use development to allow the introduction of residential.
• Stated that the Task Force has meet since September and a series of goals were established. The
goals address new development and not existing development.
Saratoga Planning Commission .nutes of June 12, 2002 Page 16
• Added that 17 different development standards were drafted.
• Said that both Use Permits and Design Review Approval would be required for Mixed -Use Projects.
They would also have to conform with the Residential Design Handbook. Residences would be
located on the second floor or at the rear of a parcel. The total FAR could not exceed 50 percent
(with an additional 10 percent allowed with the inclusion of BMR units).
• Said that setbacks should consider adjacent building locations and the parking requirement should
be the same as under the Zoning Ordinance. Private usable space should be provided and a
maximum height limit would be 26 feet with the building height based upon the average existing
grade. There would be a restriction to a single -story for those sites adjacent to existing single -
family residences.
• Said that a 30 -foot setback along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road would be required to allow a 26 -foot
height. Additionally, a 26 -foot height would be allowed adjacent to existing two -story residences.
• Said that solid eight -foot high perimeter fencing would be required and a soundwall and landscape
screening to protect single family residences.
• Stated that the allowed uses would be local serving businesses and not big -box retailers.
• Described Mixed -Use with office use on the second floor adjacent to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road.
Office use on the first floor would require a Use Permit to encourage the dynamic of retail on first
floors and office on second floors. No residential development will be included on the Saratoga -
Sunnyvale Road side. Rather residential uses will be located adjacent to existing residential uses.
• Encouraged linkages to adjacent properties on either side to allow circulation.
• Stated that the goals for the overall Gateway are intended to encourage mixed -uses and create a
strong identity for the entire Gateway with a variety of building sizes and facades, to provide
pedestrian friendly access and to promote housing consistent with the City's General Plan and to
allow shared parking where possible.
• Said that they are looking to promote retail while encouraging residential uses. Plans include
smaller scale and style, residential massing, building articulation to mitigate mass, location of
service and trash areas out of sight to the rear, common colors and materials (including masonry,
brick and wood), consistent character and monument signage, landscaping and buffering, breaking
up massive seas of parking, buffering, fencing screen walls, mitigating impact of lighting to off -site
areas and creating consistency throughout the Gateway.
Mr. John Keenan, 22215 Mt. Eden Road, Saratoga:
• Said that he was initially concerned that these Guidelines were to be adopted tonight.
• Said that he has a number of reservations.
• Stated that he is one of 18 owners of a condominium office building that is fully developed.
• Stated that they have concerns over site to site access as their neighbor is a trucking company who
used to use their property for truck turnaround and employee parking. They have since chained off
the access.
• Questioned how these Design Guidelines would be applied to existing structures.
Ms. Zoe Alameda - Farotte, 12341 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga:
• Thanked the Commission for their time.
• Asked what the impact of these guidelines would be if a catastrophic event should occur to their
building such as if it were to burn down. Would they be prevented from rebuilding.
• Stated that the Task Force was started in 1995 and focused on road improvements rather than being
a broad -based Task Force.
• Said that this speaks loudly of zoning changes because it changes from allowed to not - allowed uses.
Saratoga Planning Commission inutes of June 12, 2002 Page 17
• Stated that the City needs to notify commercial owners and that she hopes further input is provided
by more commercial owners.
• Said that this proposal restricts some commercial viability and would restrict redevelopment of
current property.
• Stated that the scenario provided by the Consultant is based upon three parcels with a total of three
to five acres.
• Said that these Guidelines would have an adverse effect and asked that they be reconsidered and
reworked.
Mr. Jeff Walker, 20451 Seagull Way, Saratoga:
• Said that the public right -of -way improvements are great. They were sorely needed and are greatly
appreciated.
• Said that he would hate to see money spent on the roadway without also having future
improvements to the private properties along that roadway.
• Said that these Guidelines would help achieve consistency as there are not currently enough
requirements for commercial uses. They will be something that all can tolerate and will provide
needed consistency.
• Said that a public forum would be a better format to receive public testimony rather than to have
more Task Force activity.
Mr. John Mallory, 12258 Kirkdale Drive, Saratoga:
• Said that he has resided in the area since 1965 and was a member of Council in the past.
• Said that he participated on the Task Force since 1995 and found there to be a lot of participation on
the Task Force, including some business people.
• Stated that this is a unique area with lots of housing density.
• Declared that this is an opportunity to tie things together and unify and make the area more
attractive with some sort of vision.
• Stated that there has been excellent help from the consultant and the values of these commercial
properties will increase as a result of the roadway improvements.
• Said that before there are public hearings, more study and understanding is needed to not just create
housing but to create an area.
• Stated that the Task Force is passing the baton to the Planning Commission for more work.
Mr. Lee Murray, 19466 Miller Court, Saratoga:
• Said that he has resided in the area since 1964 and Chairs the Saratoga Arts Commission, of which
there were three members on the Task Force.
• Said that he got his first look at the Guidelines in May.
• Said he is keenly interested in a program to develop community identity, including public art.
• Stated that he believes that public art in this area can provide a cornerstone for public art in the City.
• Suggested that funding for public art could come from a variety of sources.
• Proposed a percentage of fees (from half to two percent) be allocated to the purchase of public art.
This is done in other communities including Walnut Creek, Brentwood and others.
Acting Chair Kurasch said that this is a good suggestion and encouraged Mr. Murray to bring his
proposal in written form.
Director Tom Sullivan suggested that Mr. Murray work with the staff liaison.
Saratoga Planning Commissioi_ nutes of June 12, 2002 Page 18
Commissioner Hunter suggested that Mr. Murray provide a sample Ordinance from one of the other
communities with this program in place.
Mr. Lee Murray said he would be happy to do so.
Ms. Sue Mallory, 12258 Kirkdale Drive, Saratoga:
• Identified herself as a 30 year resident who has been on the Task Force since 1995.
• Provided a copy of the Saratoga News with an letter to the editor on this subject.
• Agreed that there is a need to beautify the area and move forward with these Guidelines.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked Ms. Mallory what the main problems with the compromises made.
Ms. Sue Mallory replied that the median strips were removed from the proposal in some areas.
Commissioner Barry asked what way Ms. Mallory would make it better.
Ms. Sue Mallory replied go back to business owners to see if open spaces are necessary or could they
use intersections.
Director Tom Sullivan explained that this compromise has been accepted by Council. If a full median
was installed, only right hand exits would be allowed and people would have to go to an intersection to
make a U -turn to go back in the other direction. He added that a real effort was made to come up with
something that would work for most people.
Ms. Zoe Alameda - Farotte:
• Stated that the City was wonderful in addressing the business owners concerns about the medians
and the compromise was approved by Council.
• Said that there was not a large group of commercial property owners present at the Task Force
meeting where the Gateway Design Guidelines were reviewed in May.
• Requested that the Task Force be reconvened and include more commercial property owners.
Mr. John Mallory said that there are different objectives between commercial property owners and
residential property owners. Said that staff has done a good job trying to get people to these Task Force
meetings.
Mr. Bob Eck, Consultant, said that a number of issues have been raised and that the Task Force has
tried to address these issues.
Commissioner Barry said that speakers tonight have raised questions regarding how to apply these
Gateway Design Guidelines to existing properties and buildings.
Director Tom Sullivan said that the next step following Public Hearings on the Guidelines would be to
turn them into Ordinance language. Added that the principal purpose of the Guidelines is to address
redevelopment.
Commissioner Hunter sought clarification that no one is proposing to tear this area out.
Saratoga Planning Commission nutes of June 12, 2002 Page 19
Director Tom Sullivan stated that the street improvements are underway and construction drawings are
being finalized.
Commissioner Zutshi asked if commercial property owners were notified.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that all property owners within 500 feet will be notified of all public
hearings. The work to this point was undertaken by a Task Force.
Commissioner Hunter suggested an area visit.
Director Tom Sullivan agreed that a site visit could be arranged closer to the Public Hearing date.
Acting Chair Kurasch suggested that written comments be solicited and that a Study Session might be
warranted.
Director Tom Sullivan stated that Study Sessions are typically used to introduce projects to the
Commission. That is what has occurred this evening as a Non - Public Hearing Item on tonight's
agenda. This discussion was intended to serve the function of a Study Session.
Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Eck whether there are any lots large enough to accommodate his
presented scenario.
Mr. Bob Eck replied no. Most are an acre or smaller, which are not viable for the scenario. It would
require a combination of parcels.
Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the scenario is not based upon an actual property but is simply
an example used to demonstrate different elements of the design guidelines.
Commissioner Barry stated that the scenario really did accomplish that goal. Asked Mr. Eck if he has
experience with a community that does not have Redevelopment funds.
Mr. Bob Eck replied that most of his experience is through private sector redevelopment.
Director Tom Sullivan said that the direction from Council was to bring both portions of the Gateway
plan forward together. However, the Commission needs to take that amount of time it feels is necessary
to reach a fair agreement for everybody.
Ms. Danielle Surden, 14234 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga:
• Identified herself as being the City of Saratoga's Economic Development Coordinator.
• Assured that notification efforts of commercial property and business owners were extensive and
that she walked the Gateway Corridor three times to personally hand out meeting notices.
• Said that she maintains the list and continues to notify of all activity.
Acting Chair asked Director Sullivan what happens next.
Director Tom Sullivan said that the Commission must give staff direction. If the Task Force continues
work, he encouraged the Commission to appoint two Commissioners to participate.
Saratoga Planning Commissioi mutes of June 12, 2002
Page 20
Commissioner Garakani said that the Task Force has been meeting for a long time. Said that it would
be nice to distribute the Draft Guidelines so that everyone has the chance to review them and bring up
any issues at the Public Hearings. Did not recommend a continuation of the Task Force.
Commissioner Hunter disagreed and said there she sees no harm in reconvening another meeting of the
Task Force.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked if there is funding for another meeting.
Director Tom Sullivan said that would not be a problem.
Commissioner Barry said that if the Commission's Public Hearing will occur in September, the Task
Force can reconvene before that time.
Director Tom Sullivan said that he can make sure that all who attended at least one meeting of the Task
Force will receive a copy of the draft guidelines.
Commissioner Barry supported one more Task Force meeting with broad notification and handout
materials distributed.
Acting Chair Kurasch suggested selecting the Public Hearing date.
Director Sullivan suggested the second meeting in September.
DIRECTOR'S ITEMS
There were no Director's Items.
COMMISSION ITEMS
Tree Subcommittee
Acting Chair Kurasch advised that the Subcommittee would like to meet with Director Sullivan.
Commissioner Garakani proposed including Barrie Coates.
Director Sullivan suggested a meeting with him first before including Mr. Coates as a consultant.
Commissioner Barry suggested a Study Session with Barrie Coates or having a presentation from him
as part of the Retreat.
Design Review Subcommittee
Commissioner Hunter said that she has a conflict with the scheduled Design Review Subcommittee
meeting.
Library Update
Saratoga Planning Commission. nutes of June 12, 2002
Page 21
Commissioner Zutshi said that she attended the Library fieldtrip. The project is coming along and in a
couple of months the walls will be in place.
Commissioner Hunter asked if the completion date is still September 2003.
M1crP11nnen11C
Commissioner Garakani advised that he would be absent for one month and would miss the July 24 1h
and August 1" meetings.
Commissioner Hunter advised that she would miss the first meeting in July.
Acting Chair Kurasch commended Director Tom Sullivan for the acceptance of the Housing Element.
COMMUNICATIONS
Written — Minutes from Regular City Council Meetings of March 20, April 17 and May 7, 2002.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Acting Chair Kurasch adjourned the meeting at 10:53 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for
Wednesday, June 26, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, June 26, 2002
PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Acting Chair Kurasch called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Roupe
Absent: Commissioner Jackman and Zutshi
Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Planner Christy Oosterhous and Planner Ann Welsh
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of June 12, 2002.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the
regular Planning Commission minutes of June 12, 2002, were approved as
submitted with minor corrections to pages 6, 7 and 10.
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter and Kurasch
NOES: None
ABSENT: Jackman and Zutshi
ABSTAIN: Roupe
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Antoinette Romeo, 12848 Pierce Road, Saratoga:
• Raised the issue of the recent prohibition of U -turns at a nearby intersection near Pierce Road and
asked that U -turns be legalized at that intersection once again.
• Explained that since U -turns were no longer permitted, there are many drivers that turn onto Pierce
Road to make a turnaround, often using her driveway entrance to do so.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that this matter is within the jurisdiction of the Public Safety
Committee and offered to pass this concern onto its staff liaison, Paula Reed.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this
meeting was properly posted on June 16, 2002.
Saratoga Planning Commissit iinutes of June 26, 2002 Page 2
REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS
Director Tom Sullivan announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by
filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the
decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b).
CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar Items.
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1
DR -00 -051 & BSA -00 -003 (503 -30 -002) — WALKER, 13800 Pierce Road: Request for Design
Review and Building Site Approval to construct a two -story single- family residence on a 19,210 square
foot vacant lot. The floor area of the proposed residence and attached two -car garage is 3,609 square
feet. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The site is zoned Hillside Residential.
(OOSTERHOUS)
Acting Chair Kurasch stated that concerns were raised at the Commission's site visit about a lack of
story poles to demonstrate impacts to the area from this proposed new residence. Stated that she would
propose opening up this item for Public Hearing and asking the applicant if he would be willing to
accept a continuance and arrange for the placement of story poles on his property.
Acting Chair Kurasch opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:15 p.m.
Mr. Thomas Walker, Applicant and Property Owner, 13800 Pierce Road, Saratoga:
• Informed the Commission that he was notified just three weeks ago by email regarding the need to
install story poles.
• Advised that he has had difficulty finding a contractor who is willing to install story poles.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked Mr. Thomas Walker if he is amenable to a continuance.
Mr. Thomas Walker replied yes.
Director Sullivan advised that the next scheduled meeting is scheduled for July 10`" and asked Mr.
Thomas Walker if two weeks would give him adequate time to arrange the installation of the story
poles. If not, he suggested the second July meeting.
Mr. Thomas Walker replied that he was not certain if he would find someone to install the story poles at
all since he has already spoken with five different contractors, none of who were interested in the job of
installing story poles. They told him that it is expensive and not something they care to do.
Director Sullivan offered to find out which contractors installed the more recent story poles for other
recent projects in Saratoga.
Saratoga Planning Commissit linutes of June 26, 2002 Page 3
Commissioner Roupe suggested continuing this item to the July 10`x' meeting. If at that time the story
poles have not yet been installed, the item could be continued again to another meeting date. Explained
to Mr. Thomas Walker that this is a sensitive site because of its location on a Hillside lot and that story
poles are helpful to the Commission to see elevations.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the
Planning Commission continued consideration of DR -00 -051 and BSA -00 -003
(13800 Pierce Road) to the next Planning Commission meeting of July 10, 2002, to
give the applicant sufficient time to have story poles installed on the property:
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Roupe
NOES: None
ABSENT: Jackman and Zutshi
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.2
Application #02 -020 (410 -40 -018) — HUYNH, 15120 Quito Road: Request for Design Review
Approval to demolish an existing 2,214 square foot single- family residence on a 43,342 square foot lot.
The floor area of the new residence, including the basement and attached garage, will be 6,937 square
feet. The maximum height of the residence will be 25 feet. The site is located in the R -1- 40,000
zoning district. (WELSH)
Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to construct on a triangular- shaped
property.
• Explained that the applicant would demolish the existing single -story residence and construct a new
two -story residence in an Italian Villa style with an attached three -car garage.
• Added that the necessary findings have been made.
• Said that the property is a wooded lot with one neighbor to the south. This neighbor is not impacted
by this proposed new home.
• Stated that the new home would be placed on the same relative footprint and that the natural
landscaping would be preserved. A new driveway will require the removal of five trees.
• Said that various elements have been incorporated into the design to minimize the perception of
bulk.
• Recommended approval with conditions, including a requirement to obtain a permit from the Santa
Clara Valley Water District, meet geotechnical requirements and provide a landscape plan with
replacement trees and a buffer with the neighboring property.
Commissioner Barry asked how the requirement to remove existing paving by hand would be
guaranteed.
Planner Ann Welsh replied that this would be verified through a letter from the Arborist.
Commissioner Barry asked if there would be a supervising Arborist.
Planner Ann Welsh said that the Arborist would simply verify that the condition had been met.
Saratoga Planning Commissit ,Iinutes of June 26, 2002 Page 4
Commissioner Roupe proposed a requirement for a Project Arborist to ensure that all conditions are met
and to guard the safety of the trees on site.
Planner Ann Welsh agreed that this requirement could be made a condition of approval.
Commissioner Garakam reminded that on occasion a bond is required to guarantee the well being of
trees.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the numbers for the total square footage do not add up properly
because the penalty for interior heights over 15 feet, which are required to be double counted, are not
included.
Planner Ann Welsh assured that this would be corrected.
Commissioner Barry asked staff to clarify for those in the audience what the penalty means.
Planner Ann Welsh explained that in the Zoning Ordinance it states that internal heights above 15 feet
are double counted against the allowable floor area. Thus, 217 square feet in this home that have 18-
foot high ceilings will be counted twice.
Acting Chair Kurasch opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:26 p.m.
Mr. Allan Nikitin, Project Architect:
• Told the Commission that the applicants, who had plans for a remodel that they did not like, hired
him in December. Instead, they made the decision to demolish the existing structure and rebuild.
• Stated that every home along Quito Road is unique.
• Said that the approach from Quito Road requires the placement of the driveway as they are
proposing is because it is the safest location from the road for this triangularly shaped lot.
• Said that with the lot shape and creek easement, the building area on this property is limited. There
is not a lot of choice for the placement of a house.
• Added that some existing paving that will be removed from the site will offset the new driveway.
• Pointed out that the one neighbor to the right has a single -story home.
• Added that this new home will have no windows that overlook this neighbor.
• Explained that the Arborist recommended removal of some trees near Quito Road and that all will
be replaced.
Commissioner Barry thanked Mr. Allan Nikitin for the proposed use of pavers with sand for the
driveway.
Acting Chair Kurasch expressed concern over the length of the driveway. She also asked for the size of
the buffer.
Mr. Allan Nikitin replied that the buffer is about 25 feet.
Acting Chair Kurasch:
• Stated that she is concerned about losing a bit of the front buffer and the amount of proposed
paving.
Saratoga Planning Commissh Qinutes of June 26, 2002 Page 5
• Added that the proposed pavers are not as pervious a material as she would like to see used.
• Suggested a reduction in the driveway.
Mr. Allan Nikitin reminded that they are taking paving out near the creek and that they are offsetting
on -site paving by removing some and by the use of pavers for the driveway and turnabout area.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked about the minimum width required for the driveway access and questioned
if it is 14 feet.
Mr. Allan Nikitin replied that it is variable depending upon Fire Department requirements for site
access.
Commissioner Roupe proposed using a more pervious material for the parking area near the creek.
Mr. Allan Nikitin advised that this is a sensitive area near the creek and that it would be more
disturbing to remove this existing and established paving than it would be to keep in it place.
Commissioner Hunter pointed out that Barrie Coates' report recommended moving the placement of the
house due to impacts to Tree #19. Asked what would be done with that tree. She added that there are
some magnificent Sycamore trees on this site.
Acting Chair Kurasch:
• Identified Tree #19 as a Coast Live Oak and that this tree is slated to be removed and replaced.
• Asked Mr. Allan Nikitin if they would be willing to plant drought tolerant native materials with drip
irrigation in the area between the setback from the bank and the house.
Mr. Allan Nikitin replied that they would be so willing.
Mr. Paul Huynh, Owner and Applicant, 15120 Quito Road, Saratoga:
• Stated that he would have a landscape architect include that requirement in his landscape plan.
Acting Chair Kurasch added that the Commission would also be seeking a Supervising Arborist.
Mr. Richard Anderson, 14971 Quito Road, Saratoga:
• Stated that he is the nearest neighbor and that this site is located to the northwest of his property.
His home is 1,000 feet back and this home will have no impact on him.
• Added that he welcomes any improvement.
• Explained that he does have objections over too many two -story homes being constructed.
• Said that his neighbors have done an excellent job with their home design and their proposed
landscaping is good.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked if a survey of one versus two -story homes was conducted in this area.
Planner Ann Welsh:
• Replied that only one house is visible and that this home is a single -story that is elevated. Another
nearby home is two - story.
Saratoga Planning Commissi( linutes of June 26, 2002 Page 6
• Advised that she did not do an inventory of one versus two -story homes since many homes along
Quito Road are not even visible since they are set back quite a distance from the road.
Mr. Paul Huynh pointed out that there are indeed several two -story homes in the immediate area.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked if the applicant had considered shortening his driveway by moving the
house forward to the north.
Mr. Allan Nikitin explained that to do so would encroach on a required setback to the creek. Reiterated
that the shape of this lot limits the location of a house on this site.
Director Tom Sullivan added that moving the house would increase the geotechnical issues. To meet
the requirements of the geotechnical consultants, the applicant eliminated a proposed basement and
moved away from the creek.
Acting Chair Kurasch closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:47 p.m.
Commissioner Roupe stated that the design and placement of this house are appropriate and that he
would support this project with the conditions that a project Arborist be retained and that indigenous
species be used. Otherwise he finds the project acceptable.
Commissioner Barry concurred and asked staff to pay attention to the two -story issue with future
applications. Asked for clarification about the setback from the creek.
Planner Ann Welsh advised that she has spoken with Santa Clara Valley Water District and forwarded
plans but has not yet received comments.
Commissioner Barry said that it appears issues have been juggled and something reasonable has been
reached.
Commissioner Hunter asked what would prevent this owner from changing the area along the creek.
Director Sullivan replied that one result would be that a final occupancy would not be approved. He
added that the Water District looks after creeks and that generally response is to complaints.
Commissioner Garakani said that everything looks good and that he has no problem with a two -story
here.
Commissioner Hunter agrees that the project looks good.
Acting Chair Kurasch concurred and stressed the importance of having the Arborist supervise the site's
construction activities.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that the City's Arborist does a final inspection and suggested that a
construction staging area be designated on site away from trees.
Acting Chair Kurasch added that it would be wise to install a barrier to keep vehicles and storage away
from the creek right -of -way.
Saratoga Planning Commissit linutes of June 26, 2002 Page 7
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that there will be vehicles in that area during construction.
Director Tom Sullivan clarified that this vehicle traffic would be limited to existing paved area that is to
remain on site.
Planner Ann Welsh added that the Water District would make recommendations for construction
processes to prevent erosion.
Director Tom Sullivan said that a possible condition of approval might be to require that tree protective
fencing enclose the largest area feasible to provide maximum protection possible to all existing
vegetation.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked staff to make sure and verify that the driveway width is at the minimum
width possible.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the
Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval to allow the construction of
a new residence on property located at 15120 Quito Road with the added
Conditions:
• The applicant shall retain a Project Arborist at his own expense;
• A landscape plan should include drought tolerant and indigenous materials,
subject to approval by the City Arborist;
• A staging area shall be established and construction fencing shall be installed to
the maximum extent possible to protect trees along the creek bank; and
• Design the driveway and turnaround to minimize the use of impervious surface
to meet the minimum standard acceptable to the Fire Department.
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Roupe
NOES: None
ABSENT: Jackman and Zutshi
ABSTAIN: None
Acting Chair Kurasch reminded that there is a 15 -day appeal period.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.3
Application #02 -056 (397 -06 -080) — CHANDRA, 18595 Woodbank Way: Request for Design
Review Approval for an addition to a 4,765 square foot single - family residence on a 44,451 square foot
lot. The addition will add approximately 422 square feet to the main floor, 472 to the lower level and
441 square feet to the new garage. The maximum height of the residence will be 26 feet. The site is
located in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. (WELSH)
Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows:
• Stated that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval.
• Added that the approval is required because the floor area ratio exceeds 6,000 square feet or more.
Saratoga Planning CommissK Iinutes of June 26, 2002 Page 8
• Informed that the proposal would add 894 square feet to the second story and add an attached
garage.
• Said that the proposal minimizes the perception of bulk due to the isolated lot and low -lying style of
the house. The home consists of natural earthtones and follows the contours of the property. There
are no visible neighbors and no views are impacted.
• Recommended approval.
Commissioner Roupe advised that the plans are not clear as to what supports the terrace feature,
whether it would be enclosed space or columns.
Planner Ann Welsh said that she spoke with the Architect and they plan to support the terrace with
columns but that the actual design and engineering has not been worked out yet.
Commissioner Roupe said that he would propose a condition that the area below the terrace not be
enclosed.
Acting Chair Kurasch opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:07 p.m.
Mr. Ashok Chandra, Owner and Applicant, 18595 Woodbank Way, Saratoga:
• Said that they have worked hard to preserve the intent of the building and that the additions are
within the decking.
• Added that the garage would be placed on an existing pad of concrete and that they would not be
disturbing any trees.
• Said that they plan to take out a section of concrete and landscape that area.
• Said that they tried to be consistent with the current building and that they have an improved design.
• Stated that his architect is available.
Commissioner Roupe asked the architect if he supports a condition that states the terrace will be
supported by columns and that the space below shall not be enclosed.
Mr. James Baldwin, Project Architect, replied yes.
Acting Chair Kurasch closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:10 p.m.
Commissioner Hunter stated that the project, with its remote location, is very nice.
Commissioner Roupe said that he is comfortable with the project and finds the design pleasing and
acceptable.
Acting Chair Kurasch concurred.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the
Planning Commission granted a Design Review Approval to allow the addition to
an existing home at 18595 Woodbank Way with the added condition that the deck
be supported by columns and that the space below that deck not be enclosed.
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Roupe
NOES: None
ABSENT: Jackman and Zutshi
Saratoga Planning Commissh .1inutes of June 26, 2002 Page 9
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.4
Application #02 -082 (Citywide) — CITY OF SARATOGA: The proposed Zoning Ordinance
Amendment would establish Development Standards for Mixed -Use Developments. These standards
address density, unit size, ratio of commercial square footage to residential square foot square footage
and compatibility to existing residential and/or commercial development. (SULLIVAN)
Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows:
• Stated that the new Housing Element for the General Plan received approval by Council last week.
A letter from the State advises that the Housing Element substantially conforms with State law.
• Added that the voters previously approved a moratorium (Measure G) to control the conversion of
commercially zoned property into residential uses.
• Advised that the City is allotted its "Fair Share Housing" from ABAG. The built units that are
counted including the Oddfellows Retirement Home, for which Phase I is completed and Phase II is
set to begin.
• Said that two kinds of second units were considered. One would be an amnesty program to legalize
those units constructed without approvals. However, the State denied that proposal and said that
such units could not be counted unless it can be proved that these units were never counted in
previous Census counts. The second proposal was a streamlined process to construct new
secondary living units.
• Advised that the City of Saratoga still needs 55 to 60 housing units to meet its Housing Element
Plan and one constraint is that Council does not have the ability to increase density in existing
residential areas. That leaves Commercial areas for potential new housing locations.
• Stated that in May 2001, Council directed staff to look into placing some residential units in every
Commercial zone in the City and to draft a Zoning Ordinance for Mixed -Use. There are seven
bullets in the Housing Element to be true to.
• Said that staff is proposing that the Commission forward a recommendation to Council to end all
current Commercial zones and replace them with a Mixed -Use zoning designation.
• Assured that this change does not mean that every project in the Mixed -Use zone would have to
include housing but simply that it could be included. This is a citywide proposal.
• Stated that staff could have relied simply on a single ad in the Saratoga News to notify of this
evening's hearing but undertook the task to add a 2,000 -piece mailing.
• Added that staff has fielded lots of phone calls on the matter.
• Reminded that the Commission's action is to forward a recommendation to Council. Council will
subsequently conduct its own hearing.
Commissioner Roupe stated that there is great potential for confusion with the Gateway Design
Guidelines. Asked that the Commission keep its focus and keep the two distinct.
Director Tom Sullivan:
• Stated that the Gateway Design Standards were discussed at the last Commission meeting and that
a hearing has been scheduled for the second Planning Commission meeting in September.
Planning Commissi., Qinutes of June 26, 2002
Page 10
Additionally, another Task Force meeting has been set for July 26th and their recommendations will
be forwarded to the Commission in August.
• Added that anyone that attended one or more of the previous Task Force meetings was notified by
mail of this pending Task Force meeting.
Commissioner Barry said that she saw on the news that some cities are in trouble with the State for not
having an updated Housing Element and thanked Director Sullivan for his leadership and preventing
Saratoga from that fate.
Acting Chair Kurasch opened the Public Hearing on Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:30 p.m.
Acting Chair Kurasch read a letter to the audience from an owner of the Saratoga Square Office
Building in which the writer asks that the City allow repairs to existing buildings and not turn them into
a non- conforming use. A second letter from Mr. Thomas B. Sander, President of the Saratoga Oaks
Homeowner's Association, also expresses concern about the proposed Mixed -Use designation.
Director Tom Sullivan stated out that Mr. Sander's letter shows his confusion between the Mixed -Use
Zoning and the Gateway Design Guidelines.
Mr. John Keenan, 22215 Mt. Eden Road, Saratoga:
• Stated that he is the President of Saratoga Square.
• Expressed his belief that this proposal is the start of a "slippery slope."
• Said that if the Gateway becomes Mixed -Use, he could not rebuild what exists on the property.
Commissioner Roupe asked Director Sullivan if Mr. Keenan would be precluded from rebuilding with
the Mixed -Use designation.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that this Mixed -Use Ordinance would not do that. This Ordinance adds
another allowable use. Mr. Keenan is expressing his concerns about changes in addition to this
Ordinance that might occur in the future.
Commissioner Roupe stated that the Housing Element requires a Mixed -Use designation that allows
residential but does not require it.
Ms. Zoe Alameda, 12341 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga:
• Commended Director Tom Sullivan for the City's Housing Element.
• Said that she has concerns over a Citywide overlay.
• Read a quote attributed to Director Tom Sullivan in a recent article, "...to create an environment
that encourages developers to come to Saratoga."
• Asked that the City withdraw the Gateway Area from these standards until the Gateway Design
Standards are finalized.
Commissioner Roupe explained to Ms. Alameda that the Commission is not in a position to exclude the
Gateway Area from this Mixed -Use Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Zoe Alameda said that perhaps the two could be combined.
Saratoga Planning Commissic Minutes of June 26, 2002 Page 11
Director Tom Sullivan advised that the City has a policy in its adopted Housing Element and assured
that the Council's goal is to protect neighborhoods. He added that the landscaping requirements were
the outgrowth of the Task Force meetings and that they are not yet set in stone but rather will continue
to be worked on with this Citywide Mixed -Use Zoning Ordinance.
Commissioner Roupe said that Ms. Alameda has a legitimate point.
Director Tom Sullivan said that he agrees.
Commissioner Barry said that she does not find that specifics are given.
Director Tom Sullivan pointed her to the Draft Ordinance. While specifics are not outlined in the staff
report they are included in the Draft Ordinance.
Ms. Zoe Alameda stated that these requirements are quite restrictive to commercial uses with its limits
on walls, fencing, etc.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked Director Tom Sullivan for the purpose in those types of restrictions.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that the reason is to keep commercial areas open from the street and to
provide shared parking and access.
Acting Chair Kurasch said that this is much broader zoning and that there is room for this to fit with the
Gateway Design Guidelines.
Ms. Antoinette Romeo, 12848 Pierce Road, Saratoga:
• Thanked Director Tom Sullivan who clarified some of her questions.
• Stated that she is a Planner by profession.
• Suggested the restriction on fence height to a certain height rather than to prohibit them outright.
• Suggested that the residential units be rental units only.
• Asked if there is a State mandated requirement for size of living unit.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that the State does allow some latitude in the size of the units.
Ms. Antoinette Romeo suggested adding text "or developed" as per the staff report and asked if the
20,000 square foot minimum area includes the residence.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that this number represents the land area.
Ms. Antoinette Romeo suggested that full CEQA review be required to assess issues such as traffic,
soils and seismic.
Director Tom Sullivan said that he would have to see whether some instances might be Categorically
Exempt.
Mr. Thomas B. Sander, 14652 Placida Court, Saratoga:
• Stated that he wrote one of the letters read by the Chair at the beginning of this hearing item.
Saratoga Planning Commissik 7inutes of June 26, 2002 Page 12
• Said that while he heard that this Mixed -Use zoning would include all commercial zoning the area
around the Argonaut Shopping Center was not included and he wondered why.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that the State required the City to identify sites where such development
might occur within five years. Council removed the Argonaut Shopping Center because it is not likely
for redevelopment within that time frame.
Ms. Joyce Hlava, 14662 Springer Road, Saratoga:
• Said that she can appreciate what is underway since she is a former Commissioner and Mayor.
• Said that she has concerns that Mixed -Uses on sites that border residential properties not include
restaurants, bars or liquor stores due to the potential for noise and later hours.
• Stated that she has no problem with density but that there is not a lot of high density in Saratoga.
• Advised that there are pre - existing noise issues with Dr. Fitzsimmon's property.
• Added that sound walls would be a degradation of her area and that there are better ways to mitigate
noise without tall sound walls, including landscaping.
Commissioner Roupe sought clarification that this Mixed -Use zoning would not preclude a need for
Use Permits.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that these uses would require Use Permits. Food service businesses
require Use Permits.
Mr. Bob Estler, 18644 Paseo Lodo, Saratoga:
• Said that he would like to see more public noticing including ads within the Saratoga News.
• Added that he too is concerned that Argonaut is excluded.
• Suggested a minimum in low - income housing unit since he worked hard to achieve a life in
Saratoga and does not feel that that privilege should be simply handed to others.
• Questioned what additional housing demands would be placed on the City in 2006.
• Stated a preference for senior housing since seniors are older, quieter and better neighbors.
• Pointed out potential traffic impacts.
• Suggested that alcohol sales be prohibited in Mixed -Use developments.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked Mr. Estler what he felt the impact of Mixed -Use development near his
home would be.
Mr. Bob Estler replied noise and traffic. He added that there is already a problem with traffic for
Gene's Market in his neighborhood. More density would mean more cars, louder cars since low -
income people spend a lot on their car stereos.
Mr. Paul Roland, 18761 Devon Avenue, Saratoga:
• Said that he resides adjacent to current commercial property.
• Said that he realizes tonight's issue is the Mixed -Use component.
• Stated that there are two issues regarding privacy for residences located adjacent to commercial
uses.
• Said he agrees that eight -foot tall sound walls are disturbing and not particularly effective. He has
one between him and the commercial property adjacent to his. Additionally, there is tremendous
Saratoga Planning Commissic linutes of June 26, 2002 Page 13
light incursion by lighting in parking lots. Since he has lost some trees that used to screen this
lighting, he now experiences "light trespass" onto his property.
• Identified himself as amateur astronomer.
Director Tom Sullivan asked Mr. Roland if his sound wall is made of masonry.
Mr. Paul Roland replied yes.
Commissioner Hunter said that she has heard that sound walls are not working and that redwood trees
work better to buffer noise when placed in front of a sound wall.
Mr. Paul Roland said that the wall helps deflect low sounds but not high sounds.
Mr. Russ Stanley, 12108 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga:
• Stated that the noticing for this hearing was inadequate and that he did not receive one although he
owns a two -acre commercial property in Saratoga.
• Said that this Mixed -Use Zoning has serious overlap with the Gateway Design Guidelines and that
they should be dealt with separately.
• Said that he spoke with Director Tom Sullivan today.
• Said that this Ordinance goes too far with its restrictions.
Director Tom Sullivan stated that Council wanted a certified Housing Element but were not giving up
existing or potential commercial land uses.
Commissioner Roupe reiterated that this Mixed -Use zoning does not require residential but allows it.
The properties can remain totally commercial but gives some flexibility in the future.
Mr. Russ Stanley said that Director Tom Sullivan told him that his property is already considered
Mixed -Use when he does not feel it is so.
Director Tom Sullivan clarified that Mr. Stanley's property is the commercial portion of a site that was
developed with housing and commercial. The two uses were later sold separately. If this Ordinance
passes, Mr. Stanley's property has already benefited from the previous Mixed -Use development that
occurred and would not be eligible for further Mixed -Use development.
Commissioner Barry asked if this property was one parcel with the portion developed as residential.
Mr. Russ Stanley replied yes and they were sold separately. He purchased the commercial portion, a
commercial property that he purchased without restrictions.
Acting Chair Kurasch closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:30 p.m.
Commissioner Roupe stated that he has heard enough to suggest a continuance to track this Mixed -Use
Zoning Ordinance more closely with the Gateway Design Guidelines, perhaps they could proceed at a
parallel pace.
Director Tom Sullivan reminded that the Gateway Design Guidelines are now scheduled for Plannin
Commission hearing at the second meeting in September. The Task Force meetings again on July 26"
Saratoga Planning Commissit linutes of June 26, 2002 Page 14
and will provide a report to the Commission in August. Suggested that it might be more appropriate to
finish the Gateway Design Guidelines and then adjust the Mixed -Use Zoning Ordinance accordingly.
Commissioner Roupe asked if the Gateway will be an Ordinance.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that they are Design Guidelines.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that it is easy to change a Design Guideline.
Director Tom Sullivan suggested the second meeting in October (October 23rd) for the Public Hearing
on the Mixed -Use Zoning Ordinance.
Acting Chair Kurasch agreed that this schedule is prudent and agreed that as much noticing as possible
is advised. Added that she would like to see materials as early as possible in advance of the Public
Hearings.
Commissioner Barry proposed a better use of the City's website. Added that she wants as broad a
notice as possible and recommended that the public use the website for information.
Director Tom Sullivan said that he would place the draft Mixed -Use Ordinance on the website. Added
that noticing was provided to 2,000, an ad went into the Saratoga News and this hearing was posted on
the website and on the City's posting bulletin board. The State requires 300 -foot notices and Saratoga's
standard practice is to notice within 500 feet.
Acting Chair Kurasch said that 500 feet may not be enough and more noticing may be necessary.
Director Tom Sullivan reminded that the law simply requires a 1/4 -page ad for a citywide issue. The
mailed notices are not required.
Commissioner Barry stated that noticing itself is not effective and that word of mouth works better.
Director Tom Sullivan stated that since it appears the Commission has reached a consensus, the Chair
should reopen the Public Hearing and continue this matter to a date specific.
Commissioner Barry suggested that perhaps one Zoning Ordinance might not work for all commercial
areas, including the Gateway and Village that have specific issues, and that perhaps more than one
Ordinance might be required.
Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the Village Design Guidelines are mentioned in the Zoning
Ordinance specifically and that adopts those Guidelines. The Residential Design Handbook adopts
policies and techniques.
Commissioner Roupe asked if such specifics are required in the Ordinance.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that in the Housing Element, zoning is supposed to be specific.
Commissioner Barry asked if it is possible that there cannot be just one Ordinance for Mixed -Use
zoning.
Saratoga Planning Commissi( Iinutes of June 26, 2002 Page 15
Director Tom Sullivan said that if the Commission wants different standards for each specific zone, that
could be done.
Acting Chair Kurasch pointed out that the City has a Commercial Code that is specific and that the
purpose of the Ordinance is to designate kinds of uses. This is an overlay over the guidelines that are
already there.
Commissioner Hunter said that this is a highly specific Ordinance that includes a requirement for eight -
foot tall walls. Asked if these would be required in the Village.
Acting Chair Kurasch stated that the requirement for eight -foot walls could be changed. Asked staff to
prepare more scenarios to help provide an analysis of the impact of this Mixed -Use zoning over the
existing Commercial zoning.
Commissioner Roupe suggested that grandfathering or exceptions be considered.
Director Tom Sullivan said that Zoe Alameda bad previously said that she would not mind her property
being evaluated in developing these sample scenarios.
Commissioner Hunter pointed out that there are many important elections coming in November.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that SB910 is moving forward.
Commissioner Hunter said that this process can be slowed down a little bit.
Commissioner Roupe said that there is no effect from the upcoming election on these Zoning changes.
Commissioner Barry stated that there has to be some starting point to put on the table and focus the
discussion upon.
Acting Chair Kurasch reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:53 p.m.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the
Planning Commission continued consideration of the proposed Zoning Ordinance
Amendment to establish Development Standards for Mixed Use Developments to
the Planning Commission meeting of October 23, 2002.
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Roupe
NOES: None
ABSENT: Jackman and Zutshi
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner Roupe asked about noticing for the October hearing.
Director Tom Sullivan said he would look into it and perhaps a press release can be issued.
Saratoga Planning Commissit linutes of June 26, 2002 Page 16
DIRECTOR'S ITEMS
Director Tom Sullivan distributed the League of California Cities' Quarterly News.
COMMISSION ITEMS
Commissioner Hunter advised that she attended the Business Development Meeting.
Acting Chair Kurasch advised that the Subcommittee on Trees will try to meet before Director Tom
Sullivan leaves on vacation on July 12t ". Upon consultation with Director Sullivan and Commissioner
Garakani, the meeting will occur one day during the week of July 7th (final date to be confirmed), from
11:30 to 1:30 p.m., at City Hall and brown bag lunches will be provided.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that appointees from the Commission should be made to the Gateway
Task Force.
Commissioner Garakani recommended Commissioner Roupe.
Commissioner Roupe said he would check his calendar for July 261H
Commissioner Hunter said that if Commissioner Roupe could not attend she would.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked staff to include maximum allowed and minimum required data in future
staff reports as had previously been agreed.
Commissioner Barry advised that her Subcommittee is looking at the issue of staff reports.
COMMUNICATIONS
There were no communication items.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Acting Chair Kurasch adjourned the meeting at 10:02 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for
Wednesday, July 10, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, May 22, 2002
PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Chair Jackman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi
Absent: Commissioner Barry and Roupe
Staff: Director Tom Sullivan and Planner Lata Vasudevan
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of May 8, 2002.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the
regular Planning Commission minutes of May 8, 2002, were approved as
submitted.
AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barry and Roupe
ABSTAIN: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no Oral Communication Items
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this
meeting was properly posted on May 16, 2002.
REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS
Chair Jackman announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an
Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision,
pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b).
Saratoga Planning Commissic. Iinutes of May 22, 2002 Page 2
CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar Items.
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1
Application #02 -029 (397 -17 -014) ANDERSON, 19571 Farwell Avenue: Request for Design Review
Approval to demolish the main structure and construct a new 4,641 square foot single -story residence.
The height of the structure will be 26 feet. The existing guesthouse, greenhouse and workshop on the
site will remain. The 43,168 square foot site is located in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district.
(VASUDEVAN)
Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicant seeks approval to demolish a single - family residence and construct a new
4,641 square foot single - family residence with a maximum height of 26 feet.
• Described the new home as including cedar shingle roof and siding material.
• Said that a conceptual landscape plan was been provided that shows that no lawn will be placed
within 25 feet of the oak trees.
• Added that staff has included a Condition of Approval requiring a final landscape plan for review
and approval by the City's Arborist.
• Stated that this project complies with the requirements of the Residential Design Guidelines.
• Informed that there have been no concerns or objections raised by the neighbors.
• Recommended Approval and advised that the applicant is in the audience.
Commissioner Kurasch asked staff for the existing square footage of the home to be demolished.
Planner Lata Vasudevan said she would have to defer response to the applicant.
Commissioner Kurasch asked staff how the findings to support this application were reached. Asked
how the proposed roof structure could possibly be found compatible with the Residential Design
Handbook and expressed concern about the proposed roof design.
Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that she looked at the overall height of the roof. The feature of concern
to Commissioner Kurasch is located toward the center of the home and is rather set back.
Commissioner Kurasch said that that her main concern is the impact from the west elevation and
questions whether this design meets policy goals.
Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:11 p.m.
Mr. Park Miller, Project Architect, 327 Oak Meadow Drive, Los Gatos:
• Said that he would be happy to answer any questions.
• Clarified the west elevation by saying that he has tried to break up that roof feature with three
separate articulations to break up the perceived mass. He added that the gable elements are
expressed as a cross element.
• Stated that existing heavy landscaping will help mellow the impact on the side property line.
Saratoga Planning Commissic linutes of May 22, 2002 Page 3
Chair Jackman asked Mr. Miller if he works with the landscaping in his design.
Mr. Park Miller said that he coordinates with the Landscape Architect, who is available this evening.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Miller to explain why there is need for a 26 -foot high roof on a
single story house. Added that there is an inherent impact.
Mr. Park Miller:
• Stated that the character that they are trying to achieve requires a sloped roof.
• Added that the ridge point is centered in the mass of the structure and that the plane is inclining
away from the eye.
• Said that he has tried to articulate this feature and that the height requirement is a direct result of the
roof slope and the desires of the owners.
• Assured that there will be less impact from this home than from a 26 -foot high two -story home.
Commissioner Zutshi asked if the pitch line proposed is the same as appears on the sample board.
Mr. Park Miller replied somewhat. He added that the sample board is only intended to depict the color
and texture of the roofing material rather than the roof pitch. The photo depicts a roof that is taller and
more massive than they are proposing.
Chair Jackman pointed to Page 3 of the plans, which show the roof as being broken up and offering
some variation.
Commissioner Kurasch said that she is not questioning the variation but rather the need for the 26 -foot
height.
Mr. Park Miller said that the highest elevation is limited to between 25 and 30 feet in length at the
highest ridge. He added that it is also inset from the property lines.
Commissioner Kurasch stated that the rest of the house is more interesting that that elevation.
Ms. Micki Anderson, Applicant /Owner, 19571 Farwell Avenue, Saratoga:
• Pointed out that the orientation of the neighbor's home is away from theirs and their tennis court
abuts this side of the property.
• She added that there is quite a lot of screening.
Mr. Peter Shaw, Project Landscape Architect:
• Stated that the finish floor level is actually lower than street level, which will help make any impact
from the high ridgeline appear fairly insignificant.
Chair Jackman asked Mr. Shaw if he plans any landscaping beneath the oak trees.
Mr. Peter Shaw assured that his landscape plan will adhere to the report and recommendations made by
Arborist Barrie Coates.
Planner Lata Vasudevan asked Mr. Miller to provide the square footage for the existing residence.
Saratoga Planning Commissi( linutes of May 22, 2002 Page 4
Mr. Park Miller advised that he does not have the precise figure but that it is in the low 3,OOOs.
Planner Lata Vasudevan offered the square footage as 3,176 square feet.
Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:25 p.m.
Commissioner Garakani said that based upon the design, this proposal looks good. The roof pitch has
been explained to his satisfaction and he is prepared to support this project.
Commissioner Zutshi said that she had concern about the square footage but that staff has cleared that
matter up by explaining that attic space is not counted as livable space.
Commissioner Hunter stated that the design of this home is very nice. She added that she has always
loved the existing home on this property when passing by and is sorry to see it go.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Clarified that she always has concern about maximum roof heights and maximum square footage.
• Agreed that this home is nicely designed and very consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.
• Said that she did have some concern about the home's size but finds it very nice and believes it will
be a nice addition.
Chair Jackman agreed and said that the fact that the home is lower than street level will help reduce the
impact of the height. Stated that this home is a nice addition that goes with its neighborhood. Added
that she too found the original home very nice.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the
Planning Commission granted a Design Review Approval to allow the demolition of
the main structure and construction of a new 4,641 square foot single -story
residence with a maximum height of 26 feet on property at 19571 Farwell Avenue
AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barry and Roupe
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Jackman reminded that there is a 15 -day appeal period before this action is final.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO. 2
Application #02 -040 (503 -20 -083) — CRYAN, 20870 Verde Vista Lane: Request for Design Review
Approval to construct a 5,118 square foot two -story residence with a 602 square foot basement. The
height of the structure will be 26 feet. The proposed residence with replace a two -story home that was
demolished in conjunction with a previous Administrative Design Review Approval. The 43,264
(gross) square foot site is located in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. (VASUDEVAN)
Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows:
Saratoga Planning Commissic imutes of May 22, 2002 Page 5
• Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval to allow the construction of a two -
story, 5,118 square foot single - family residence with a 602 square foot basement and a maximum
height of 26 feet.
• Added that a demolition and grading and drainage plan were approved with a previous application
for this site. Therefore, the site is currently vacant.
• Stated that the applicant has submitted a new design for the replacement home that consists of a
contemporary style home with a series of low pitch rooflines.
• Informed that the applicant has spoken with all his neighbors and one has provided a letter of
support.
• Said that staff finds this proposal to be compatible with the neighborhood in style and height.
• Pointed out that the City's Arborist has provided recommendations for tree protection and that staff
has added Conditions of Approval for a final landscape and grading plan for the site.
• Said that nine trees are at risk of damage and Tree No. 4 would have to be removed with this new
design to accommodate the driveway.
• Stated that the proposal complies with the Residential Design Guidelines and staff is recommending
approval.
Commissioner Zutshi asked if the basement being placed beneath the covered porch complies with the
newly revised Basement Ordinance.
Chair Jackman advised that porch is part of the square footage of the house.
Planner Lata Vasudevan clarified that the porch is not counted as square footage but does represent a
part of the house's footprint and foundation.
Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that the porch has a roof and one wall and not three walls.
Chair Jackman asked staff for clarification that the new Basement Ordinance regulations are not yet in
effect.
Director Tom Sullivan replied no. He pointed to page A -4 of the plans, which demonstrate that the
porch is partially enclosed on two sides and is a part of the house's footprint.
Chair Jackman clarified for the audience that new standards are pending that require basements to fit
within a structures footprint. This proposal meets that requirement.
Commissioner Garakani asked about the energy dissipaters.
Chair Jackman explained that these are part of the property's drainage system.
Commissioner Kurasch asked for the height of the element over the front doors.
Planner Lata Vasudevan replied 17 to 18 feet.
Commissioner Kurasch asked why no story poles were erected.
Planner Lata Vasudevan answered that had there been neighbor concerns raised regarding view
impacts, story poles would have been required.
Saratoga Planning Commissi� linutes of May 22, 2002 Page 6
Director Tom Sullivan reminded the Commission that their instruction to staff was to use their best
judgement on when to require story poles.
Commissioner Garakam agreed that no other home is impacted by this building.
Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that the home above this one might have view impacts.
Commissioner Garakani said that that home looks down on this site.
Commissioner Hunter agreed that there is potential for view impacts on that home and that it is possible
that this neighbor does not realize that potential.
Commissioner Garakam stated that there are lots of trees to screen. He added that the story poles are
not just for the benefit of neighbors but also serve to assist the Commission in considering potential
impacts.
Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:41 p.m.
Mr. Ghunam Azad, Project Architect, Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road:
• Said that the demolished home consisted of 3,110 square feet.
• Stated that the project site could accommodate a 5,142 square foot home and that they are proposing
a 5,118 square foot structure with a 602 square foot basement and a building height of 26 feet.
• Advised that the front door feature is 18 feet high.
• Said that the roof slope is lower, five to 12. They will use a flat concrete charcoal tile.
• Added that the porch, depicted on Plan A -5 is open on three sides.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Azad to explain how this design is compatible with the area.
Mr. Ghunam Azad replied that the design is not out of character and that there are similar and
compatible styles of architecture in the area with similar features.
Commissioner Kurasch expressed concern with the front element as being too large. Pointed out that
this area is very low key. Agreed that the fact the project is on a flag lot helps a bit.
Mr. Ghunam Azad stressed that the property is not visible from the street.
Commissioner Kurasch said that based upon what is already in the area, the size of this home is a
concern as well as the height. Pointed out that there are but six or so two -story homes in the entire
immediate area.
Mr. Ghunam Azad pointed out that two - stories are permitted.
Commissioner Kurasch said they allowed at the discretion of this Commission.
Mr. Ghunam Azad said that he was under the impression that they could design a two -story and that
they will comply with all requirements.
Saratoga Planning Commissic Iinutes of May 22, 2002 Page 7
Commissioner Garakani asked why this application is before the Commission.
Director Tom Sullivan replied due to the size and height of the house. Per Code, an Administrative
Design Review can be approved if a home meets the allowable square footage, is a single story and
under 18 feet in height. Any proposed structure over 18 feet in height requires Planning Commission
Design Review Approval.
Chair Jackman expressed concern about the amount of impervious surface (9,636 square feet) for this
site, including a long driveway, and questioned whether the use of pervious materials might be
considered.
Mr. Ghunam Azad said that he would consider such a change of material.
Director Tom Sullivan advised the Commission that it could impose such a requirement and told Mr.
Azad that there are different pavers available that allow drainage.
Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:51 p.m.
Commissioner Hunter said that this proposal is just fine and that she has no problems with it.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Said that she has problems with this design, which was designed to be a standout in an area that
does not have standout homes.
• Said the design is too much with the two -story and size and feel of the architecture.
• Stated that the home appears almost like a block and is too bulky.
• Added that just because the home cannot be seen much, it is still important as it will be an example
of a two -story for the area and become an example.
• Declared that she does not see this design as a representation of what is in the area.
Commissioner Garakani asked Commissioner Kurasch what she is suggesting to remedy this design.
Commissioner Kurasch replied reduce the second story and scale the house back. Right now it seems
too imposing. Additionally, the height of the front porch element should also be reduced so that it is
more in keeping with what is in the area. This home would have to be substantially reduced.
Commissioner Zutshi agreed that the house appears too massive. However, since this is a flag lot, she
does not have a lot of problems with this project.
Commissioner Garakani said that he shares some of the concerns of Commissioner Kurasch and that
story poles would have been helpful in evaluating this project. Said the design looks good, the
materials are okay and the colors are nice. He is currently on the fence on how to vote.
Chair Jackman agreed that the project is pretty massive for the neighborhood and that she would feel
better if the house were more spread out on the property and not so boxy. Said that she did not feel she
could approve this project for this lot.
Commissioner Hunter said she had no problems.
Saratoga Planning Commissic linutes of May 22, 2002 Page 8
Commissioner Kurasch recommended a continuance.
Chair Jackman suggested that the home needs to be redesigned to be lower.
Director Tom Sullivan said that the Commission should give direction to the applicant and staff, which
appears to be to reduce the mass of the second story and increase the size of the first story.
Commissioner Garakani asked how this would reduce mass.
Director Tom Sullivan replied by having greater architectural differences in the fagade.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the
Planning Commission recommended approval of Design Review to allow a 5,118
square foot two -story residence with a 602 square foot basement on property
located at 20870 Verde Vista Lane.
AYES: Hunter and Zutshi
NOES: Garakani, Jackman and Kurasch
ABSENT: Barry and Roupe
ABSTAIN: None
The motion failed for lack of a majority.
Commissioner Kurasch suggested reducing the size of the home.
Chair Jackman said that while the lot supports the proposed square footage, the applicant should bring a
different architectural style and bring the structure's height down with a larger first floor and less
second story space.
Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the Architect was not given a chance to discuss his design.
Commissioner Kurasch said that the applicant can accept a continuance. Added that she had expressed
concerns over bulk during the Public Hearing process.
Director Tom Sullivan suggested that the Commission could reopen the Public Hearing.
Chair Jackman reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:05 p.m.
Mr. Chyan, Owner /Applicant, 20870 Verde Vista Lane, Saratoga:
• Commended the Commission for their efforts to protect hillside views for the public.
• Stated that their old house was also a two -story and this new home is only a couple of feet higher
that will not adversely impact his neighbors.
• Stated that the reason for the large second story is to enjoy views.
• Pointed out that their old home had living space on the upper level and that it would represent a big
loss if they cannot use that space as living space again in their new home.
Commissioner Garakani questioned the placement of the garage.
Saratoga Planning Commissi( Iinutes of May 22, 2002 Page 9
Commissioner Kurasch said that she can understand that the applicant wants to use the property as
much as possible.
Chair Jackman said that this home is much bigger than the homes in the neighborhood, even though it is
on a flag lot.
Mr. Ghunam Azad stated that the applicant wants eastern exposures.
Chair Jackman stated that the applicant has provided additional explanations and she is ready to support
this request.
Chair Jackman reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:10 p.m.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the
Planning Commission recommended continuation of a request for Design Review
Approval to allow a 5,118 square foot two -story residence with a 602 square foot
basement on property located at 20870 Verde Vista Lane.
AYES: Garakani and Kurasch
NOES: Hunter, Jackman and Zutshi
ABSENT: Barry and Roupe
ABSTAIN: None
The motion failed for lack of a majority.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the
Planning Commission granted a Design Review Approval to allow a 5,118 square
foot two -story residence with a 602 square foot basement on property located at
20870 Verde Vista Lane.
AYES: Hunter, Jackman and Zutshi
NOES: Garakani and Kurasch
ABSENT: Barry and Roupe
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Jackman reminded that there is a 15 -day appeal period.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.3
Application #02 -083 — CITY OF SARATOGA — Saratoga Woods Neighborhood: The proposed
Zoning Ordinance Amendment would limit existing single story dwellings to single story. An
Environmental Initial Study is available for review at the City of Saratoga in the Community
Development Department. (SULLIVAN)
Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows:
• Reminded that on January 2, 2002, Council adopted a Resolution directing staff and the Planning
Commission to study and report on a proposal to establish a single -story overlay district for two
neighborhoods, Saratoga Woods and Brookview.
Saratoga Planning Commissic linutes of May 22, 2002 Page 10
• Stated that staff conducted a postcard survey of property owners in both neighborhoods.
• Said that staff reported the postcard survey results to the Planning Commission on April 10, 2002.
• Said that the Planning Commission directed staff to move forward with the drafting of an Ordinance
and to schedule a Public Hearing.
• Added that the Commission also directed staff to divide the two neighborhoods and start the process
with Saratoga Woods, which had a higher percentage of support per the postcard survey results.
• Provided an overview of the postcard survey results from the owners in Saratoga Woods. There
was a 65 percent return. Typically a 25 percent return is considered a good result with a survey. Of
the respondents, 66 percent were in favor of a single -story overlay for the Saratoga Woods
neighborhood and 30 percent were opposed.
• Stated that staff advertised the Public Hearing and notified the Saratoga Woods homeowners and
property owners within 500 feet of the Saratoga Woods neighborhood.
• Added that the overlay will exempt existing two -story homes in the neighborhood. Any additions
or reconstruction would be limited to single story and overall height of a typical single story.
• Stated that while this single story overlay is new to Saratoga, it is common in other communities
and is a method of protecting the integrity of existing neighborhoods.
Chair Jackman asked if an existing two -story were to be destroyed, would it have to be rebuilt as a
single -story if this overlay district is in place.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that an were an existing two -story to be destroyed after the establishment
of this single story overlay, that two story structure could still be rebuilt as they have it now. He added
that communications received were provided to the Commissioners.
Chair Jackman pointed out that one resident, Mrs. Balyeat expresses concern about an overlay since she
is currently planning a second story addition to increase the size of her 1,300 square foot home. Ms.
Marcia Parrish states in her letter that second story additions pit neighbor against neighbor.
Director Tom Sullivan said that correspondence was received this afternoon from a Mrs. Lu who is not
supportive of the restriction to single story homes.
Commissioner Zutshi asked if new construction will be restricted to a certain height.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that any addition could not be any taller than the single -story homes
contiguous to it.
Commissioner Kurasch asked how this neighborhood was identified for the single -story overlay.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that an application for a second story addition last summer resulted in
petitions being submitted at the Appeal hearing of the Planning Commission decision. The Saratoga
Woods neighborhood requested a similar thing several years ago.
Commissioner Garakam asked why not overall instead of just one neighborhood.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that this neighborhood is still predominately a single -story
neighborhood, as is the Brookview neighborhood. If other such neighborhoods are identified, the
Commission may hear similar requests from those neighborhoods after the adoption of this overlay.
Saratoga Planning Commissic.. , ✓linutes of May 22, 2002 Page 11
Chair Jackman pointed out that both of these neighborhoods also have active Homeowners
Associations.
Commissioner Garakani asked if the majority supports.
Director Tom Sullivan said that according to the postcard poll, which is not scientific, there is 66
percent support for this single story overlay district in the Saratoga Woods neighborhood.
Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing on Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:25 p.m.
Mr. David McEachron, 18966 Saratoga Glen Place, Saratoga:
• Said that he is involved with the Homeowners Association and has lived in the Saratoga Woods
neighborhood for the last 18 years.
• Stated that he likes the appearance of the neighborhood, which was designed as a single -story
neighborhood.
• Added that while some other neighborhoods may be designed as two -story neighborhoods, this one
is a predominately single -story neighborhood.
• Said that privacy impacts and obstruction of views and light occurs on adjacent properties when two
story additions are placed in a predominately single -story neighborhood.
• Stated that many homes can expand as single -story homes since these are large lots.
• Expressed strong support for the restriction to single -story homes in the Saratoga Woods
neighborhood.
Commissioner Garakam asked Mr. McEachron for the size of homes in the neighborhood.
Mr. David McEachron replied that homes vary from about 1,300 to over 3,000 square feet.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. McEachron why he feels the existing process for Design Review
would not work sufficiently to protect homeowners in his neighborhood.
Mr. David McEachron replied that with the existing review process the neighborhood has to be ever
vigilant.
Mr. Evan Baker, 12324 Obrad Drive, Saratoga:
• Advised that he is present as a citizen this evening.
• Added that when this single -story overlay goes before Council, he will recuse himself from
considering the matter.
• Said that he would like to discuss three key items.
• Pointed out that originally 150 houses were constructed on seven tracts. All but four homes were
single story. Those four were one - and -a- half -story homes or rather single story homes with a room
over the garage. There was one original pre- existing two -story in the neighborhood and two were
built on the periphery.
• Added that the CC &Rs restricted homes to a single story and that still pertains to the original 150
properties.
• Stated that 40 additional homes were constructed in two sections, with 36 built by J. Lohr and 14
two -story homes. At Kocich Orchard, twelve homes were constructed with five being two -story,
none of which impinged on single -story properties.
Saratoga Planning Commissic linutes of May 22, 2002 Page 12
• Said that a key element of this single -story overlay district is the fact that issue of second stories in
Saratoga Woods is not new and has been ongoing since the first application for remodel. The
procedures for review have changed. Fairly recently, a homeowner with a 1,200 square foot cottage
wanted to add on to that home. The only persons notified were two neighbors.
• Stated that since that time, the Saratoga Woods Homeowners Association has kept current on
applications for remodel.
• Said that he feels strongly about keeping the neighborhood as a single -story since this is the largest
subdivision with a highly dominant number of single -story homes in Saratoga.
• Said that the homes are on average 16 feet high at the roofline with average square footage between
2,000 and 2,100 square feet. The lots are about 10,000 square feet, although a few are as large as
16,000, one is on a double lot, some lots are as small as 8,500 square feet and only a few homes are
as small as 1,000 to 1,300 square feet.
• Stated that he has reviewed the proposed Resolution and finds it to be excellent and well prepared.
• Added that prior to the arrival of Director Tom Sullivan, the City was not aware that this option was
available.
• Thanked the Commission for its time.
Chair Jackman asked Mr. Baker why not rely on the CC &Rs.
Mr. Evan Baker replied that not all homeowners have copies of the CC &Rs and that there are six to
seven different sets of CC &Rs.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Baker what he thinks of the opinions expressed that such an overlay
will be too restrictive.
Mr. Evan Baker:
• Replied that it is a trade off. The vast majority bought homes in this neighborhood because they
liked the appearance of the neighborhood while a few individuals may want the right to add a
second story.
• Reminded that the side property offset is but 10 feet with 30 -foot deep rear yards. Any second story
will intrude upon two, three or even four neighboring homes.
• Added that most homes /lots in the Saratoga Woods neighborhood are relatively flat with views of
the foothills. New residents may have ideas for expanding upwards but most existing neighbors
feel strongly about the single -story presence and the privacy that affords.
Commissioner Garakam asked if the second story space is intended for living space or to enjoy views.
Mr. Evan Baker said that he could not speculate on the reasons for people to build second story
additions.
Commissioner Garakani offered the suggestion that basements may be an option for additions.
Mr. Evan Baker agreed that most homes have the flexibility to expand in ways other than a second
story.
Commissioner Hunter advised that she drove through the Saratoga Woods neighborhood slowly and
found that the houses with the rooms over the garages were not displeasing. Added that covering land
Saratoga Planning Commissic linutes of May 22, 2002 Page 13
with more home is less pleasing than allowing building over the garage. Questioned whether Mr. Baker
was certain that not allowing the room over the garage is a good idea.
Mr. Evan Baker pointed out that the rooms over these garages were uniquely designed and do not have
a flat ceiling interior. Today's additions over the garage would require the raising of the ridgepole and
would change the exterior of the house. The remaining garages in the tract were not constructed to be
load bearing.
Commissioner Hunter mentioned the potential loss of trees with single story additions to existing
single - family residences.
Mr. Evan Baker reiterated that many people have told him that the single -story character of this area is
what drew them to this neighborhood. People want that kind of uniform neighborhood that they can
count on. Reminded that even with a single story overlay, a property owner can apply for a Variance to
allow for a second story.
Director Tom Sullivan concurred.
Mr. Larry Mehringer, 19709 West View Drive, Saratoga:
• Stated that Mr. Baker did an eloquent job of describing their neighborhood.
• Advised that he has resided in the Saratoga Woods neighborhood for about 18 years and found the
design of this neighborhood pleasing.
• Added that he lives next door to one of the one and a half story homes and pointed out that there are
no side windows on the room over the garage to create privacy impacts.
• Described the home behind him as a "monster" home, which is creating noise impacts.
• Declared that the notification process should be standard.
• Said that he has spoken with many neighbors and most want their neighborhood to stay the way that
it is. They are flatlanders and like it that way.
• Stated that people are really concerned about their privacy.
• Said that this is a great neighborhood with a swim club.
• Stated that the proposed Ordinance should go forward and recommends that Council approves it.
Mr. David Gremer, 12388 Radokya Dive, Saratoga:
• Advised that he has resided in the Saratoga Woods neighborhood for 20 years and finds it to be a
wonderful neighborhood characterized by its homes and neighbors.
• Agreed that the issue of second story additions does pit neighbor against neighbor and said that he is
delighted that this overlay is being considered.
• Pointed out that this is more of a rural setting and that second stories affect neighbors, causing
crowding and loss of natural light.
• Recommended approval of the single -story overlay district.
Commissioner Kurasch stated that it appears that there are lots of long -term residents in the Saratoga
Woods neighborhood.
Mr. David Gremer agreed, stating that it is a great place and he recommends it.
Ms. Andrea Gremer, 12388 Radokya Drive, Saratoga:
Saratoga Planning Commissh Ainutes of May 22, 2002 Page 14
• Expressed concerns about privacy impacts and pointed out that the home behind hers is undergoing
an addition with increased height that has resulted in windows with views into her bedroom.
• Added that she grew up in this home and loved having no visible structure when playing in her
backyard as a child.
• Stated that it is creepy to have windows that reduce the privacy from her bedroom.
Director Tom Sullivan asked Ms. Greiner which home is being remodeled.
Ms. Gremer's mother replied from the audience that the house behind them is on Lolly Court.
Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 9:02 p.m.
Chair Jackman asked staff how new buyers to the area will be made aware of this single -story overlay
district that would impact their property.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that there are strict real estate disclosure laws when homes are sold.
Additionally, the City can record this information and when a title search is done, this overlay
restriction would come up for any affected property.
Chair Jackman asked if this is the surest way of getting the word out.
Director Tom Sullivan:
• Pointed out that the Silicon Valley Realtor's Group has been involved in this process since January
and that there are penalties for realtors who do not disclose all pertinent information upon a real
estate transaction.
• Added that the Commission can take action in one or two steps for the recommendation of adoption
of a Negative Declaration as well as forwarding a recommendation to Council to adopt the single -
story overlay district for the Saratoga Woods neighborhood.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Stated that she applauds the neighborhood and the City.
• Said that this overlay gives a proactive tool rather than forcing property owners to be reactive.
• Expressed appreciation to the comments made in support of the design of this neighborhood as a
single -story neighborhood.
• Stated that there is a trade off in quality of life for the majority and individual gain.
• Said that it is important to listen to the neighborhood as they have spoken and to respond by putting
their desires for a single -story neighborhood into a codified form.
• Said that she is very happy to see this come forward.
Commissioner Zutshi:
• Stated that she likes the fact that the neighborhood has come forward together in support of the
single -story overlay district.
• Agreed that if this overlay is recorded with the title, new owners will be made aware of it.
• Stated that she likes the idea of disclosure.
• Stated that she likes the idea of retaining a single -story neighborhood.
• Expressed her support for the creation of a single -story overlay district in the Saratoga Woods
neighborhood.
Saratoga Planning Commissi. linutes of May 22, 2002 Page 15
Chair Jackman:
• Said that she had concerns at the beginning and felt that the CC &Rs restricted homes to a single -
story already.
• Pointed out that no one has expressed support for the right to allow two -story additions at tonight's
hearing.
• Stated that it appears that single -story homes are the desire of the majority.
• Said that she hopes that this overlay will be recorded so that it appears on the title for homes in this
neighborhood.
Commissioner Hunter:
• Stated that she is reluctant to support because of the potential for loss of greenery with single -story
additions instead of second -story additions.
• Pointed out that 30 percent of the residents did not respond to the postcard survey.
• Added that she will support the proposed Ordinance Amendment but reluctantly.
Commissioner Garakani:
• Said that he shares Commissioner Hunter's concern for potential loss of greenery.
• Pointed out that a basement might be another option for residential additions in this neighborhood.
• Said that there is probably enough room on most of these lots to expand without a loss of greenery.
• Said that this overlay is a way to start.
• Suggested that the City may want to consider expanding such an overlay district to other areas of
Saratoga.
Commissioner Hunter said that she would love to see such an Ordinance that would help protect
heritage properties from being torn down.
Chair Jackman expressed confidence that new owners would be made aware of the limitations in this
neighborhood to single -story.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Said that she would like an 18 -foot height limitation.
• Asked staff how such an overlay district has worked in other communities.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that such overlay districts work very well. Explained that at one
community for which he worked, property owners had great concern about potential loss of ocean
views by taller homes. They were protected with such an overlay zoning.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the
Planning Commission adopted a Resolution accepting the Environmental Initial
Study and a second Resolution recommending adoption of a Zoning Ordinance
Amendment (Application #02 -083) to establish a single -story overlay district in the
Saratoga Woods Neighborhood.
AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barry and Roupe
ABSTAIN: None
Saratoga Planning Commissi( linutes of May 22, 2002 Page 16
DIRECTOR'S ITEMS
Report on Inconsistencies between the Zoning Code and the Planning Department Handouts
(SULLIVAN)
Director Tom Sullivan:
• Pointed out that he has pulled some departmental handouts from circulation when he discovered
that there are inconsistencies between the Zoning Code and these handouts.
• Said that his staff carefully reviewed each handout, comparing the data to the Zoning Ordinance.
• Said that staff now needs direction from the Commission. They can move forward to change the
handouts to match Code or, if current practice is more appropriate, staff can take steps to change
Code.
• Suggested the need for an added Code regarding the removal of a dead tree.
• Said that the 10 -day appeal period for a tree removal exists but that there is no requirement to
notify neighbors of approval of a Tree Removal Permit.
• Said that there is question regarding Tree Protection and how best to measure, using circumference
or diameter.
Tree Removal and Protection
Commissioner Kurasch replied that the diameter is determined from the circumference. The ISA
Standard is to measure the diameter at breast height (about four feet off the ground). This is the
national standard on how to measure a tree.
Director Tom Sullivan said it appears that the Commission is recommending to amend the Ordinance to
put the formula for calculating a tree's measurement into the Ordinance and Handouts.
Commissioner Zutshi questioned whether people are even aware that a permit is necessary to cut down
a dead tree.
Chair Jackman replied that this fact has been widely advertised.
Director Tom Sullivan said that the handout will be easily understood.
Commissioner Garakani asked if the ISA standard should be incorporated.
Commissioner Kurasch suggested that staff consult with the City's Arborist on where to measure a tree,
be it from two or four feet off the ground.
Commissioner Hunter suggested the need for a definition of a dead tree. One dead limb on a tree does
not represent a dead tree.
Director Tom Sullivan:
• Suggested that perhaps a staff inspection, without charge, might be required to assure that a tree for
removal is actually a dead tree.
Saratoga Planning Commissh linutes of May 22, 2002 Page 17
• Pointed out that trees five- inches or larger in diameter were protected in other communities at
which he worked.
• Said that he is not certain where Saratoga's standard for 10- inches came from.
• Said that an Ordinance change may be required.
• Said that his staff now does inspections of trees where a contract employee used to do them. There
are six to seven criteria required.
• Said that staff will continue to identify where Code and handouts are different.
Commissioner Garakani suggested that staff should review every tree proposed for removal.
Chair Jackman asked if it would be possible to establish a Tree Committee.
Director Tom Sullivan replied sure and asked the Commission to appoint members to such a
Committee.
Chair Jackman asked for volunteers.
Commissioner Garakani volunteered to serve on a Tree Committee.
Commissioner Kurasch also stated her desire to serve on a Tree Committee.
Chair Jackman appointed Commissioner Kurasch to Chair the Tree Committee and stated that she
would like to see a list of recommended replacement trees established.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that the Arborist's Report typically lists native and indigenous trees to
the area.
Variation to Standards
Director Tom Sullivan stated that the next issue for discussion is the provision to allow a variation to
standards that allows the Commission and/or Council to vary all Zoning Ordinance requirements
without setting limits as they apply to Conditional Uses (not permitted uses). Said that it would be
important to set perimeters, limits and controls or to get rid of this Section completely.
Commissioner Kurasch said it would be helpful to see the handouts specifically.
Variances
Director Tom Sullivan said that the handout lists four items where Variances cannot be submitted,
which are not backed up by Ordinance and are actually inconsistent with laws that allow for the right of
a hearing.
Maximum Allowable Building Size — Average Slope
Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the Ordinance has a formula that states that area is equal to the
net site area after taking out roads and easements. The handout material states that area counted is
gross. Stated that he is more inclined to go with the Ordinance as it is more consistent.
Saratoga Planning Commissik linutes of May 22, 2002 Page 18
Chair Jackman expressed agreement and instructed staff to trash the handout.
Single- Story/Multi -Story Setbacks
Director Tom Sullivan reminded that this issue of how setbacks are handled is already under way and
will be before Council very soon.
Setbacks
Director Tom Sullivan said that the Ordinance is clear on setbacks for two -story residences. The
handout states that the whole structure moves forward and not just the second story. If a second story is
being added to an existing structure, the hard nose interpretation is that a second story could not be
added since the increased setback cannot be achieved. The easier interpretation would be that the
second story addition must be set back with an additional penalty. New construction over the height of
18 feet would require the whole building to be moved back.
Allowable FAR
Director Tom Sullivan reminded that the height requirement is 18 feet. For every foot above 18 feet,
the applicant would lose 1.5 percent of allowable FAR. This fact is not mentioned in the handout.
Additionally, if ceiling height is above 15 feet, that space has to be double counted. This fact also
needs to be added to the handout.
Commissioner Zutshi asked Director Sullivan how a setback is calculated when on a slope.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that property on a slope is measured on a flat plane. He assured the
Commission that staff has received enough direction from the Commission to keep busy updating the
information on these handouts.
COMMISSION ITEMS
Commissioner Kurasch advised that Associate Planner John Livingstone coordinated an Energy
Committee meeting. The Committee will be meeting a few more times before coming back before the
Commission with an update and/or recommendation.
Commissioner Garakani asked staff to look into adjusting the lights in Chambers as they are quite
blinding.
Commissioner Kurasch agreed and advised that these lights are very uncomfortable and difficult on the
eyes.
Chair Jackman advised that she would be on vacation for the next Commission Meeting on June 12 th
COMMUNICATIONS
Written — Minutes from Regular City Council Meetings of April 17, 2002 and Adjourned Meeting of
May 7, 2002.
Saratoga Planning Commissh linutes of May 22, 2002
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Page 19
Chair Jackman adjourned the meeting at 10:02 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday,
June 12, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, May 8, 2002
PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Acting Chair Jackman called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Garakam, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi
Absent: Commissioner Barry
Staff: Director Tom Sullivan and Planner Ann Welsh
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of April 10, 2002.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the
regular Planning Commission minutes of April 10, 2002, were approved with
typographical corrections to pages 5, 15 and 16.
AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman and Roupe
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barry
ABSTAIN: Kurasch and Zutshi
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of April 24, 2002.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the
regular Planning Commission minutes of April 24, 2002, were approved as
submitted.
AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barry
ABSTAIN: Roupe
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no Oral Communication Items
Saratoga Planning Commiss Minutes of May 8, 2002
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Page 2
Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this
meeting was properly posted on May 2, 2002.
REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS
Acting Chair Jackman announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by
filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the
decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b).
CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar Items.
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1
Application #02 -025 (386 -01 -008) YEH, 20444 Prospect Road: Continuation of a request for a
Conditional Use Permit to establish a 1,500 square foot Institutional Use for the purposes of teaching
second languages, delivering the gospel message and other enrichment programs. The building
contains 2,500 square feet and is zoned CV- Commercial, the lot is 18,500 square feet and the property
has 10 parking spaces. (WELSH)
Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit. This Public Hearing was continued
from the Planning Commission meeting of March 27, 2002.
• Informed that the proposed use consists of an enrichment program for children.
• Reminded that the main concerns raised at the last meeting including parking and circulation.
• Said that the applicant has arranged an agreement with the Home of Christ Church, located at 6345
Janary Way in San Jose, to allow their site for use as a pick up point for this Use Permit.
• Said that there is a deed restriction on the Church property that requires gates to be closed after
dark.
• Stated that staff recommends approval with the conditions that maximum parking on the Prospect
parking lot be striped, that two sheds be removed, that staggered arrival and departure times be
coordinated and that the enrollment be limited to 30 students on site at any time. Additionally, staff
is proposing an added condition requiring the applicant and/or the Church apply to the City of San
Jose to change its current restriction on parking lot access at the Church site so that it can serve the
intended use for a drop off site by this new institutional use at times that are compatible with this
proposed use.
Commissioner Roupe sought assurances that the City of Saratoga would retain the right to inspect
conformance with this off -site transport and pick up arrangements.
Planner Ann Welsh pointed out that there are six and 12 -month reviews called out in the Conditions of
Approval.
Saratoga Planning Commiss Minutes of May 8, 2002 Page 3
Commissioner Kurasch reminded that the proposed hours of operation are to 8:30 p.m. Asked if the
applicant can change her hours in order to conform to the available parking hours at this San Jose
Church location.
Planner Ann Welsh advised that the applicant extended her hours due to the limitations on the number
of students on site at any one time.
Director Tom Sullivan added that if the City of San Jose refuses to approve the extended hours for the
parking lot at the Church for use by this applicant, this Saratoga Use Permit would become void.
Commissioner Kurasch suggested marking off spaces belonging to the Medical Center, particularly
since this off -site drop off program is being proposed in lieu of a Traffic Study.
Commissioner Zutshi said that this marking of the parking spaces for the Medical Center would not be
necessary on Saturdays, particularly since it appears that there would only be one -on -one tutoring
occurring on Saturdays and the dental practice is closed. Therefore, the parking spaces should be
available to this use.
Acting Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:13 p.m.
Ms. Jean Wu, Agent for the Applicant:
• Advised that her client has operated successfully in Sunnyvale for 9 years.
• Stated that her client, Ms. Gin Ju, is available for questions.
Commissioner Zutshi asked Ms. Gin Ju how many students would attend class on Saturday.
Ms. Gin Ju replied that the Saturday program includes tutoring with between one and five students per
teacher.
Commissioner Roupe stated that this represents a potential of 16 students plus four teachers for a total
of 20 on Saturday. This creates a potential for congestion in both parking and traffic on site.
Ms. Gin Ju said that while it is hard to say exactly how many students will be on site on Saturday, she
assures that there will not be more than 10 students at any given time.
Commissioner Hunter asked Ms. Gin Ju for clarification as to, whether the dental office is open on
Saturdays.
Ms. Gin Ju replied only in the morning.
Mr. Jim Yeh, Property Owner:
• Identified as the owner of the building, Mr. Jim Yeh corrected that the dental office does not work
on Saturday.
Commissioner Roupe proposed a stipulation that no more than 10 students are permitted on site at any
one time on Saturdays as a Condition of Approval.
Saratoga Planning Commiss. Minutes of May 8, 2002 Page 4
Acting Chair Jackman suggested that perhaps the Church could serve as an off -site drop off point on
Saturdays too in order to allow more students on Saturdays.
Commissioner Hunter pointed out that there are not the same traffic problems on Saturdays as on
weekdays.
Commissioner Roupe stated that this would be assured with a limitation to 10 students at a time on
Saturday.
Commissioner Hunter commended Ms. Gin Ju for her efforts to respond to the concerns raised by the
Commission at the first Public Hearing. Thanked her for those efforts and stated that this proposal
represents a good compromise.
Acting Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:21 p.m.
Commissioner Roupe stated that this could be an approved Conditional Use.
Commissioner Garakani stated a concern for cars stacking close to the intersection as he observed
occurred when making the site visit. He added that with the off -site drop off and pick up proposal, his
concerns are somewhat alleviated.
Commissioner Roupe suggested that perhaps entrance and exit arrows should be placed to eliminate
confusion on how circulation should occur on site.
Commissioner Garakani said that it would be helpful to have a traffic study.
Commissioner Hunter reminded that the Commission could re- evaluate if problems occur.
Commissioner Roupe added that if the proposed use of the Church for off -site drop off and pick up
does not work out, the Use Permit can be reviewed.
Commissioner Garakani asked how this would be monitored and by whom.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that the staff planner would be the one to monitor. He added that
generally, review is based upon complaints raised.
Commissioner Roupe reiterated the importance of a special condition to require the Church in San Jose
to obtain necessary approvals to assure compliance with its own Conditional Use Permit in allow this
Saratoga -based school to share the Church's San Jose parking facilities for the hours necessary to
support this Use Permit.
Planner Ann Welsh agreed that this could be added to the Conditions.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if it is the consensus to limit the number of students on Saturday to 10
and to mark the parking spaces as reserved for the Dental Offices.
Commissioner Zutshi again mentioned that so marking the parking spaces would not be necessary on
Saturday when the Dental Office is not opened for business.
Saratoga Planning Commiss. Minutes of May 8, 2002 Page 5
Commissioner Hunter agreed that marking the parking would be confusing and assured that the Dental
Office would promptly complain to the landlord in the event that their spaces are being taken by this
school use.
Commissioner Kurasch suggested a sign restricting the use of parking from Monday through Friday as
an alternative.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the
Planning Commission granted a Conditional Use Permit to allow the establishment
of a 1,500 square foot Institutional Use for the purpose of teaching second
languages, delivering the gospel message and other enrichment programs on
property located at 20444 Prospect Road with the following Conditions:
1. Compliance with the San Jose - issued Conditional Use Permit for the Church
regarding approved hours for use of its parking lot;
2. An added Condition of Approval requiring the re- striping and signage for
the on -site parking lot;
3. Establishment of a monitoring program to ensure conformance with the
arrangements for the off -site student drop off and pick up process; and
4. A limitation to 10 students on site at a time on Saturdays.
AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barry
ABSTAIN: None
Mr. Ken Silverman, 12179 Atrium Drive, Saratoga:
• Said that he resides at the Park Saratoga Townhome Development and has concerns about this
proposal.
• Pointed out that there are many children and seniors and that additional traffic poses a concern, as
do issues of overflow parking into the area.
• Asked that the Commission take these concerns into consideration.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Pointed out that the students are picked up at their schools and will be dropped off -site to the
Church location for pick up by their parents. Additionally, there is a limitation to 10 students on
Saturday at any given time and a Monitoring Program will be in place.
• Assured that if a problem comes up, Mr. Silverman can bring it to the attention of staff.
• Asked Mr. Silverman if he finds these provisions to be adequate.
Mr. Ken Silverman replied as long as everyone follows the plan.
Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that neighbors are the best part of any monitoring program. One of
the City's two Code Enforcement staff can respond within thirty minutes. The Use Permit can be
brought back for revocation if the use is not compatible with the area.
Saratoga Planning Commiss Minutes of May 8, 2002
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO. 2
Page 6
Acting Chair Jackman stated that she received the Public Notice for this Item and will recuse herself.
She turned the gavel over to Commissioner Roupe and left the dais to join the audience.
Application #02 -073 (517 -09 -069) POLLACK, 14500 -14550 Big Basin Way: Conditional Use
Permit application to allow an existing real estate office to expand into the adjacent 1,400 square foot
storefront along Big Basin Way. The building is located in the CH -1 Commercial District. The lot size
is .30 acre, the building contains 9,051 square feet and the property has 17 parking spaces. (WELSH)
Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit to allow a real estate office to
occupy a storefront at 14500 Big Basin Way. This site is adjacent to an existing Coldwell Banker
office and the combined square footage would be 2,100 square feet.
• Added that this conversion from retail to office would result in the loss of 1,000 square feet of retail
space.
• Informed that correspondence requesting denial was distributed. Additionally, the Economic
Development Office is also requesting that this storefront be retained for retail use as it has
desirable frontage.
• Pointed out that the General Plan encourages commercial uses and therefore staff is recommending
denial since this proposal would not enhance the commercial viability of the Village.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if the Economic Development Office concentrates on the Village only.
Director Tom Sullivan said that the Economic Development Office is concerned with every area of the
City that has a Commercial Land Use designation.
Commissioner Kurasch said that she assumes that the City Manager and Council concur with the
recommendation of the Economic Development Office.
Director Tom Sullivan replied yes.
Commissioner Hunter asked Director Sullivan whether this proposal was ever agendized by the
Business Group.
Director Tom Sullivan said he does not believe so.
Commissioner Roupe asked staff for the distinction between services and retail uses and questioned
whether the generation of sales tax is the main difference.
Planner Ann Welsh said that the Zoning Ordinance clearly identifies the service versus retail uses and
clarified that a real estate agency does not generate sales tax. Sales tax revenue is encouraged in the
General Plan goals for the Village.
Director Tom Sullivan added that the Zoning Ordinance indicates that the first floor spaces in the
Village are to be occupied by retail uses.
Saratoga Planning Commiss Minutes of May 8, 2002 Page 7
Commissioner Hunter gave the example that a Kitchen and Design Store that also sells appliances
would be retail while one that simply provided design services without sales of appliances would not be
considered a retail use.
Commissioner Roupe opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:48 p.m.
Mr. Mike James, Managing Broker, Coldwell Banker:
• Said that the building owner, Mr. Pollack, provided a letter asking for approval of this Conditional
Use Permit.
• Said that Mr. Miles Rankin, a real estate broker in Saratoga for 35 years, accompanies him this
evening.
• Informed that Coldwell Banker currently has 150 agents in Saratoga and that they have always had
an image in the Downtown.
• Said that the two small spaces they currently occupy in Downtown Saratoga are not adequate and
don't work well for their needs.
• Pointed out that with this Use Permit approval, they will shut down one of their two existing spaces,
consisting of 400 square feet.
Mr. Miles Rankin, Realtor, Coldwell Banker:
• Identified himself as a 50 -year resident and 40 -year broker operating in Downtown Saratoga.
• Said that they have 17 parking spaces, which would be adequate for their needs and that they would
operate a very high -class real estate office in this space. This proposal will improve their existing
operations in Downtown Saratoga.
Commissioner Garakani pointed out that a retail shop would be more helpful to the other businesses in
the area.
Mr. Mike James replied that there are no potential retail uses pending for this location.
Commissioner Hunter asked if there are other real estate offices nearby in the Village.
Mr. Mike James replied no.
Commissioner Hunter said that she has noticed that there appears to be lots of real estate offices in the
downtowns of more affluent communities.
Mr. Mike James said that their type of office would attract visitors to Saratoga.
Commissioner Hunter said that she observed what appears to be office use within an empty store near
this site.
Director Tom Sullivan reported that this use is a current Code Enforcement case.
Mr. Miles Rankin pointed out that there are already many other businesses in Downtown Saratoga that
do not generate sales tax.
Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Rankin if he has considered using a second floor space in lieu of a first
floor storefront.
Saratoga Planning Commiss_ Minutes of May 8, 2002
Mr. Miles Rankin said that there are none available right now.
Page 8
Mr. Eugene Zambetti, 14540 Big Basin Way, Saratoga:
• Said that he has concerns.
• Pointed out that two businesses participate in Parking District 4 in this immediate area.
• Stated that this is an ideal retail -based business location on a prime corner location.
• Said that it is important to allow retail to come in.
• Said that he has known Mr. Rankin for a long time but that he believes there is a better use of this
site as retail since the windows are ideal for merchandise displays.
Ms. Cynthia Fortino, 14510 Big Basin Way, Saratoga:
• Said that she is a resident of the area and serves as Assistant Manager at the Butter Paddle store.
• Stated that the store manager sent a letter.
• Declared the importance of a vibrant retail environment.
• Pointed out that a real estate office is a destination type business that will not generate traffic for the
retail businesses in the Village.
• Asked that the Commission not allow the erosion of retail business in the Downtown Area.
Ms. Pinky Lafune, 14510 Big Basin Way, Saratoga:
• Said that she is the Assistant Buyer at the Butter Paddle.
• Stated that the Village is charming and needs to be left that way.
Mr. Miles Rankin:
• Stated that businesses are fleeing Saratoga and people are not shopping in Saratoga.
• Added that vacancies exist up and down Big Basin Way.
• Pointed out that there are other service - oriented businesses along Big Basin Way including banks.
A real estate office is needed too.
• Pointed out that they typically have only four to five people per office at any given time.
• Said that everything would work out fine and that only 1,000 square feet of retail space would be
lost.
Commissioner Roupe proposed a potential compromise of having the real estate office give up all the
current space occupied so that it can be returned to retail uses. This would result in a loss of only 300
square feet of retail space instead of 1,000.
Mr. Miles Rankin said he would take the suggestion under advisement.
Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that this is not the proposal currently before the Commission.
Mr. Miles Rankin again asked why banks are a permitted use while a real estate office is not.
Commissioner Roupe said that the banks have been there a long time and the City now has General
Plan guidelines in place. The City does not want to worsen the situation by removing more retail space
from the Village.
Commissioner Roupe closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:15 p.m.
Saratoga Planning Commiss. Minutes of May 8, 2002 Page 9
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Said that public comments have been made and good points raised including parking concerns for
the area.
• Said that to change the use of this site from retail to office would be opportunity given away since
this site has the potential of being a viable retail use.
• Stated that it is important not to close the door permanently for retail uses, as it would have a
longstanding impact on the Downtown.
• Pointed out that the current economic downturn is occurring all over right now and not just in the
Village.
• Added that it is important to support the other businesses by bringing in foot traffic and it is also
important not to have destination businesses as there are already enough and more are not needed.
• Stated that this proposal is inconsistent with the Downtown both aesthetically and functionally.
• Said that she will vote to deny this request.
Commissioner Garakani agreed with Commissioner Kurasch. He added that for the good of Saratoga,
this real estate office should consider space other than in the Downtown.
Commissioner Hunter:
• Advised that she attends the Business Development Meetings and also shops in Downtown Saratoga
all the time.
• Said that she has no problem with real estate offices but that there are two spaces occupied already
by this real estate company.
• Expressed agreement with the points made by Commissioner Kurasch.
• Said that this is a relatively new building of approximately 15 years and is prominently located.
• Agreed that adequacy of available parking is a concern.
• Said that she hopes a retail use can be located for this site.
• Stated her support for the staff recommendation for denial.
Commissioner Roupe asked what the parking requirement is for an office use.
Planner Ann Welsh replied that this is a 9,000 square foot structure and that an office use requires one
parking space for every 200 square feet. This would result in a need for 45 spaces. While available
City parking can also be applied, this project is very underparked.
Commissioner Roupe asked for clarification that this building does not itself provide adequate parking.
Commissioner Hunter pointed out that Exclusively Yours customers were not allowed to park there.
Commissioner Zutshi agreed that retail uses are more necessary than a real estate office at this location.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Said that he supports the need for retail and staff's recommendation.
• Added that he also recognizes the benefit of a long- standing real estate office such as this one.
• Suggested that the applicant consider consolidating their offices into the Exclusively Yours tenant
space and leaving two spaces available for retail use.
Saratoga Planning Commis,. Minutes of May 8, 2002 Page 10
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Stated that that alternative would still not be viable as it still represents the conversion of retail
space into offices.
• Cautioned that the Commission should not give this applicant the impression that this is a likely
alternative.
• Said that she is not in favor of converting retail into office at all.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the
Planning Commission denied the request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the
establishment of a real estate office on Big Basin Way.
AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barry
ABSTAIN: Jackman
Acting Chair Jackman returned to the dais and assumed the gavel.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.3
Application #02 -058 (CITYWIDE) — SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION: Zoning
Ordinance Amendment regarding development standards for basements. The proposed Zoning
Ordinance Amendment will include a revised definition of "basement," provide a definition of
"lightwell," specify setback and size requirements and specify planning review requirements for
proposed basements. (VASUDEVAN) (CONTINUED FROM 4/24/02)
Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that at the last Commission meeting a Public Hearing was held to consider amendments to
the development standards for basements.
• Stated that the item was then continued to allow the conclusion of the Public Review Period, which
occurred on April 29, 2002. No comments were received.
• Stated that numerous reports and discussions have been held and commended Commissioner
Jackman and Planner Lata Vasudevan for their work on this update.
Acting Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing on Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:27 p.m.
Mr. Andrew Barnes, 14377 Old Wood Road, Saratoga:
• Stated that this Basement Update would have been helpful to him when he was planning his home.
• Said that it has taken 18 months to get his project through the City, which represents lots of time
and money invested.
• Asked if this Ordinance Amendment would be retroactive since he is fearful that it would limit his
own project.
Director Tom Sullivan assured Mr. Barnes that the Ordinance Update would not be retroactive nor
apply to his project. He added that Mr. Barnes appears to misunderstand some aspect of the proposal.
He added that basement space is still not counted as FAR unless it is a daylight basement.
Saratoga Planning Commis,, Minutes of May 8, 2002
Page 11
Commissioner Kurasch added that there is no net square footage effect as a result of this Ordinance.
Commissioner Roupe added that the Amended Ordinance would help with basements on Hillside
projects.
Mr. Andrew Barnes said that mandatory Soils Report should be required very early in the process, as
this would save time.
Director Tom Sullivan said that a project planner addresses these issues and provides a letter to the
applicant within 30 days and schedules for a hearing within 60 days of an application being found
complete.
Commissioner Kurasch told Mr. Barnes that it is important to comment on the Basement Ordinance
Amendment in general terms rather than based upon his specific project.
Commissioner Hunter suggested that Mr. Barnes provide his recommendations via letter for
consideration by the Commission's Subcommittee on Design Review Processes.
Commissioner Roupe asked if one or two motions would be required.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that one motion could suffice.
Acting Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:40 p.m.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the
Planning Commission adopted a Resolution granting a Negative Declaration and a
second Resolution recommending adoption of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment
(Application #02 -058) regarding development standards for basements as proposed.
AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barry
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO.4
Application #02 -080 (386 -26 -080) CITY OF SARATOGA, 19848 Prospect Avenue: General Plan
Land Use Map Amendment from Quasi - Public Facilities to Public Facilities. The proposed General
Plan Land Use Map Amendment would allow the city to own and utilize the property in a manner
consistent with the provisions of the City's General Plan. The Land Use Element of the General Plan
indicates that properties designated Quasi - Public Facility cannot be controlled by a publicly elected
governing board.
Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the City has made an offer to purchase property owned by Grace United Methodist
Church at 19848 Prospect Avenue.
Saratoga Planning Commiss. Minutes of May 8, 2002 Page 12
• Added that this purchase requires an adjustment to the site's General Plan Land Use designation,
which is currently Quasi- Public Facilities, since it is not appropriate for a property so designated to
be controlled by a publicly elected governing board.
• Recommended a change from Quasi - Public Facilities to Public Facilities for this parcel.
Commissioner Roupe asked if this change is intended just for this one site.
Director Tom Sullivan replied yes.
Commissioner Roupe asked if a Condition could be imposed that this change not go through if the City
does not end up buying this property.
Director Tom Sullivan assured that this change would not go through if the purchase were not
completed. He added that two Resolutions are required. One for the Environmental Determination and
the second for the General Plan Land Use Amendment itself. The Commission must be able to make
the finding that this change is consistent with the General Plan.
Acting Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 8:45 p.m.
Acting Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 8:45 p.m.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the
Planning Commission adopted two Resolutions, one to make the Environmental
Determination and the second to recommend approval of a General Plan Land Use
Map Amendment from Quasi Public Facilities to Public, Facilities for property
located at 19848 Prospect Avenue, with the understanding that this action assumes
the City will go forward with the purchase of this property. If not, the parcel will
retain the current Quasi Public Facilities General Plan Land Use designation.
AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barry
ABSTAIN: None
DIRECTOR'S ITEMS
There were no Director's Items.
COMMISSION ITEMS
Subcommittee Reports
Commissioner Hunter advised that the Design Review Subcommittee held a preliminary meeting and
will meet again soon. They plan to work to streamline the design review process.
Commissioner Roupe strongly encouraged public comments on this process.
Saratoga Planning Commiss Minutes of May 8, 2002
Election of new Chair and Vice -Chair
Page 13
Commissioner Hunter asked how long each member of the Commission has served and which
Commissioners have served as Chair.
Commissioner Roupe replied that he and Commissioners Kurasch and Jackman have each served for
three years and none of them have yet served as Chair. He added that traditionally, if the Vice Chair is
willing, they are invited to serve the following year as Chair. He asked Commissioner Jackman if she
was interested in serving as the Chair.
Commissioner Jackman replied yes.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi,
Commissioner Jackman was elected to serve as Chair of the Planning Commission
for the next 12 months.
AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barry
ABSTAIN: None
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Roupe,
Commissioner Kurasch was elected to serve as Vice Chair of the Planning
Commission for the next 12 months.
AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barry
ABSTAIN: None
Housing Luncheon
Commissioner Zutshi advised that she and Commissioner Garakani attended the Housing luncheon
today.
Commissioner Garakani stated that he found it to be very informative.
COMMUNICATIONS
Written — Minutes from Regular City Council Meeting of April 3, 2002.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Acting Chair Jackman adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for
Wednesday, May 22, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, April 24, 2002
PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Acting Chair Barry called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi
Absent: Commissioners Barry and Roupe
Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Planner Ann Welsh and Planner Lata Vasudevan
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of April 10, 2002.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that the Commissioners present this evening do not represent a quorum
of those who were present at the April 10, 2002, meeting. Therefore, the adoption of the minutes for
that meeting would need to be continued to the next meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Tom Walker, 13800 Pierce Road, Saratoga:
• Advised the Commission that he is trying to build a home on his property.
• Asked the Commission to review his application, which has been under review for the last two
years, since the project is at an impasse with staff.
Acting Chair Jackman informed Mr. Walker that the method to process his application is through the
Planning Department in order to get onto a Planning Commission Agenda.
Mr. Tom Walker:
• Advised that he was told he would be called and that staff had advised him that an Ordinance
change was underway that might help him.
• Declared that he has done everything possible, finding that the former and current Directors'
interpretations to be different.
Acting Chair Jackman advised Mr. Walker to work with staff.
Director Tom Sullivan invited Mr. Walker to call him directly
Saratoga Planning Commissio. inutes of April 24, 2002 Page 2
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this
meeting was properly posted on April 18, 2002.
REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS
Director Tom Sullivan announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by
filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the
decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b).
CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar Items.
Acting Chair Jackman proposed hearing Item No. 3 first since it is the only item on this evening's
agenda for which there are actual applicants.
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO.3
Application #02 -042 (397 -25 -060) — SANQUINI, 14087 Loma Rio Drive: Request for Design
Review and Variance approval to add 294 square feet to the existing first floor of the house and 501
square feet for a new second floor. The addition would add 795 square feet to the existing 1,504 square
foot residence with an existing attached 440 square foot garage. The total proposed house size with
garage would be 2,739 square feet. The maximum allowed floor area for this parcel is 2,444 square
feet; therefore, the applicant is applying for a 295 square foot Variance. (LIVINGSTONE)
Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicants are seeking Design Review and Variance approval to add 294 square
feet to the first floor and 501 square feet for a new second floor for a total of 2,739 square feet.
• Added that the maximum floor area allowed for this parcel is 2,444, which requires a Variance for
the additional 295 square feet being sought.
• Said that this project will meet the Residential Design Guidelines.
• Stated that the second floor has increased setbacks and a minimum use of windows on the sides.
The applicants also removed a balcony feature from the second floor due to concerns expressed by
neighbors.
• Said that this project meets the findings necessary to support a Variance including unique
topography and an existing Water District easement. Additionally, the parcel is smaller than the
typical parcel in this neighborhood, which is 12,500 square feet. This parcel includes 7,000 square
feet gross with 5,400 square feet net. Therefore, this parcel is restricted in the maximum floor area
allowed when compared to others on the same side of the street.
• Added that another home in the immediate area received a similar Variance.
• Concluded that with the previous approval of a Variance and the surrounding neighbors' similar
home sizes to what is proposed here, this approval would not represent a special privilege and staff
recommended approval.
Saratoga Planning Commission _inutes of April 24, 2002 Page 3
Commissioner Garakani asked about the Water District easement, unclear if it was pending or existing.
Associate Planner John Livingstone clarified that this Water District easement is already in place. He
added that the Water District will have to review this proposal also but has already preliminarily
approved the project in concept and supported the applicant's pursuit of a Variance this evening.
Acting Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 7:17 p.m.
Mr. Dick Sanquini, Applicant /Owner, 1408 Loma Rio Drive, Saratoga:
• Advised that his property borders on Saratoga Creek and the Santa Clara Valley Water District has
an easement through his backyard as they do for every house along his Drive that backs onto this
creek.
• Pointed out that the existing house is presently 1,944 square feet with a 440 square foot garage.
Houses in the neighborhood range from between 2,700 to 3,700 square feet, with an average of
approximately 3,000 square feet. With their proposed 294 square foot first floor addition and 501
square foot new second floor, they will take their 1,944 square foot home to 2,739 square feet,
which is right at the bottom of the range for the neighborhood.
• Stated that the height will go from 17 feet to 21 feet. The neighboring residence to the west is 24
feet high and the east the home is 20 feet high. The range of heights for homes in this neighborhood
is from 23 to 25 feet. This new home will fit nicely into the neighborhood in both size and height.
• Said that the garage is currently a dominant feature. With their plan to use Craftsman-style
architecture, this will minimize the garage's impact.
• Pointed out that their new second story will be pulled in on all four sides and that the second story is
enclosed within the roof.
• Added that they have done work to fit this house better with the neighborhood.
Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Sanquini how the size of his parcel compares with the neighborhood.
Mr. Dick Sanquini replied that the parcel is 7,039 square feet but with the easement the net square
footage is 5,483 square feet. He said that some parcels in the neighborhood are larger and some are
smaller.
Commissioner Hunter told Mr. Sanquini that the paperwork he has provided was marvelous and that it
is clear he has done a lot of work in preparing his design proposal.
Acting Chair Jackman stated her appreciation for the fact that this house will fit into this neighborhood
as well as for the efforts made by Mr. Sanquini to work out any issues with his neighbors.
Acting Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 7:25 p.m.
Commissioner Kurasch said that this is a slam dunk project and that applicant has made every effort.
This is an appropriate request and a nice addition to this neighborhood.
Commissioner Garakani concurred.
Saratoga Planning Commissio_ iinutes of April 24, 2002 Page 4
Commissioner Hunter stated that it was nice that Mr. Sanquini spoke with all of his neighbors and
eliminated the balcony. Added that this project is a nice example of how things should be done.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the
Planning Commission approved a Design Review and Variance (Application #02-
042) to allow an addition to a residence at 14087 Loma Rio Drive.
AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barry and Roupe
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO. 1
Application #02 -021 (CITYWIDE) — SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION: The proposed
Zoning Ordinance Amendment to create standards to permit small wind energy conversion systems in
accordance with State Assembly Bill 1207. (WELSH)
Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that Resolution 02 -021 amends the Zoning Ordinance. This action is in response to State
Bill 1207. The Bill requires municipalities to adopt a Wind Energy Ordinance by July 1, 2002. If
no local Ordinance is adopted, windmills would be a permitted use by July 1, 2002, without
requirement for public hearing.
• Added that City regulations cannot be more restrictive than State law allows.
• Said that the proposed City Ordinance would require a Conditional Use Permit, with a Public
Hearing and Public Notice.
• Offered some comparisons between the State guidelines and the proposed City Ordinance:
• Maximum Height: The State's default guidelines would permit a windmill height of up to 80
feet for one to five acre parcels and no height limits for windmills on parcels greater than five
acres. The City Ordinance would limit the height of windmills to 65 feet on parcels from one to
five acres and a maximum height of 80 feet for parcels greater than five acres.
• Setbacks: The State's default guidelines would have maximum setback requirements of 30 feet.
The City Ordinance would require a setback distance that is equal to the height of the windmill.
• Noise: The State default guidelines would permit a noise level of 60 decibels day and evening
or consistent with a jurisdiction's General Plan. The City's Ordinance would permit 60 decibels
during the day with a reduction to 50 decibels in the evening.
• Clarified that it is in the City's best interest to adopt its own Windmill Ordinance. Without a City
Ordinance, there would be fewer restrictions.
Commissioner Zutshi asked about whether the maximum height includes the blades of the windmill.
Planner Ann Welsh replied that the blade size must meet wind resistance standards. Said that the intent
is to have the height include the blades, which may need to be added to the definition in the Ordinance.
Commissioner Zutshi asked if there are currently any such windmills in the area and whether there have
been any inquiries for such installations.
Saratoga Planning Commissio. _inutes of April 24, 2002 Page 5
Planner Ann Welsh replied no.
Commissioner Kurasch expressed confusion. It appears that the City cannot adopt more stringent rules
than the State but the proposed City Ordinance has more restrictions.
Planner Ann Welsh clarified that the State has established default guidelines that would apply if a
municipality does not adopt its own Ordinance. There is also a second more restrictive set of State
guidelines, which apply for cities with their own adopted Windmill Ordinance.
Commissioner Hunter inquired whether there are design review controls.
Planner Ann Welsh replied not. The proposal must simply meet all Ordinance guidelines.
Director Tom Sullivan added that the review that would be done by the Commission is for a
Conditional Use Permit and not a Design Review application.
Planner Ann Welsh added that the Commission would be asked to find that an application meets the
conditions of the Windmill Ordinance only.
Commissioner Garakani asked how many windmills would be permitted per parcel.
Director Tom Sullivan replied one. He added that the purpose of this State law is to allow people to
generate power for themselves.
Planner Ann Welsh stated that this limit to one could be clarified in the Resolution for this Ordinance.
Acting Chair Jackman stated that the purpose is for an owner's own use and not to sell power back.
Planner Ann Welsh clarified that the owner of a windmill can indeed connect to the grid and sell back
any excess power generated.
Director Tom Sullivan stated that the number of windmills allowed is based on the number of parcels
and not the total acreage.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if setbacks would be discretionary under the Conditional Use Permit
review.
Planner Ann Welsh replied that the requirement would be that the setback is equal to the height of the
windmill or more.
Commissioner Kurasch questioned whether a lower windmill height might generate less noise. She
asked where the noise level is measured.
Planner Ann Welsh replied that noise levels would be measured at the property line.
Commissioner Kurasch asked whether the noise from a windmill is continuous.
Saratoga Planning Commissic Minutes of April 24, 2002
Planner Ann Welsh replied yes.
Acting Chair Jackman asked if the windmill is running at all times.
Director Tom Sullivan replied as long as there is wind blowing.
Acting Chair Jackman asked if the windmills store energy.
Page 6
Commissioner Kurasch replied that this would depend whether it is connected to the grid and /or
whether there is a capacity to store energy.
Acting Chair Jackman asked if the intent of a windmill is for home use only.
Planner Ann Welsh replied no. She added that the windmill could generate more energy than needed
by the owner.
Director Tom Sullivan offered a clarification upon further review. Per the State regulations, the
maximum height is measured as the tower height and not the blades. The City's Ordinance cannot be
more restrictive than the State in this respect. He added that the minimum parcel size is one acre and
one windmill would be permitted per parcel no matter how large the parcel.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the
Planning Commission adopted Resolution 02 -021 recommending amendment to
the Zoning Ordinance to create standards to permit small wind energy conversion
systems in accordance with State Assembly Bill 1207, as presented.
AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barry and Roupe
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO. 2
Application #02 -058 (CITYWIDE) — SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION: Zoning
Ordinance Amendment regarding development standards for basements. The proposed Zoning
Ordinance Amendment will include a revised definition of "basement," provide a definition of
"lightwell," specify setback and size requirements and specify planning review requirements for
proposed basements. (VASUDEVAN)
Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the purpose of this hearing is to review the draft Resolution.
• Stated that per CEQA requirements, an Initial Study was prepared for this Ordinance Amendment.
The Initial Study found that there would not be a negative impact on the environment. A 20 day
review period ends on April 29, 2002.
• Stated that the Commission will need to adopt a Resolution supporting a Negative Declaration.
Saratoga Planning Commissic iinutes of April 24, 2002 Page 7
• Recommended that the Commission review this proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment and
continues this item to the May 8, 2002, meeting when both Resolutions can be adopted.
• Stated that this amendment changes the definition of basements and provides separate requirements
for Hillside lots. A property with an average slope greater than 10 percent is considered a Hillside
lot. A basement 42 inches or greater above grade would be counted as floor area and counted as a
story.
• Clarified the definition of a light well, Planning review requirements, the addition of a basement to
existing structures, public notification and review, development requirements for basements and
lightwells.
• Asked the Commission to carefully review the wording of the text of this draft Ordinance.
Commissioner Zutshi asked about the notification of 10 closest property owners and asked how that is
determined.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that the ten closest are located within a radius of the project site.
Additionally, the noticing area is typically extended to more than just ten.
Commissioner Garakani questioned the need to notify for a basement.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that there are neighborhood impacts when constructing a basement
including trucks, noise, dust, etc.
Acting Chair Jackman asked if everyone understands this draft Ordinance.
Commissioner Zutshi stated that the figures provided are very good.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if the revised Ordinance is more or less restrictive.
Planner Lata Vasudevan replied more.
Director Tom Sullivan added that a better place to take measurement has been established.
Planner Lata Vasudevan said that most cities go from floor level above to the grade.
Commissioner Kurasch asked about the current 36 -inch lightwell standards.
Director Tom Sullivan said that the Uniform Building Code has a minimum requirement for a 36 -inch
lightwell for egress purposes. Former Director Walgren had previously established a policy to allow a
maximum 36 -inch lightwell. Added that he finds an additional foot makes for a more functional
lightwell both for provision of light and egress.
Commissioner Kurasch expressed some confusion for the excavation goal.
Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that some basements have to be over excavated and later filled due
to geotechnical considerations and to get the right sort of compaction.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if there is a way to define net excavation area.
Saratoga Planning Commissio. _inutes of April 24, 2002
Page 8
Director Tom Sullivan replied that the total would be from the bottom of the footings for the wall of the
basement.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if this is the most realistic way.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that he believes so.
Commissioner Kurasch asked what the net effect would be.
Planner Lata Vasudevan replied a floor area penalty above nine feet.
Commissioner Kurasch said that she believes that nine feet should be the maximum allowed.
Commissioner Garakani pointed out that it is too expensive to go to 12 feet with a basement.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if there are any changes to the Planning Commission review.
Director Tom Sullivan replied no, they stay the same.
Commissioner Kurasch stated that this amendment has solved a lot of problems and made it much
clearer.
Commissioner Garakani recommended requiring a staircase versus a ladder for egress from a basement
lightwell.
Acting Chair Jackman asked staff for clarification on what action should take place this evening.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that staff is proposing that the Commission continue this item to the
meeting of May 8, 2002.
Acting Chair Jackman asked what would happen next following the Commission's action.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that Council will have a Public Hearing at one meeting and take a second
reading at a subsequent meeting prior to final adoption.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the
Planning Commission continued consideration of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment
(Application #02 -058) regarding development standards for basements to its
meeting of May 8, 2002, to allow the completion of a 20 -day Initial Study review
period and the adoption of a Negative Declaration with this Resolution.
AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barry and Roupe
ABSTAIN: None
Saratoga Planning Commissic. Minutes of April 24, 2002 Page 9
DIRECTOR'S ITEMS
Clarification of the Planning Commission's direction regarding the re- polling of property owners in the
Saratoga Woods and Brookview Neighborhoods. (SULLIVAN)
Director Tom Sullivan clarified that at the last Council meeting, the action Planning Commission
minutes were pulled off Consent by Council and will be agendized for discussion at its next meeting.
At that time, Council will give direction regarding the re- polling of property owners in these two
neighborhoods regarding single -story overlay districts.
NEW BUSINESS
There were no New Business Items.
COMMISSION ITEMS
County Reparian Workshop
Commissioner Kurasch advised the Commission of a Riparian Renaissance County Workshop that
would be held on June 5, 2002, from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. Stated that this program might be interesting for
the Commission.
Planting within an Easement
Acting Chair Jackman asked staff if property owners are able to plant within easements.
Director Tom Sullivan replied yes but that no permanent structures are permitted.
Silicon Valley Manufacturing Workshop on Affordable Housing
Commissioner Hunter advised of the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group's Affordable Housing
program on May 8, 2002, and asked if anyone would be attending.
Acting Chair Jackman said that she would like to go.
COMMUNICATIONS
Written — Minutes from Regular City Council Meetings of February 12, 2002, and March 12, 2002.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Acting Chair Jackman adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for
Wednesday, May 8, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, April 10, 2002
PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Chair Barry called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakam, Hunter, Jackman and Roupe
Absent: Commissioners Kurasch and Zutshi
Staff: Director Tom Sullivan and Planner Ann Welsh
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of March 27, 2002.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the
regular Planning Commission minutes of March 27, 2002, were approved as
submitted with one correction to page 11.
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman and Roupe
NOES: None
ABSENT: Kurasch and Zutshi
ABSTAIN: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no Oral Communications.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this
meeting was properly posted on April 4, 2002.
REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS
Director Tom Sullivan announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by
filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the
decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b).
Saratoga Planning Commissic. inutes of April 10, 2002 Page 2
CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar Items.
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1
DR -01 -021, BSA -01 -002 & V -01 -012 (517 -14 -080) — HUSTED, Kittridge Road: Request for Design
Review and Building Site Approval to construct a two -story craftsman style, single - family residence on
a vacant lot. The floor area of the proposed residence and attached two -car garage is 4,810 square feet.
The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The site is zoned Hillside Residential. A
Variance is requested in order to construct retaining walls in excess of five feet. An exception is also
requested to exceed one thousand cubic yards of cut and fill. (OOSTERHOUS)
Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that he has distributed an email from the Samsels and a Kittridge area map, which
demonstrates where the Samsel property is located and identifies where Variances for retaining wall
heights have been granted in the immediate area.
• Stated that the applicants seek Design Review for a new residence, Building Site Approval for
constructing on a vacant lot older that 15 years and a Variance required for retaining walls
exceeding five feet in height.
• Reminded that this is the second hearing of the Planning Commission for this project. Additionally,
the Commission held a workshop last week with the applicants and their design team. The purpose
of the workshop was to discuss the retaining walls in depth. An alternative design was proposed, a
double wall with five -foot separations for planting screening landscaping. Also, an option for three
walls was raised and the applicant will be presenting exhibits with this concept this evening.
• Added that the overall height of the structure has been reduced by two feet, from the previous 26
feet to 24 feet.
• Said that discussions are underway to consider eliminating the need for the fire turnaround with its
necessary tall retaining wall by utilizing the turnaround on the adjacent property that could serve
both sites.
• Asked the Commission for the latitude to work with Fire and the neighbors, the Martin- Roses.
• Stated that with the area and its topography, staff is able to make the necessary three findings of
support for this application, Special Conditions, Special Privilege and Health & Safety. The
topography represents a Special Condition. The fact that other Variances for retaining wall heights
have been granted demonstrates that this approval would not be a Special Privilege. As for Heath &
Safety, the geotechnical report and Fire requirements support this necessary finding.
• Recommended approval.
Commissioner Roupe asked if it is possible to leave open as a Condition, the requirement to have staff
work with the applicant, the Martin -Roses and Fire on the possibility of doing away with the on -site fire
truck turnaround altogether with the understanding that the turnaround on the adjacent Martin -Rose
property would serve both properties in order to not require the very tall retaining wall at the fire
turnaround.
Saratoga Planning Commissic_ minutes of April 10, 2002 Page 3
Director Sullivan replied yes. He suggested that the requirement be left as proposed and that the
Commission gives direction to staff.
Commissioner Garakani expressed support to have staff work with Fire and the other property owner.
He added that another possibility is to work out another alternative in case it does not work out.
Commissioner Hunter pointed out that one of the other retaining walls in the area at 19 feet high was
approved only after appeal to Council.
Director Sullivan advised that the biggest issue was drainage and that the Martin -Roses and Samsels
have worked out the drainage issues. He added that another retaining wall is 18 feet tall and the
remainder he was not sure of the heights other than above five feet in height.
Chair Barry asked if these were for road retention.
Director Sullivan replied that the 19 -foot high wall is located behind the house.
Commissioner Hunter advised that she drove up Bohlman and Tollgate Roads and found the story poles
on this project site to be very evident. Inquired whether staff went beyond the immediate area to assess
the impact of these proposed walls from a distance.
Director Sullivan replied yes.
Commissioner Hunter stated that these walls would impact the neighbors below, particularly the fire
turnaround wall.
Chair Barry questioned how the fire trucks would maneuver, whether they would go up Kittridge Road.
Director Sullivan said that they would go to the Martin -Rose property and turn around, depending on
the size of the vehicle the Fire Department sends.
Chair Barry suggested an alternative of approving this project with the Condition that the Fire
turnaround is eliminated. If Fire does not approve this, there would be no approval of this project.
Director Sullivan said that he couldn't recall such a situation in past experience.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:30 p.m.
Mr. Chuck Husted, Applicant:
• Stated that they have done a quality job and brought in professionals with relevant experience.
• Said that it is not unusual to need retaining walls in excess of five feet when constructed within a
Hillside district.
• Assured that the walls will blend into the hillside and appear like natural rock formations.
• Said that they have addressed all Planning Commission conditions and are willing to split the walls
into two or three, whichever the Commission prefers.
• Stated that they have agreed to a Conservation Easement and reduced the height of their new home
by two feet.
Saratoga Planning Commissio_ _inutes of April 10, 2002 Page 4
Chair Barry asked Mr. Husted if he is agreeable to recording a Hold Harmless Agreement.
Mr. Chuck Husted replied yes.
Mr. Larry Kahle, Project Architect:
• Distributed two drawings. One demonstrates the reduction in roof pitch to lower the house height
and the other demonstrates the retaining wall as split into three.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the retaining wall for the fire truck turnaround is not depicted in
this new drawing.
Mr. Larry Kahle said that was correct.
Chair Barry asked who would plant the trees on the property owned by the Martin - Roses.
Mr. Chuck Husted replied that there is enough of his property available to plant a row of screening trees
near the fire turnaround.
Mr. Mark Helton, Civil Engineer:
• Discussed splitting retaining walls from one long wall to two shorter walls. Doing so would reduce
the maximum height from 20 feet to two 10 -foot walls.
• Added that it is also feasible to split the wall into three walls. This would result in a maximum
height of approximately seven feet, each section separated by five feet for planting.
• Said that drainage has been dealt with in a way that protects the Samsel's driveway. Said that it is
possible to put in a catch basin and get that drainage for a 100 -year flood into an adjacent swale.
• Said that the original submittal included a Fire Department turnaround with a retaining wall. A
deck turnaround was also discussed earlier in the project. With a deck, one would not see walls but
rather columns.
Chair Barry pointed out that the exhibit distributed this evening of the retaining walls depicts manicured
cement finish. Additionally, it does not give an example of a contour wall and is therefore not very
accurate of what was described.
Mr. Mark Helton said that they are proposing short vertical walls. Vertical walls minimize the height
required. Sloped walls increase the necessary height.
Chair Barry sought assurance that the two or three wall configuration would also incorporate shot -crete
formation.
Mr. Mark Helton replied yes.
Commissioner Jackman asked if the material will match the soil.
Mr. Mark Helton replied yes.
Saratoga Planning Commissic :mutes of April 10, 2002 Page 5
Commissioner Garakani asked if the contour wall would be used if the wall were constructed in one
piece.
Mr. Mark Helton said that they could slope back the wall if the Commission so desires. However, this
will increase the necessary height of the wall.
Commissioner Roupe said that he is assuming that the retaining walls would be vertical since the walls
would need to be taller if they follow the contours of the hill.
Commissioner Garakam said that it would look more natural if it follows the contours.
Mr. Mark Helton again said that if that is what the Commission wants, they can do it.
Commissioner Garakam said that pockets could be used for planting, which is an advantage of a
contour wall.
Commissioner Hunter reminded that cut can be placed behind the wall if it is slanted.
Mr. Mark Helton agreed but cautioned that it would be a negligible amount.
Commissioner Garakani asked whether with the deck fire turnaround the necessary retaining wall could
be cut into two pieces.
Mr. Mark Helton replied yes. It would represent two 14 -foot high walls.
Commissioner Garakani suggested a pocket of dirt to plant screening landscaping.
Mr. Mark Helton said that they are trying to follow staff's direction to make the retaining walls as low
as possible.
Commissioner Roupe said that there is not much distance between the turnaround area and the adjacent
property line. Said that this might encroach into the planting area if two walls are utilized. Asked if it
is feasible to stay on this property with the screening landscaping with the retaining wall split into two.
Commissioner Hunter inquired whether three seven -foot walls are as strong as one big wall.
Mr. Mark Helton replied yes.
Commissioner Hunter asked if the Planning Commission could be held liable if something were to go
wrong as a result of retaining wall failure.
Chair Barry reminded that one Condition of Approval is the processing of a Hold Harmless Agreement.
Commissioner Hunter pointed out that in her experience on the School Board, they are sued personally.
Ms. Heather Rose, 604 Wellsbury Court, Palo Alto:
• Advised that $40,000 is the bond amount for residential road bonds.
Saratoga Planning Commissic inutes of April 10, 2002 Page 6
• Stated that she spoke with Jerry Quilici at the County Planning Office, (408) 299 -5731, regarding
extending Subdivision requirements to allow road bonds.
Commissioner Roupe advised Ms. Rose that an alternative to having a fire turnaround on this project
site eliminated and having shared use of her property turnaround has been discussed as a means of
eliminating the need for one particularly tall retaining wall. Said that coming to any kind of an
agreement would be between her, the applicant and the Fire Department.
Ms. Heather Rose questioned when her fire turnaround would have to be completed since the Husted
project might actually get built before hers is built. She has to address a landslide area on her property
prior to installation of her fire turnaround.
Commissioner Garakani asked Ms. Rose for the heights of her retaining walls.
Ms. Heather Rose replied between five feet and 11 feet. The tallest wall is located behind her house
and will not be visible. Added that she plans to plant more trees on her property including around the
location where the Husted turnaround would be located.
Mr. Chuck Husted:
• Said that the walls will be as limited as possible and will be natural in appearance and not visible
from a distance.
• Said that he will do everything possible to mitigate the retaining walls from the surrounding area.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 8:00 p.m.
Commissioner Hunter:
• Expressed appreciation for the applicant's congeniality.
• Said that she has no problem with using three seven -foot walls.
• Cautioned that the 23 -foot high wall for the fire turnaround would be visible across the valley.
• Stated that the design of this home is very handsome.
• Reminded that she was not on the Commission when the other Variances for retaining walls were
approved.
• Said that in the event that she supports this project, she will also support the road bond.
• Said that she could not support the fire turnaround retaining wall.
Commissioner Garakani:
• Said that the wall in the area is now visible from the neighbor below.
• Expressed support for a contour wall.
• Supported the deck style fire turnaround.
• Said that he would also support putting vegetation within pockets on the wall.
• Stated that he would support a Condition that staff works with Fire to eliminate the need for a fire
turnaround on this site. However, if Fire does not agree and the turnaround must be installed, he
could support either the retaining walls or the deck design fire turnaround.
Commissioner Jackman:
• Supported the use of either two or three part retaining walls around the house.
Saratoga Planning Commissic Minutes of April 10, 2002 Page 7
• Said that the Fire Department would not likely change their requirement for this turnaround.
• Said that she does not like the turnaround but if this project is approved it is likely to be necessary.
• Said that this building site was pre - graded long ago and is a building site.
• Expressed support for the Conservation Easement.
• Stated that the proposed house looks good and she appreciates that the house has been lowered in
height by two feet.
• Said that everyone is doing the best they can to make this as invisible as possible.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Said that he supports this project.
• Added he is comfortable with the design of the home, particularly with the reduction in height by
two feet.
• Said that he could support the retaining wall in any configuration, be it one large wall, two ten -foot
walls or three seven -foot walls. Any option is acceptable.
• Said that the retaining wall causing the most concern in the fire turnaround retaining wall.
• Suggested that a pier and beam deck is one option.
• Supported giving staff the option to work out this best option for the fire turnaround with the
applicant, the neighbor and the Fire Department.
• Reiterated that he is fully supportive of this project.
Chair Barry:
• Said that she has struggled with this proposal and its retaining walls.
• Stated that an historic drainage problem in this area will be improved by this project which weighs
heavily for her.
• Expressed appreciation for the work that has gone into developing this proposal.
• Supported the lowering of the roof height by two feet.
• Stated that the back retaining wall would be located behind the house and drive and would not be
seen by anyone.
• Suggested that a contour wall would look natural and supported the use of three walls with two
separations for screening vegetation.
• Said that she would not like to see this project fail simply due to the requirement for the fire
turnaround.
• Cautioned that the 23 foot high retaining wall for the fire turnaround would take years, if ever, to be
screened by landscaping.
• Expressed hope that the Fire Chief would agree to the alternative plan to share the turnaround on the
Martin -Rose property and would leave this issue to be worked out by staff with Fire.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Stated that a maximum for the turnaround wall should be called out. The wall should be a split rock
simulated wall with screening planting. Additionally, the pier alternative can be investigated so that
the best alternative can be worked out.
Chair Barry agreed.
Commissioner Hunter asked for more information on the trees that would be lost with the installation of
these retaining walls.
Saratoga Planning Commissic linutes of April 10, 2002 Page 8
Commissioner Roupe pointed out on the plans that three or four redwood trees with a diameter of 12
inches would be lost.
Chair Barry said that while these trees are not that large in diameter they are 30 feet high and
effectively screen a third to half of where the turnaround is going to be.
Commissioner Roupe said that either solution results in those trees being removed.
Commissioner Hunter said that she could not support the removal of those trees or a deck turnaround
out of consideration for the neighbor.
Commissioner Garakam pointed out that someone else is looking at the neighbor's 23 -foot high home.
Commissioner Roupe cautioned that the project cannot be approved without some accommodation for
Fire Department access.
Commissioner Jackman said that the Commission needs to hear from the Fire Chief She said that she
is happy with everything except the turnaround.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the
Planning Commission approved the project on Kittridge Road (APN 517 -14 -080) as
proposed with the following changes and /or additions:
1. A two -foot reduction in the height of the residence;
2. Use of a three -part retaining wall on the uphill side with intermittent planting
for screening;
3. Staff to look into an alternative to the fire truck turnaround, including the use a
deck pier or the total elimination of the turnaround on this property with the
proposed turnaround on the adjacent Martin -Rose property to also serve this
site;
4. Issuance of a road maintenance bond, at an amount to be determined by staff,
as part of the Building Site Approval;
5. Include vegetation to screen the retaining walls;
6. Process a Hold Harmless Agreement to be recorded with the deed, holding the
City harmless in the event that failure on this property causes any damage to
adjacent parcels and /or the public right -of -way;
7. Process an Open Space Scenic Easement; and
8. Enter into a lower road drainage agreement.
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Jackman and Roupe
NOES: Hunter
ABSENT: Kurasch and Zutshi
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Barry advised that if Director Sullivan is not satisfied with the resolution of the turnaround issue,
he would bring the matter back to the Commission.
Director Sullivan added that as much significant planting as possible will be used to provide screening.
Saratoga Planning Commissic Minutes of April 10, 2002 Page 9
Commissioner Garakani said that one can see slide activity in the turnaround area. This project will
improve that situation.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.2
Application #02 -049 (397 -06 -069) — BUSH, 18627 Ambleside Lane: Request for Design Review and
Variance Approval to replace a detached garage, which was destroyed by fire. A setback variance is
requested to replace the 13 foot high, 693 square foot garage within the rear and side yard setbacks.
The garage is to be located within 10 feet of the rear and side yard boundaries, which is nonconforming
since the required setbacks are 20 feet for the side yard and 50 feet for the rear yard. The property is
located in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. (WELSH)
Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicants seek Design Review and Variance approvals to allow the reconstruction
of a 693 square foot garage that was destroyed by fire in October 2001. The project site is a 1.3-
acre property located on Ambleside Lane. The zoning is R -1- 40,000.
• Said that this Variance is required due to non - conforming setbacks at 10 feet from the rear and side
property lines. The proposed height of the reconstructed garage would be 13 feet, 2 inches, which
is the same as before. This height is required to accommodate a workshop area. There are no view
or privacy impacts.
• Described the findings to support this Variance request as being a Special Circumstance due to the
destruction by fire of the former garage. Additionally the slope of the lot and the location of
existing structures further support this request. Therefore, this Variance would not represent a
Special Privilege.
• Recommended approval as the necessary findings of support can be met.
Mr. Charles Bush, Applicant and Owner, 18627 Ambleside Lane, Saratoga:
• Said that he has been a resident of Saratoga for 19 years.
• Declared his surprise at having to appear before the Commission in order to secure approval to
simply rebuild his garage, which was originally constructed in 1957.
• Advised that his adjacent side neighbor, whose property is closest to this proposed rebuilt garage,
does not object to its reconstruction.
• Stated that he just wants to rebuild his garage and workshop.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:43 p.m.
Mr. and Mrs. Dan Banerje, 18594 Vessing Road, Saratoga:
• Said that their home is located just behind this site.
• Expressed opposition for this Variance for four reasons.
The hillside location and the fact that the fire that destroyed this garage also set trees in their
yard on fire. Only because there was no wind that day prevented the fire from spreading to their
home.
• Stated that the location of this garage offers poor fire truck access.
Saratoga Planning Commissio_ inutes of April 10, 2002
Page 10
• Electrical poles run close to the garage location, which adds to the fire hazard.
• There is 30 feet of space between the house and detached garage. The one -acre plus lot offers
alternatives to this non - conforming placement of the rebuilt garage.
• Proposed that an alternative placement of the rebuilt garage be found so that it is not so close to the
shared property line.
• Pointed out that most household fires start in garages.
• Advised that when the Fire Department arrived, they accessed this fire from their home, located
behind the subject site.
Commissioner Roupe asked for clarification as to the location of the Banerje home.
Mr. Dan Benerje replied directly behind the garage.
Commissioner Roupe sought clarification that the Fire Department accessed through their property. He
added that since there were trees engulfed on their property, the Fire Department had to access from
their property in order to put out the fire in their trees and prevent the spread to their home.
Commissioner Garakani asked the Benerjes if they understand why a Variance is required in this
situation.
Mrs. Benerje replied due to insufficient setbacks.
Planner Ann Welsh:
• Clarified that the Variance is required to allow a garage height greater that is allowed with the
available setback. A nine -foot high garage is permitted at 10 feet from the property line. A garage
greater than 12 feet in height requires a 50 -foot rear setback and 20 -foot side setback. Any
accessory structure greater than 12 feet in height must meet setbacks.
• Added that an eight foot high structure is permitted at six feet from the property line and an
additional three feet in setbacks is required for every additional foot in height.
Mr. Benerje sought clarification that the applicant could have a nine -foot high garage at a nine -foot
setback.
Planner Ann Welsh:
• Said that this would be permitted without a Variance. The only reason this Variance is required is
because of the proposed 13 -foot height of the structure.
Chair Barry added that a 12 -foot setback would be required for a 10 -foot high garage while the
applicants are seeking approval for a 13 -foot, two -inch high garage with a 10 -foot setback. The
alternative would be to bring the garage forward on the property by two feet.
Planner Ann Welsh said that there is room to do so but the pad from the previous garage is already in
position.
Commissioner Hunter asked how this fire started.
Saratoga Planning Commissic linutes of April 10, 2002 Page 11
Mr. Charles Bush said that the cause was undetermined. He added that the only reason the Fire
Department first responded at the Benerje's home was because they had poor maps. A fire truck was
easily driven down his driveway when they finally arrived on his street.
Commissioner Roupe said that the Commission avoids Variances when it can. Asked Mr. Bush if he is
willing to consider a flat roofed nine to 10 foot tall garage.
Mr. Charles Bush stated that he is not trying to change what the property was before. He just wants to
rebuild what was originally built on the property in 1957.
Commissioner Hunter said that she believes that a garage should match a home's architecture.
Mrs. Bush, 18627 Ambleside Lane, Saratoga:
• Said that she too would love not to have electrical poles in her yard.
• Stated that they should be allowed to have back what they previously had.
Commissioner Roupe stated his support for the project as proposed due to historical and architectural
compatibility. This is the right thing to do.
Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the Fire Department is now aware of this property's location and
that a new garage will not burn as readily.
Chair Barry asked whether this new garage would need to have fire sprinklers.
Planner Ann Welsh replied that there were no such requirements from Fire.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that a requirement for sprinklers is based upon the size of the structure.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 9:00 p.m.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
Planning Commission granted a Design Review and Variance approval to allow the
reconstruction of a garage on property located at 18627 Ambleside Lane, as
presented.
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman and Roupe
NOES: None
ABSENT: Kurasch and Zutshi
ABSTAIN: None
NEW BUSINESS
Discussion and direction regarding the polling results for single -story overlay in the Saratoga Woods
and Brookview Neighborhoods. (SULLIVAN)
Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows:
Saratoga Planning Commissic Minutes of April 10, 2002
Page 12
• Advised that Council adopted a Resolution that directed staff to conduct polls of two
neighborhoods, Saratoga Woods and Brookview, to consider the adoption of a zoning overlay to
restrict homes to one story.
• Described the results of the polls as follows:
• Brookview Neighborhood: The poll was sent to 328 homes in the Brookview Neighborhood. Of
that, 221 responses were received. From the responses, 116 (51 percent) were supportive of the
overlay zoning and 105 (46 percent) were in opposition. Of the total polls sent out to the
Brookview Neighborhood property owners, the rate of return was 35 percent in support and 32
percent in opposition for a total response rate of 67 percent.
• Saratoga Woods Neighborhood: The poll was sent to 401 homes in the Saratoga Woods
Neighborhood. Of that, 176 (66 percent) were in support of an overlay zone and 82 (30 percent)
were in opposition of the overlay zone. This represents a 65 percent response rate.
• Stated that the Planning Commission needs to determine whether it feels this response is significant
enough to move forward with the drafting of the Ordinance to create the single -story overlay zone
and conduct public hearings.
Commissioner Roupe sought clarification that Council took action to conduct this poll of the
neighborhoods to determine the level of interest in having the single -story overlay zoning.
Director Tom Sullivan added that Council also directed the Planning Commission to review the results
of this poll and make the determination as to whether the results warrant the preparation of a draft
Ordinance and the conducting of public hearings.
Commissioner Hunter inquired whether an option was included on the poll response card for "Don't
care."
Director Tom Sullivan replied no.
Commissioner Hunter suggested that perhaps a second mailing should be done to those in the
Brookview Neighborhood that did not respond to the poll.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that some polls came back with no vote marked while others had both
support and opposed boxes marked therefore nullifying that response.
Commissioner Roupe advised that public hearings will allow all interested parties to have their say.
Commissioner Hunter asked staff if they can identify which property owners did not respond. She
added that public hearings like this can get ugly and turn neighbor against neighbor.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that staff does know which households did not respond.
Commissioner Garakani said that he does not feel that public hearings are an evil thing. In fact, he sees
the public hearing as a positive event.
Commissioner Roupe said there is no reason not to go forward with the process.
Saratoga Planning Commissio :inutes of April 10, 2002 Page 13
Chair Barry asked staff if it would be a big expense to have another poll sent to those property owners
who did not respond to the first poll.
Director Tom Sullivan said that staff could send a second request to those who did not respond.
Commissioner Roupe asked staff if there is any reason not to go ahead with the process.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that the only downside is the large crowd drawn to a public hearing.
Chair Barry pointed out that there have been many very contentious projects in the Brookview
Neighborhood in the past.
Commissioner Jackman added that people do not always bother to come to public hearings.
Commissioner Roupe said that this depends on how sensitive the issue.
Chair Barry said that she supports a second mailing although she does not feel that a 66 to 67 percent
rate of poll return is bad at all.
Commissioner Hunter said it is important to solicit input from the impacted residents since the overlay
zoning will affect what can be done with these properties.
Commissioner Roupe said that going forward is not a definitive vote on the final outcome.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for the New Business Item on single -story overlay zone at 9:16
p.m.
Mr. Ronald Schoengold, 19000 Saratoga Glen Place, Saratoga:
• Identified himself as a representative of the Saratoga Woods Homeowners Association, which has
roughly 390 homes.
• Stated support for the process for implementing a single -story overlay restriction.
• Said that their Association did a lot of advance publicity on this issue, which may be a reason for
such a good response to the City's survey.
• Added that even with a single -story overlay zone, should a credible plan be brought forward with
compelling reasons to allow a second story, the Planning Commission would still have the option of
granting a Variance.
• Urged the Commission to move forward with this process.
Commissioner Garakam asked what the advantage is to having Variances.
Mr. Ronald Schoengold replied that the Variance process is more deliberate and requires more
justification and puts the burden on the homeowner to substantiate the second story.
Commissioner Roupe agreed that the Variance is a higher hurdle as there are legally required findings
necessary to grant a Variance. He added that second stories are typically not additions to existing
homes but rather represent tear down and rebuild projects.
Saratoga Planning Commissic Minutes of April 10, 2002 Page 14
Commissioner Jackman stated that she thought imposing a single -story overlay zone would outright
prohibit second stories.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that the City is required to have a process to allow exceptions.
Chair Barry asked if the process would be for an Exception or Variance.
Director Tom Sullivan replied Variance.
Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Schoengold to identify the boundaries for Saratoga Woods.
Mr. Ronald Schoengold said that the neighborhood is closer to Prospect Avenue and is bounded by Cox
to Saratoga Avenue. The Saratoga Woods Neighborhood includes more than 300 houses.
Mr. Steve Blanton, 345 S. San Antonio Road, Los Altos:
• Identified himself as a representative of the Silicon Valley Association of Realtors.
• Said that they have seen such overlay districts and typically a supermajority has been required.
• Stated that the City should be proud of the response rate it received to its poll. That is an
achievement in and of itself.
• Agreed that a Variance is a different category of review.
• Suggested that this may be more of a two -story Variance area than a single -story overly zone.
• Added that this overlay may create more issues than it resolves.
Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Blanton if he has seen a situation where overlays have faced
opposition in court.
Mr. Steve Blanton said not to his knowledge. He added that sometimes opinions change and the
overlay zone may be less desirable.
Commissioner Roupe agreed that such an overlay would greatly change the potential use of a property.
Suggested that staff obtain the written legal opinion of the City Attorney.
Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Blanton which communities he is aware of that have single -story
overlay zones.
Mr. Steve Blanton replied that their organization encompasses 15 cities. Of those, Los Altos, Mountain
View and Palo Alto have such single -story overlay districts.
Commissioner Roupe asked whether in those cities the decision was reached by a vote of the people or
through the actions of the respective City Councils.
Mr. Steve Blanton advised that they utilized a similar process as is being considered here with mail
ballots and public hearings to allow public participation.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that two cities for which he was previously affiliated use overlays
extensively to control heights in order to preserve views.
Saratoga Planning Commissic. Minutes of April 10, 2002 Page 15
Commissioner Roupe asked how long these overlays were in effect and how well they worked.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that they worked very well.
Chair Barry asked if there has been court challenge.
Director Tom Sullivan said there has been none.
Commissioner Jackman asked if there is an impact on home sales as the result of the imposition of an
overlay zone.
Mr. Steve Blanton replied that it is difficult to determine.
Commissioner Jackman asked how new buyers are advised of such an overlay zone during the purchase
of a home.
Mr. Steve Blanton advised that there are disclosure forms prepared by agents at the time of the home
sale.
Councilmember Evan Baker, 12324 Obrad Drive, Saratoga:
• Stated that he is present to speak as a private citizen regarding Saratoga Woods, where he has
resided for 25 years including having served in the past as President of its Homeowners
Association.
• Said that the response to this poll is high, second highest only to the library bond poll, to his
recollection.
• Said that most of the parcels in the Saratoga Woods Neighborhood are about 10,000 square feet and
mostly square. Every home would look down on a minimum of four backyards if a second story
were to be constructed.
• Said that there have been fewer than nine second -story additions to homes in the entire
neighborhood and every one of those intrudes on the privacy of their adjacent neighbors' homes.
On the other hand, approximately 12 two -story homes were built by Lohr in such a manner that
there was no privacy intrusion.
• Stated that he would be recused from voting on this issue when it comes before the Council.
• Encouraged the Commission to move forward with hearings.
• Declared that the majority of homeowners in Saratoga Woods opposes two -story homes.
• Thanked the Commission and made himself available for questions.
Chair Barry asked Councilmember Baker for more information on the overlay process.
Councilmember Baker advised that few neighborhoods are applicable for a single -story overlay district.
Homes have to be on rather small lots to require single -story overlay zones. Larger lots with a second
story offer less intrusion on adjacent properties due to greater distances between structures.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that CC &Rs are fairly restrictive and run with the land.
Councilmember Baker cautioned that while the Planning Commission may take into advisement the
requirements from CC &Rs, they are not required to follow them. The CC &Rs are only as good as their
Saratoga Planning Commissic mutes of April 10, 2002 Page 16
enforcement by the Homeowners' Association. Added that the last two -story addition in the Saratoga
Woods Neighborhood occurred about 15 to 16 years ago.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for the New Business Item on single -story overlay zone at 9:40
p.m.
Chair Barry suggested moving forward to public hearings and going back to those property owners who
did not respond to the first polls.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Supported both actions and stated that the 65 percent return was pretty good. It would only take
postage and a little effort to conduct a second mailing.
• Stated that there is already a good enough showing to warrant the drafting of the Ordinance and
going forward with public hearings.
• Said he feels most strongly about the community support from the Saratoga Woods Neighborhood
and less strongly for the support of the Brookview Neighborhood.
Director Tom Sullivan suggested that the neighborhoods be handled separately.
Commissioner Roupe concurred and suggested starting with Saratoga Woods, see how it goes and then
go forward with Brookview.
Chair Barry wondered if the criteria for Variances should also be reviewed.
Director Tom Sullivan stated that the Variance criteria, with its three mandatory findings, are set by
law.
Commissioner Garakam asked if it is possible not to allow Variances in an overlay zone.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that the City must have a process in place to allow someone to ask for a
Variance.
Chair Barry pointed out that the process for Variances is much clearer than it used to be. She added
that in the future, should the overlay zone be less desirable, citizens can come back to request public
hearings to consider the removal of the overlay zone.
Commissioner Roupe supported the use of Variance over Exceptions since they are more restrictive and
uniform.
Commissioner Garakam said that this would be a good example for other areas.
Commissioner Hunter cautioned that some public hearings get ugly.
Commissioner Roupe said that the focus should first be on Saratoga Woods and sending second post
cards to the Brookview Neighborhood.
Saratoga Planning Commissic :inutes of April 10, 2002 Page 17
Chair Barry disagreed, saying that the second mailing for Brookview should be delayed until the
processing of the overlay for Saratoga Woods is further along. She thanked people for their attendance
and input on this matter.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that he would have this item scheduled as soon as time allows.
COMMISSION ITEMS
Ordinance Review — Review of the initial topical areas that the Subcommittee will address.
(SULLIVAN)
Director Tom Sullivan:
• Advised that he has distributed a memo with four bullet points:
• Building Site Approval Process: Said that this process should be brought out of the Subdivision
Ordinance and put into Zoning. Added that this item is number one on the City Attorney's list.
• Variation from Standards: Said that this allows variation of standards without being a Variance,
which is an unusual provision. Suggested either establishing limits or doing away with this.
• Administrative Hearing Process: Said this is currently done by staff with noticing only to 10
closest neighbors. Suggested setting this up as an actual hearing with the Community
Development Director serving as the Hearing Officer. Staff would make reports and neighbors
are allowed an opportunity to be a part of a formal hearing process. This action will move the
bar up a bit.
• Establish a Notification Process for Tree Removal Permit Process: Advised that currently a 10-
day appear period is in place but there is no provision for the notification of neighbors of the
decision to allow a tree removal permit that might generate an appeal.
Commissioner Roupe said that it is a good idea to look for situations where current practices are not
based upon written policies.
Chair Barry said that she likes the idea of Administrative Hearings.
Commissioner Garakani suggested the participation of one Planning Commissioner.
Director Tom Sullivan said that with the involvement of a Commissioner, the hearing would no longer
be considered an Administrative Hearing.
Commissioner Hunter asked what the reasoning is for an Administrative Hearing process.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that they offer better participation by the neighborhood and formalizes
that participation.
Commissioner Roupe stated that neighbors will be more at ease with the results following an
Administrative Hearing.
Director Tom Sullivan said that he wants his staff to include the same level of Conditions of Approval
for Administrative Hearing Items as are currently included in Planning Commission Resolutions.
Saratoga Planning Commissic inutes of April 10, 2002
Page 18
Commissioner Hunter asked Director Sullivan what percentage of all applications come to the Planning
Commission for action.
Director Tom Sullivan replied approximately 20 percent. About 80 percent of all residential
applications are dealt with by planners and/or the Building Department. Commercial and Multi- Family
projects go straight to the Building Department or to the Planning Commission.
COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Barry asked staff to follow up on the letter from Mr. Robert Chin regarding a Condition of
Approval that has not been satisfied.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that he had not seen this letter and would direct his staff to follow up.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Chair Barry adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, April
24, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, March 27, 2002
PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Chair Barry called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi
Absent: None
Staff. Associate Planner John Livingstone and Planner Ann Welsh
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of March 13, 2002.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
regular Planning Commission minutes of March 13, 2002, were approved as
submitted.
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no Oral Communications.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Associate Planner John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the
agenda for this meeting was properly posted on March 22, 2002.
REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS
Associate Planner John Livingstone announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this
Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the
date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b).
Saratoga Planning Commissic Iinutes of March 27, 2002 Page 2
CONSENT CALENDAR — ITEM NO 1
GARROD FARMS, 22600 Mount Eden Road (503 -10 -028): - To approve the Resolution which found
the Garrod Farm project to be consistent with the City of Saratoga's General Plan. (LIVINGSTONE)
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the
Planning commission approved Consent Calendar Item No. 1, approving the
Resolution finding the Garrod Farm project to be consistent with the City of
Saratoga's General Plan.
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 5
Application #02 -047 (517 -19 -040) SIADAT, 14771 Montalvo Road: Request for Modification of
Approved Project to remove a provision in the resolution for DR -99 -006, which permitted construction
of their new home. The applicant requests that the requirement to dedicate and build a 10 -foot wide
pedestrian trail on their property, parallel to Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, be omitted from the resolution
approving the home, which is now built. (WELSH)
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:10 p.m.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the
Planning Commission continued consideration of Application #02 -047 to a date
uncertain. This item will be re- advertised and re- noticed.
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2
Application #02 -025 (386 -01 -008) YEH, 20444 Prospect Road: Request for a Conditional Use Permit
to establish a 1,500 square foot Institutional Use for the purposes of teaching second languages,
delivering the gospel message and other enrichment programs. The building contains 2,500 square feet
and is zoned CV- Commercial. The lot is 18,590 square feet and the property has 10 parking spaces.
(WELSH)
Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicants are seeking a Conditional Use Permit for 20444 Prospect Road, within a
CV- Commercial zoning district.
Saratoga Planning Commissic Iinutes of March 27, 2002 Page 3
• Described the parcel as a 18,590 square foot parcel with a 2,500 square foot building. Of that
building, 1,000 square feet is occupied by a medical practice. The applicant proposes to occupy the
remaining 1,500 square feet for an educational center offering tutoring, teaching second languages,
delivering the gospel message and other enrichment programs.
• Said that the applicant proposes operating three classes at a time with 10 students per class. The
students range in age from five to twelve years in age. There would be three employees.
Operational hours would be from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday. Typically, classes
would run two hours, most of which occur after traditional school hours. In the summer, earlier
classes would be held
• Added that there are 12 parking spaces provided on site. The medical practice requires five spaces,
leaving seven for this proposed educational center. The parking requirement for institutional uses is
one space per instructor.
• Advised that staff does not believe that the parking available is sufficient to support this proposed
use, however, it may be possible to restripe more parking spaces on site with the removal of sheds.
Another option might be to reduce the allowable number of students, perhaps two classes with eight
students. Additionally, staggered class start times (perhaps by half an hour) would also be a means
of dealing with the traffic for the drop off of students.
Commissioner Kurasch sought further clarification as to what staff modifications to the proposal staff is
recommending to deal with the parking shortfall.
Planner Ann Welsh replied that based upon concerns raised by the Commissioners at the site visit, staff
is suggesting a reduction in the number of students.
Commissioner Roupe said that a periodic review, much like was recently conditioned for the
orthodontic practice, would be a means of assuring adequacy of parking.
Planner Ann Welsh pointed out Condition of Approval 2.
Associate Planner John Livingstone said Ithat the Commission can add to its motion the same Condition
that was added to the approval for the orthodontic practice.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:20 p.m.
Ms. Jean Wu, Agent for Applicant:
• Reiterated that her clients will be teaching second languages, delivering the gospel message and
providing enrichment programs.
• Assured that they will comply with all imposed regulations.
Ms. Gin Ju, Applicant:
• Described her business as a learning center where second languages and the gospel message are
taught.
• Said that she is proposing 10 students per class for two -hour periods. She plans on having three
teachers.
• Assured that they will not create traffic impacts.
• Stated that staggered class times and/or having a student drop off process might be methods used to
avoid parking problems.
Saratoga Planning Commissic Iinutes of March 27, 2002 Page 4
Commissioner Roupe asked if the majority of the classes occur after school hours, between 3 and 6
p.m., and would consist of three classes at a time for a period of two hours per class.
Commissioner Hunter suggested that moving the storage sheds on the property will allow more parking
spaces to be striped on the parking lot.
Commissioner Roupe said that he believed that staggered start times will help prevent parking
problems.
Mr. Jim Yeh, Property Owner:
0 Agreed to move the storage shed to create up to five more parking spaces.
Commissioner Kurasch questioned what occurs on site before 3 p.m. and whether there would be more
than just three classes per day.
Ms. Gin Ju said that every two hours a class would start. She added that the youngest children attend
class for an hour to an hour and a half. During the summer, classes occur all day.
Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that for the one -hour classes, it may not be practical for a parent to
drop off a child but rather would require that parent to stay and wait for their child. Asked if the shorter
classes would also be conducted three at a time.
Ms. Gin Ju said that she could ask parents not to wait. Pointed out that she already runs a school in
Sunnyvale without parking problems.
Commissioner Zutshi asked again how many classes would be conducted at any given time.
Ms. Gin Ju replied that she is hoping to operate three classes at a time with 10 students each with
staggered start times.
Commissioner Zutshi said that the plan for drop off seems fine but the pick up process would be more
difficult on this site. Pointed out the traffic tie -ups that occur on Cox due to the parents collecting their
children from the Challenger School.
Ms. Gin Ju pointed out that her school will have fewer students than the Challenger School.
Ms. Jean Wu reminded that the students would leave at staggered times.
Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that there is just one way in and one way out of this site.
Mr. Jim Yeh said that he visited the Sunnyvale location. He added that most likely the children will be
delivered to the site by van pool from their schools so that parents would not have to individually drop
off the students.
Commissioner Jackman:
Saratoga Planning Commissic Iinutes of March 27, 2002 Page 5
• Expressed concerns about the need to make right turns onto Prospect followed by a U -turn to return
to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road.
• Said that this site does not have a smooth flowing driveway and questioned if there is some way to
improve that.
• Stated that she has very real concerns about the traffic flow.
Chair Barry said that she believes that at least four new parking spaces can be added to the right side of
the building.
Mr. Jim Yeh agreed to remove the shed.
Chair Barry asked Mr. Yeh if he is willing to mark the driveway and tell the other tenant that there will
be additional parking marked on their side for use by the school.
Mr. Jim Yeh said that the medical office does not use all of their parking as they have but four
employees.
Chair Barry asked Ms. Ju what her minimum class size must be to be profitable.
Ms. Gin Ju replied eight students.
Chair Barry asked Ms. Ju if she would be willing to stagger the class start times by as much as 45
minutes so that there is as little overlap as is possible.
Ms. Gin Ju replied that she would appreciate the limit to 30 minutes. She added that she has operated at
her Sunnyvale location for the last nine years.
Mr. Herbert Grabau, 12136 Atrium Drive, Saratoga:
• Said that he is in favor of this proposed program but cautioned that there are four driveways within
600 feet with a lot of traffic.
• Pointed out that there is much traffic on Prospect as well as turning off Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road
and DeAnza Boulevard.
• Recommended that the City's Traffic Department make a serious study.
• Cautioned that this parking lot is shallow with people nearly backing out at the street line.
Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the parking lot for the Atrium only had a couple of cars in it
when the Commission went on its site visit.
Mr. Herbert Grabau said that this lot is parked more at night and that there is no problem during the day
or any concern about use of that parking.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:44 p.m.
Commissioner Roupe said that the recommendation for a Traffic Study is an excellent one. Asked who
has jurisdiction over Prospect Road.
Planner Ann Welsh replied that she was not certain of the City's jurisdiction over Prospect Road.
Saratoga Planning Commissic. Iinutes of March 27, 2002 Page 6
Commissioner Jackman said that the Traffic Engineer could evaluate existing conditions. One solution
might be to have a smaller garden to allow cueing around back.
Commissioner Hunter:
• Expressed that this is not a good location for this use.
• Added that there appears to be too many children, on too busy a street, within too small a building.
• Said that this is too dangerous for children.
Commissioner Jackman expressed her agreement that this may not be a suitable spot due to traffic
concerns.
Commissioner Garakani suggested that the Traffic Study should be done before a final decision is
made.
Commissioner Hunter disagreed, saying that this is still not a good location and it would be important
to find a more suitable location.
Chair Barry:
• Agreed with the assessment that this is not a very safe piece of property and does not lend itself well
to the proposed school use.
• Said that she agrees a Traffic Study is necessary if this proposal is to be considered.
• Said that it would be necessary to significantly cut down on the number of students and classes.
• Stated that, as proposed, this use would not work on this site.
• Said that she is willing to suggest the Traffic Study but would also seek to limit the number of
students per class to six and stagger the class start times by one hour.
Commissioner Garakani said that he sends his own kids to after school programs and agrees that it is
hard to find space to park at 6 p.m. when it is time to pick them up.
Chair Barry said that perhaps a van could return the children to an off -site pick up point, such as a
school or park.
Commissioner Hunter pointed out that schools are not open that late and are dark at night. She added
that she is in support of a school but that she would prefer a safer location for children.
Commissioner Kurasch said that the Traffic Study might be helpful in determining the feasibility of this
proposal.
Commissioner Roupe suggested that the Traffic Study determine the number of students and class
schedule although it appears that many of the Commissioners do not find this to be an appropriate
location for this use.
Chair Barry reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:52.
Mr. Eric Soldan, 20746 Lowena Court, Saratoga:
• Asked who would be paying for the cost of the Traffic Study.
Saratoga Planning Commissic, linutes of March 27, 2002 Page 7
Planner Arm Welsh replied that it would have to be a consultant.
Associate Planner John Livingstone added that a consulting firm performs the traffic counts and such.
Chair Barry added that the applicant pays the cost for the Traffic Study. She added that there are two
options to the applicant. One is to select an alternative site. The second is to go forward with a Traffic
Study to better evaluate the potential for this site to accommodate this school.
Commissioner Hunter advised that she would be voting against this project due to the insufficient
parking spaces.
Commissioner Garakani questioned whether they would have to have enough parking to be approved.
Planner Ann Welsh reminded that the requirement for parking is one space per employee with the
remainder of the parking requirement up to the discretion of the Planning Commission.
Chair Barry said that the applicant is hearing the thoughts of this Commission that this does not seem to
be a workable site.
Commissioner Kurasch cautioned that there is no guarantee that this use will be approved even with a
Traffic Study.
Commissioner Roupe agreed but said that this Traffic Study is needed to support this use.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the
Planning Commission continued consideration of Application #02 -025, for a
proposed institutional learning center at 20444 Prospect Road, to allow time for a
Traffic Study to be prepared, with the cost to be borne by the applicant, which
should take into consideration the proposed class size and staggered start times.
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: Hunter
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Barry stated that she is in favor of this school but has concerns about traffic.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.3
Application #02 -008 (366- 027 -003) HSU /BURROUGHS, 20802 Norada Court: Request for Design
Review Approval to create a second -story addition to the existing residence and a Variance to the "floor
area reduction rule." The existing home, in the R -1- 12,500 District, contains 2,769 square feet on a
12,712 square foot lot. The proposed home contains a 651 square foot second story and proposes a 216
square foot addition to the first floor for a total area of 3,636 square feet. (WELSH)
Saratoga Planning Commissic linutes of March 27, 2002 Page 8
Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicants are seeking a Design Review Approval for an addition to an existing
2,769 square foot home on a 12,712 square foot lot. The proposed addition includes 216 square feet
on the first floor and 651 square feet on the second floor, for a total square footage of 3,636. The
proposed height is 22 feet.
• Added that this proposal requires a Variance to the height penalty and another Variance to allow
149 square feet in excess of allowable FAR. With the setback penalty, a 14 -foot side yard setback
is required, four feet more than exists.
• Informed that seven neighbors have provided written support and that one neighbor objects due to a
loss of privacy.
• Stated that the required findings to support the Variance may not be met and that granting this
Variance would represent a special privilege.
• Added that a landscape plan could address the privacy concerns.
Commissioner Zutshi asked about the size of the other homes in the immediate area.
Planner Ann Welsh replied that per the information provided by the applicant, the homes in the area
range from 3,100 to 3,600 square feet.
Commissioner Roupe asked whether the second story addition could be approved without need for a
Variance since that addition would not be expanding on a existing non - conformity. Could the
necessary findings be made to support that part of the proposal.
Planner Ann Welsh said that the non - conformity is increased with an addition.
Chair Barry asked if the project would be non - conforming without a second story addition.
Planner Ann Welsh replied no.
Chair Barry added that only with the second story addition does the sideyard setback become non-
conforming.
Commissioner Kuraasch pointed out that staff is recommending a revision to the proposal to reflect the
14 foot setback and reduce the floor area.
Chair Barry said that with the elimination of 149 square feet, no Variance is necessary except for the
setback Variance.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:10 p.m.
Ms. Kathy Hsu, Applicant and Property Owner, 20802 Norada Court, Saratoga:
• Thanked the Commissioners for their site visit.
• Provided a background of their project.
• Advised that when they purchased this home, there was an approval for an addition even larger than
the one they now propose.
• Stated that they have spoken extensively with the Planning Department.
Saratoga Planning Commissic Iinutes of March 27, 2002 Page 9
• Added that they learned later that their home is 200 square feet larger than they had been told which
meant that they could add 200 square feet less to their proposed addition.
• Said that they met with Director Sullivan in August 2001 and he suggested they apply for a
Variance.
• Pointed out that theirs is predominately a two -story neighborhood.
• Explained that the City once had an Exception Clause, in effect when the original addition was
approved. That Exception Clause has since been removed from the books and now a project such
as theirs requires a Variance instead of an Exception.
• Said that the size home they are proposing is in keeping with the neighborhood and would not
represent a special privilege.
• Said that they respect their neighbor's concern for privacy and distributed photographs to
demonstrate that their addition will not result in privacy impacts on their rear neighbor's home or
pool.
Mr. Warren Held, Project Architect, 14630 Big Basin Way, Saratoga:
• Advised that he typically does not ask for Variances.
• Said that this neighborhood is predominately two story and of 57 properties depicted on the area
map, 36 are two -story homes or 63 percent.
• Stated that his clients are hoping to enlarge their family room, and add a study and two bedrooms,
for a total of five, without having to lose their large rear yard, which is used as a playground for the
children.
• Pointed out that there is but one window on the two -story elevation facing the rear neighbors. It is
71 feet from the property line and the neighbor's yard and pool would not be visible from that
window. Additionally, they are willing to plant buffer landscaping.
• Said that the style of the addition would be match the existing, with a new Class A fireproof roof, a
maximum height of 22 feet. The home will tie into the neighborhood.
• Informed that he had tried alternatives including a single -story and tri -level design.
• Advised that he could take off part of the garage and make a carport, which is allowed in the
setback, but to do so would lose 236 square feet from the garage.
• Stated that a Variance is a tool for the Planning Commission to work with and represents a part of
Ordinance requirements.
• Declared his belief that they have proven their case for a Variance.
Commissioner Roupe suggested that reducing the width of the family room addition, to approximately
10 feet by 14 feet, would make the total square footage conform.
Mr. Warren Heid said that they had considered that option. Said that the family wants a large family
room and that family rooms typically face the backyard.
Commissioner Roupe said that if the square footage can comply, there is more chance to get past the
setback Variance. Asked staff whether the 14 foot setback would still be required if no first floor
addition was made.
Planner Ann Welsh said that this would not increase the non - conformity.
Saratoga Planning Commissic Iinutes of March 27, 2002 Page 10
Chair Barry added that the strict interpretation requires that a two -story needs the 14 -foot setback. She
added that it is arguable that if there is no first floor addition, this project would not be increasing the
non - conformity and could be okay.
Planner Ann Welsh replied as long as they cut three feet.
Commissioner Roupe asked if no side yard setback Variance would be required if there is no first floor
addition.
Planner Ann Welsh said that the Commission could make that argument.
Mr. Warren Heid suggested that they could reduce the height and gain 110 square feet.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that they still would require the 14 -foot side setback.
Commissioner Kurasch said that per the dissenting neighbor, there are two upstairs windows
overlooking his property.
Mr. Warren Heid said that there is only one window that faces that rear yard.
Ms. Judy Alberts, 20747 Lowena Court, Saratoga:
• Said that her Court is adjacent to Norada Court.
• Stated that she knows the applicants very well and that they are friends but that she has concerns.
• Informed that on Norada there are six two -story homes and five one -story homes so there is not a
majority.
• Said that this project would set a precedent and that she wants to be sure the Commission and Staff
are clear on the requirements and use caution when approving a Variance.
Mr. Eric Soldan, 20746 Lowena Court, Saratoga:
• Advised that he purchased his home in 1999.
• Said that he had wanted a neighborhood without Variances since his previous neighborhood had
lots.
• Stated that he remodels homes and has read the requirements and is prepared to accept the rules of
Saratoga.
• Said that if a Variance is approved it sets a precedent.
• Stated that he does not consider this a predominately two -story area.
Mr. Richard Leash, neighbor behind project site:
• Said that he will be able to see this addition from his home and has concerns about plans for
windows to overlook his yard.
• Expressed doubt that the majority of homes in the area are 3,100 to 3,600 square feet and said that
most are actually one -story homes.
Commissioner Kurasch clarified that the Variance is not to allow the two -story addition but rather for
exceeding floor area.
Saratoga Planning Commissi(- Iinutes of March 27, 2002 Page 11
Mr. Richard Leash said that his primary concern is having a two -story house overlooking his yard.
Chair Barry reminded that the second story window would not look down onto his property but rather
what he would see would be a blank wall. Asked whether a screening tree to block visibility of this
wall could be an acceptable solution.
Mr. Richard Leash said that if he cannot see the addition and they cannot see his property from that
addition, it would not bother him.
Mr. Eric Soldan asked how a records flaw could overlook 200 square feet of existing home. He added
that the fact that the home is larger than originally believed is not a sufficient reason to support this
Variance.
Ms. Kathy Hsu:
• Assured that they are happy to plant an evergreen tree to provide screening for their rear neighbor.
• Declared that it is not setting a precedent to grant them this Variance and that each application
needs to be looked at on a case -by -case basis.
Mr. Warren Held:
• Distributed an alternative set of drawings, in which he has dropped the ridge over Bedroom No. 3,
dropped 152 square feet and removed three feet of depth to the family room addition.
Planner Ann Welsh said that this proposal could work if the roof is lowered by two feet.
Commissioner Roupe said that the project still needs to get down to the proper square footage.
Commissioner Jackman asked what the new roof height would be.
Mr. Warren Held replied 20 feet when the original ridge was 22 feet.
Commissioner Roupe asked if the side extension is reduced by 149 square feet, eliminating the need for
a Variance, whether this project could be approved tonight.
Chair Barry replied yes, if the Commission makes the determination that this would not be increasing a
non - conformity.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:50 p.m.
Commissioner Zutshi said that she has worked with Warren Held and that he stays within City
regulations and appears to have come up with a different plan.
Planner Ann Welsh reminded that the setback penalty requires one additional foot of setback for any
height above 18 feet. If the project height is reduced to 20 feet in addition to an approximate three
percent reduction in FAR, this project does not require a Variance.
Saratoga Planning Commissio. .mutes of March 27, 2002 Page 12
Commissioner Roupe suggested that staff and Mr. Heid have been given adequate direction. If no
Variance is necessary, for square footage or setbacks, this project can be made to comply and be
approved.
Chair Barry asked for a sense of where the Commission is at.
Commissioner Garakani said that if this were a new home, he would approve it. Said that with no need
for a Variance, he can support this proposal.
Commissioner Hunter said that there have been seven letters of support. There are no windows
overlooking the rear neighbor's home. Stated that she does not like granting Variances. Said that she
supports both the original and alternate proposal by Mr. Heid.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Said that by reducing the area and eliminating the need for a Variance, she can support this
application.
• Pointed out that there are no special circumstances to support a Variance and that Variances do have
an impact on others.
• Stated that she does not agree with the statement that this is a predominately two -story area but
rather is more evenly a mixture of one and two -story homes.
• Said that she is more comfortable allowing the applicant to work out the remaining issues with staff.
• Expressed support for staff's recommendations.
Commissioner Jackman said that she cannot support this Variance as there is no justification to support
it. Added that she thought it would look odd to cut the roof off and that it would look less attractive.
Chair Barry wrapped up by saying that it appears the consensus is that the Commission is willing to
recommend the interpretation that this proposed addition, as modified, will not be increasing a non-
conformity.
Commissioner Kurasch reiterated support for adequate screening.
Chair Barry suggested that the screening tree be quick growing and evergreen. The specific species
should be recommended by the Arborist.
Commissioner Garakam suggested growing ivy on the wall.
Chair Barry:
• Said that it is important to have a strict criteria for approving Variances and usually the basis for
support is topography.
• Stated that it is her impression that it is not fair for this type of application to get this far before the
Planning Commission sees it.
• Declared that there are no real grounds for a Variance here.
• Pointed out that the neighbors who support this request are not as directly impacted as the one
neighbor who opposes.
• Expressed support for the interpretation that this project will not extend a non - conformity as long as
there is adequate screening of the addition and no Variance required.
Saratoga Planning Commissio. inutes of March 27, 2002 Page 13
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the
Planning Commission granted a Design Review Approval to allow a residential
addition on an existing home at 20802 Norada Court subject to the following:
1. That the applicant work with staff to revise the design so that no square footage
or setback Variances are required;
2. That the applicant provide screening across the back to protect the privacy of
the adjacent rear property; and
3. With the understanding that this addition does not perpetuate a non-
conformity.
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.4
Application #02 -044 (386 -52 -032 & 033) MAMMINI CORPORATION; LONGAY GUITAR
CENTER (Tenant), 12302 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to
conduct music classes in an existing 1,733 square foot commercial space located in the Neighborhood
Commercial (C -N) Zoning District. (VASUDEVAN)
Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit to allow the establishment of a
music school, for classical guitar, within an existing commercial space.
• Described the parking as including 23 spaces in front and 14 spaces at the rear of the building for a
total of 37. The music school would require 16 spaces. The school would have four studios with an
instructor and student in each one. Therefore approximately 10 vehicles would be affiliated with
the use. Staff finds that the provision of parking is adequate.
• Stated that twice a month, recitals are held on Saturday afternoons where approximately 24 vehicles
are expected. When that occurs, there would still be 13 spaces open to the other uses on the site.
• Said that staff can support this project with review and monitoring of parking.
• Added that three more spaces would be marked for "10 minute parking" in front of the convenience
market. Some are already reserved for short-term parking by patrons of the cleaners and salon uses.
• Recommended approval.
Commissioner Kurasch asked where the deficient spaces would come from when the recitals occur.
Associate Planner John Livingstone reminded that street parking is also available.
Commissioner Kurasch questioned the traffic circulation in this area compared to the earlier application
this evening for the instructional use.
Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that the circulation is better on this site than the previous
site considered this evening.
1 11 Saratoga Planning Commissio. ,inutes of March 27, 2002 Page 14
Commissioner Zutshi asked if this business is already in operation before issuance of this Conditional
Use Permit.
Associate Planner John Livingstone replied yes.
Commissioner Jackman pointed out that a signal is pending on Seagull Way that will help traffic
circulation.
Chair Barry said that at the site visit she asked about growth and suggested to the applicant that larger
recitals could be held off site.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:14 p.m.
Mr. Frank Longay, Owner /Director, Longay Guitar Center, 12302 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga:
• Said that he is glad to be in Saratoga.
• Described his school as operating a unique program that teaches classical guitar per the Suzuki
approach.
• Expressed regret for not obtaining the required Use Permit prior to establishing his school.
• Stated that he understands concerns for potential parking conflicts and has the flexibility to reduce
his class sizes by working longer hours.
• Pointed out that having 40 students in the program does not mean 40 cars since this is a family -
oriented approach and parents accompany their child.
• Said that he wants to provide good service to clients and has 27 years of experience teaching.
Commissioner Kurasch asked about attendance at recitals.
Mr. Frank Longay replied that there would not be more than 40 people at any event.
Commissioner Kurasch expressed concern about the potential for extended hours due to the site's
proximity to residential uses. Stated that her only concerns were the proposal for larger groups and
later night lessons. Said that she would not want to see extended weekday lessons.
Mr. Frank Longay stated that his evening hours run from 7:30 to 9 p.m. and that there would be five to
six people on the premises maximum at that time.
Chair Barry inquired about the hours of operation for the convenience store.
Commissioner Hunter replied that it is open 24 hours. She added that it is terrific to have a guitar
center in the area and that she is glad to see this business come to Saratoga.
Mr. Jeff Walker, 20451 Seagull Way, Saratoga:
• Said that his home is located just behind this site.
• Thanked staff and said that this proposed use is a fantastic use and asked the Commission to vote in
support.
• Said that he has some issues regarding impacts to his property as a result of this property. These
impacts include noise, damage to the shared fence, trash, etc.
Saratoga Planning Commissio. minutes of March 27, 2002 Page 15
• Suggested a closing time of 9 p.m. and a prohibition of amplification.
• Proposed that a sign be posted for staff to park in the back instead of students.
• Said that street parking should not be encouraged for overflow parking.
Commissioner Roupe suggested that Mr. Walker contact the Code Compliance Officers to deal with
some of the problems raised.
Chair Barry asked if the fence in question is on the shopping center property or shared property line.
Mr. Jeff Walker replied shared property line.
Mr. Jack Mallory, 12258 Kirkdale Drive, Saratoga:
• Said that he has lived in this neighborhood since 1967 and is in favor of this business.
• Said that he is concerned about the excess parking needs and asked the Commission to pay attention
to that part.
• Pointed out that 20 new houses are currently under construction and he does not want to encourage
parking along Seagull Way.
• Said that the commercial property owner should be a better citizen to the area.
Commissioner Jackman said that a brick or stucco fence should be required to separate this commercial
property from adjacent residential properties. Asked staff to look further into the impacts on parking in
the area as a result of the Azule Crossing Project.
Mr. Jack Mallory said that compliance and monitoring of approved standards needs to occur.
Chair Barry asked staff how the owner of this commercial center fits into this Use Permit application.
Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that the owner is looking to get a tenant for his building and
is responsible for the improvements.
Chair Barry asked if placing conditions for site improvements fall on Mr. Longay.
Commissioner Roupe questioned whether the Commission could impose fencing requirements with this
application.
Associate Planner John Livingstone replied yes. He added that if the owner wants to obtain a tenant, he
would make the required improvements.
Chair Barry asked if the owner is part of this process.
Associate Planner John Livingstone replied yes.
Commissioner Kurasch asked who was responsible for allowing this business to establish without the
required Use Permit.
Associate Planner John Livingstone said he did not know.
Saratoga Planning Commissio. iinutes of March 27, 2002 Page 16
Commissioner Hunter said that she didn't notice the fence and did not feel comfortable requiring a
fence of this tenant. Added that if there are problems with the convenience store clientele, the Code
Enforcement Officer should address them.
Chair Barry reminded that the condition for the fence replacement would fall on the property owner.
Commissioner Garakani pointed out that if the fence is located on the property line, both neighbors
would share the cost.
Mr. Jeff Walker:
• Said that the fence was probably not noticeable since it is covered in ivy. However, it is at an angle
and propped up. He added that he did not want to see the fence replacement as a condition of this
Use Permit approval but was interested in talking with the property owner himself to work out this
issue.
• Added that a commercial property owner is responsible for fencing that separates a commercial use
from residential uses.
Commissioner Jackman asked Mr. Jack Mallory how he was able to get his fence installed to separate
his property from adjacent commercial property.
Mr. Jack Mallory replied that the issue was that the commercial property was causing problems and an
eight -foot masonry fence was required. Encouraged that City to place this requirement as a strategic
item.
Mr. Frank Longay:
• Told Mr. Walker that he has an ally regarding concerns over property maintenance of this
commercial center.
• Said that the problems raised by Mr. Walker would be of concern to him too.
• Stated that he would not want his students exposed to those problems either.
• Assured that he would restrict his students from parking on Seagull Way.
Commissioner Kurasch suggested that Mr. Longay split his recitals into smaller groups if they get too
large to be accommodated by the available parking.
Mr. Frank Longay said he can do that if they get too large.
Commissioner Hunter suggested that Mr. Longay ask his staff to park in the back.
Mr. Frank Longay said he had no problem with that requirement.
Ms. Erin Donovan:
• Advised that her son and daughter attend this guitar program. She drives them to the school
together.
• Said that once the lessons are done, they leave the site.
Ms. Kim Buller, Administrative Director:
' Saratoga Planning Commissio_ inutes of March 27, 2002 Page 17
• Said that this center's property management company is very responsive and will be addressing the
garbage issue by installing a garbage enclosure. Additionally, a van parked on site will be moved.
• Stated that the fence issue could be addressed by the owner.
• Advised that her son has studied in this program for six years and that it is an amazing thing for
children and an asset for the City of Saratoga.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:40 p.m.
Commissioner Hunter said that this project is just great and that she would support it.
Commissioner Zutshi agreed to support this request with the added requirement for six and twelve
month review.
Commissioner Garakani said he was also in support.
Commissioner Jackman said that she too is in favor. She asked staff to follow through on the idea for a
masonry wall and contact with Azule Crossing Homeowner's Association to ensure that garages are
being retained for parking uses.
Chair Barry said she agrees with the idea to contact Azule Crossing regarding parking but that she did
not see the requirement for the masonry fence being applicable with this request.
Commissioner Jackman said she just wants to encourage staff to initiate the study of the issue of
masonry walls separating commercial and residential areas.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Said that she is in support of this application with a caution on the possible traffic impacts on
Seagull Way.
• Said that she was also in favor of limiting hours and limiting the number of recitals to once a month
on a Saturday and twice a month with a maximum of 15 students plus guests.
• Stated concern for traffic in the area.
• Supported the proposal for review of the adequacy of parking and circulation in six and twelve
months.
• Said that she was in favor of requiring the repair of the fence, finding it an appropriate request.
• Expressed support.
Chair Barry said that the applicant should stress to employees to park at the rear lot to leave parking at
the front for the students as a means of limiting noise impacts on the adjacent residences.
Commissioner Roupe said that this guitar school will be an excellent addition to the community and it
appears the applicant has the flexibility and control to deal with parking on site. Additionally, there is
recourse if the use does not work out. Suggested approving the project as is.
Commissioner Garakam asked how the City would know how many recitals are held on site.
Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that the City would respond on a complaint basis.
Saratoga Planning Commissio. _inutes of March 27, 2002
Page 18
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit to allow the
establishment of the Longay Guitar Center at 12302 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road
with the added conditions of approval:
1. That there be no on- street parking on Seagull Way;
2. That additional parking spaces be marked for 1110 minute parking" in front of
the convenience store;
3. That there be no amplified music;
4. That the use close at 9 p.m.; and
5. That staff and the applicant work with the property owner on the issue of fence
repair.
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
DIRECTOR ITEMS
Explanation of Santa Clara County referral process
Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that County projects regarding discretionary review are
routed to the City of Saratoga for comment. Staff often emails comments to the County. Typically the
reviews are for single family residences.
Chair Barry advised that staff has found no review files on Quickert Road. Recommended that a letter
by Council be drafted to ask the County to look into this matter of project review further.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if there are any pending applications for review.
Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that he checked the file cabinet where all County referral
information is retained. There is no new info for the Quickert Road area in the last year and a half.
Added that he has called the County Planning supervisor who found no pending projects on Quickert.
Commissioner Roupe asked staff to continue to investigate.
Commissioner Hunter cautioned that the projects could also be on Bohlman or Kittridge and not just
Quickert.
COMMISSION ITEMS
Energy Efficiency — Review Conservation Element of the General Plan and consider adopting an
Energy Element to form the basis for energy conservation ordinances. (LIVINGSTONE)
Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff update as follows:
Saratoga Planning Commissio. _inutes of March 27, 2002
Page 19
• Advised that the General Plan has a Conservation Element to encourage energy conservation. The
subcommittee wanted to look at improving the energy efficiency of homes in Saratoga in a two -part
plan. The first part includes education using handouts and materials on the internet and to sponsor a
workshop with contractors where providers would be present to provide information on green
building technologies and resources.
• Next the subcommittee recommends adoption of a new Energy Efficiency Ordinance.
• Said that they have looked at different Ordinances nationally. In Aspen, new homes over 5,000
square feet must offset fossil fuel use through on -site energy generating or payment of a fee. In
Marin County, a community most applicable to Saratoga, they have a "big and tall residence"
Ordinance. Homes over 4,000 square feet must comply with Title 24 or install on -site renewable
energy systems that provide 75 percent of the energy, such as solar.
• Advised that the subcommittee likes that approach the best.
• Asked the rest of the Commission to advise if the subcommittee is on the right path and then staff
can seek out more information.
Commissioner Zutshi said that she thought Title 24 was already in place.
Chair Barry pointed out that the subcommittee is proposing improvements to the Title 24 requirements.
Commissioner Roupe said that even if a home is larger than 4,000 square feet, the home must be as
efficient as a 4,000 square foot home.
Chair Barry said that if Green Building Guidelines are used, the efficiency levels are between 15 to 30
percent more efficient that Title 24.
Commissioner Hunter asked about recycling building waste.
Commissioner Kurasch advised that this is a separate issue. In fact, an Ordinance is currently under
consideration by Council on that subject.
Commissioner Roupe said that this report is a good start and that the subcommittee is heading in the
right direction. Said that one alternative is to pay a fee if a project is unable to achieve compliance for
energy efficiency.
Chair Barry agreed but stated the importance that these fees not go into the City's General Fund but
rather be earmarked specifically for energy efficiency projects.
Commissioner Kurasch said that Marin County is starting to implement this fee.
Commissioner Roupe suggested involving experts such as architects in this process.
Associate Planner John Livingstone said that the City of Davis also has a similar energy efficiency fee
program. Said that the subcommittee prefers to see home energy efficiency implemented rather than
payment of a fee.
Commissioner Roupe said that both options are worth looking into since they would provide flexibility.
` . ' Saratoga Planning Commissio. inutes of March 27, 2002
Page 20
Associate Planner John Livingstone said that he will call Aspen to see how they spend their collected
money.
Chair Barry suggested that an Energy Efficiency Report should be required with development
applications.
Commissioner Hunter stressed that a lot of education needs to be provided on this issue. Suggested
working together with the other West Valley Area communities, such as Los Gatos and Campbell.
Commissioner Roupe endorsed the need for education on this subject.
Chair Barry agreed and added that education also has to do with financing for energy efficiency. It is
not just the up front costs but rather education on the long -term benefits and savings.
Commissioner Roupe said that a pay back period might be needed. Does energy efficiency need to pay
for itself in 7 years, 10 years or 40 years.
Associate Planner said that there is information available for large commercial buildings but there may
not yet been such data for smaller single- family residential projects. Said that he would work to find
tables on how long it takes to see a return on investment for energy efficiency.
Commissioner Roupe said it is important to set some sort of criteria and establish some set standards.
Commissioner Kurasch added that staff training is an important part of the educational process.
Commissioner Hunter reiterated her suggestion for some sort of consortium of West Valley
communities.
Chair Barry pointed out that some of the larger communities are more likely to have models in place.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Pointed out that the costs, impacts and benefits must all be considered. Benefits include cutting
greenhouse gases and pollution. Secondly, energy efficient methods provide independence in case
of natural disaster. There is also the security benefit that local sources of material are more secure.
• Stated that costs are dropping every year for energy efficiency methods in significant numbers.
Chair Barry:
• Stated that this subcommittee report on Energy Efficiency was great and agrees that further
education on energy efficiency methods makes sense.
• Suggested that should the City decide to redo its City Hall, it could become a "Green" building.
• Reminded that there is a financing issue and suggested that City staff learn about that issue and
treat it as a high priority.
• Said that the City should push forward in the directions the subcommittee has suggested.
Miscellaneous Items
' 'Saratoga Planning Commissio. _inutes of March 27, 2002
Page 21
Commissioner Jackman pointed out that she has a new homeowner's insurance plan that includes as
excepted perils issues such as Planning and Design Errors, Earthquake, Flood and Volcanoes.
Commissioner Zutshi advised that there will be a Library site visit on April 3, 2002, at 10:30 a.m.
Commissioners Kurasch and Zutshi are unable to attend the April 10, 2002, Planning Commission
meeting.
COMMUNICATIONS
There were no communications items.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Chair Barry adjourned the meeting at 10:43 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, April
10, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk
M
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, March 13, 2002
PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Chair Barry called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakam, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi
Absent: None
Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner John Livingstone and Planner Lata
Vasudevan
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of February 27, 2002.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
regular Planning Commission minutes of February 27, 2002, were approved with a
minor corrections to pages 2, 7, 10 and 13.
AYES: Barry, Hunter, Garakani, Kurasch and Roupe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Jackman and Zutshi
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this
meeting was properly posted on March 7, 2002.
REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS
Director Tom Sullivan announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by
filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the
decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b).
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no Oral Communications.
Saratoga Planning Commissic Iinutes of March 13, 2002 Page 2
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Single -Story Overlay Zone
Director Tom Sullivan informed that he has distributed a memo outlining the results of the Brookview
and Saratoga Woods Neighborhoods' postcard survey regarding a potential Single -Story Overlay Zone.
He advised that this matter will be scheduled on the April 10, 2002, Planning Commission agenda in
order for the Planning Commission to determine whether there is sufficient support to move forward.
Commissioner Roupe asked if a particular percentage vote is required or a simple majority.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that the City actually has the right to go forward even without a poll.
However, a municipality usually tries to determine the wishes of the community. The Commission
will make the determination as to whether this process should go forward into Public Hearings.
Operations of Boards and Commissions
Director Tom Sullivan advised that the second item distributed is an Ordinance, which outlines the
operations of Commissions and Boards, including the handling of absences. Advised that two absences
by a Commissioner will result in a reminder by the Director and the third unexcused absence can result
in dismissal. Commissioners should get an excused absence by calling the Commission Chair. The
Chair must notify the Mayor of any absences.
Chair Barry stated that it is a discretionary decision as to what represents an excused absence.
Hillside Development
Chair Barry pointed out the letter in the packet from Gail and Doug Cheeseman, which references eight
applications for Hillside Development. Asked staff for a report at the next meeting as to what County
projects are pending on the Hillside and /or near Quickert Drive.
Commissioner Roupe asked staff to define the sphere of influence and what brings some County
projects before the Planning Commission while others are not.
Director Tom Sullivan said that Associate Planner John Livingstone will handle that request.
CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar items.
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1
Application #02 -025 (517 -09 -020) DEERFIELD REALTY CORPORATION, 20514 Saratoga -Las
Gatos Road: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to establish a 3,682 square foot orthodontics office
in a portion of an existing office building that has a 4,282 square foot main level and a 1,015 square
foot basement. The applicant proposes to add 320 square feet to the main level of the building. The
office building is located in the CH -1 zoning district. (VASUDEVAN)
Saratoga Planning Commissic_ iinutes of March 13, 2002 Page 3
Commissioner Jackman advised that she resides nearby and will recuse herself from this item. She left
the dais to sit in the audience.
Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit to establish an orthodontics practice
in a portion of an existing office building. This building is currently for sale. The building has
4,282 square feet on the main level and a 1,015 square foot basement and was constructed in 1969.
It was once a bank and most recently an office. The applicant proposes to add an additional 320
square feet to the street level, add windows and modify the planters. Design Review is not required
• Stated that the applicant will use 3,682 gross square feet for the dental practice. The remaining
space will be leased to another tenant.
• Recommended approval with conditions as staff can make the necessary findings to support this
proposal.
• Identified issues raised at the site visit, which has resulted in three additional proposed Conditions
of Approval. The first is to require submittal of a landscape plan for the replacement of trees in
poor health. The landscaping must be installed prior to occupancy. The second added condition is
to improve the appearance of the existing concrete wall. The third additional condition is to take
some sort of action regarding the existing wrought iron gate located at the rear of the property.
Commissioner Kurasch asked staff to clarify its intent regarding the wrought iron gate.
Planner Lata Vasudevan said that she is asking the Commission to provide direction on what it would
like to do with that gate.
Commissioner Roupe said that the requirement for 18 parking spaces seems inadequate and unrealistic
in light of the fact that this practice operates with 15 staff members. Asked staff to explain how it has
reached the conclusion that this parking is adequate.
Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that parking is calculated based upon a formula.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that this leaves only three spaces free for patient parking. Questioned
whether this is adequate.
Planner Lata Vasudevan said that she has only considered Ordinance requirements.
Commissioner Roupe said that this site may have a congested parking problem.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:30 p.m.
Mr. David Gould, Realtor, Colliers, Walnut Creek:
• Thanked staff.
• Advised that his client, Dr. Anthony Elleikiotis, has practiced in his current Saratoga location for
the last six years and has resided in Saratoga for 15 years. He also has another office in San Jose.
• Said that he has read the staff report and finds it accurate.
• Said that the number of employees is a total. They are not on site at the same time. Usually, there
will be about six or seven staff at any given time.
• Stated that this dental practice concentrates on braces for children.
Saratoga Planning Commissic Minutes of March 13, 2002 Page 4
• Added that this will be an owner - occupied property that will have a higher level of maintenance and
repair.
• Said that he would be available for any questions and that they look forward to moving forward.
Commissioner Zutshi asked how many patients will be in the office at one time.
Mr. David Gould replied about six.
Commissioner Zutshi said that in her experience taking her children to the orthodontist, she has seen no
fewer than eight patients in that office.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if that patient count was per doctor.
Dr. Anthony Elleikiotis, Applicant:
• Said that he has been consulting since 1986 and operates as a high quality not high quantity office.
• Assured that they do not run a "mill."
Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that many patients have very quick five- minute appointments for
adjustments.
Dr. Anthony Elleikiotis said that his current office has five chairs and that he spends an average of 30 to
40 minutes per patient.
Commissioner Hunter asked if the patients would be lined up before these new proposed windows and
therefore visible from those driving past the building. Reminded that this is an Historic District.
Dr. Anthony Elleikiotis assured that this would be an nice and attractive office building.
Mr. David Gould:
• Assured that this is a well- designed project.
• Said that this building was constructed as a bank and faced the back of this lot. The front side is
currently not friendly as it has a solid fagade. They are proposing large windows facing the street
and therefore opening the building up. They will use a mix of clear and frosted glass to provide
daylighting and making it more attractive both from inside and outside the building. Patients will
be able to see out but privacy will be provided for the patients being treated.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Asked for clarification on the staff size as it appears that there are 15, 11 full time and 4 part time.
• Questioned how many are would be on site at any time.
• Said that the parking concern is real and wondered if this parking can accommodate the proposed
number of chairs, which appears to include seven exam chairs and two consultation rooms.
Mr. David Gould clarified that there are 31 parking stalls, including handicapped. They are proposing
seven exam chairs, four in front and three on the side. There will also be two consulting rooms with
chairs.
Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that intent of having this many chairs is that they be occupied.
Saratoga Planning Commissic Anutes of March 13, 2002 Page 5
Mr. David Gould said that there is rotating and staging involved.
Commissioner Kurasch asked how the staff would rotate.
Dr. Anthony Elleikiotis:
• Said that he had six working at his current Saratoga office yesterday.
• Said that he has a predominately female staff, most of whom work part time. Four staff members
work one and a half days a week.
• Said that staff on site at any given time will range from six to nine.
• Said that he also plans to keep his San Jose office. He can't sell it since he is moving but a few
miles away.
Chair Barry asked if seven chairs are needed at one time.
Dr. Anthony Elleikiotis replied no. He added that his current office consists of 1,000 square feet with
fewer parking spaces and there is never a problem.
Chair Barry asked how many patients would be within the premises at one time, given this site will
have seven chairs and two consulting rooms. Also asked how many are new patients versus existing
patients simply coming into the office for quick adjustments to their braces.
Dr. Anthony Elleikiotis said that at any given time, four or five patients are being treated, one is in
consultation and one is watching a one -hour video.
Ms. Erna Jackman, 14515 Oak Street, Saratoga:
• Said that she has lived around the corner from this site for 19 years and is pleased with the prospect
of this project.
• Stated that this building has been a forlorn looking one and that she is looking forward to fresh
landscaping.
• Pointed out that the building is on a bus line and that this would provide another means for patients
to come to the office.
• Said that she has never seen the parking lot used much.
• Suggested the removal of the gate to allow pedestrian access.
Dr. Anthony Elleikiotis:
• Thanked Ms. Jackman for her support and said he would be open to any suggestions about what to
do with this gate.
• Assured that he wants this to be an attractive site and is open to input on how best to achieve that
goal.
Chair Barry advised that Design Review would be considered by staff. Said that the Commission
would be seek some improvement to the concrete wall, a landscape /tree replacement plan and some
treatment of the gate.
Saratoga Planning Commissic .inutes of March 13, 2002 Page 6
Commissioner Hunter said that she too would like to see the gate removed. Added that she lives
nearby.
Mr. Eric Doyle, Building Owner:
• Said that the building has 31 spaces, representing 5.51 spaces per 1,000 square feet. The doctor has
nine employees and two doctors for a total of eleven. They propose 8 patients per doctor for a total
of 19 people at a time. Multiplying the square footage of 3,682 times 5.51 parking spaces results is
a requirement of 21. This site has a slight overflow. Said that it is typical to over park rather than
under park a site. This proposal will work.
Dr. Anthony Elleikiotis said that most parents drop off their kids and come back to pick them up.
Commissioner Kurasch said she is still not clear on the total number of people in the building at a time.
Mr. Eric Doyle pointed out that the Ordinance provides the formula.
Commissioner Kurasch replied that this provides but a baseline.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 8:00 p.m.
Chair Barry suggested that the Commission require the next tenant come back before the Planning
Commission for a Conditional Use Permit.
Planner Lata Vasudevan advised that since that space will not have street frontage, it would not be
required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit.
Director Tom Sullivan said that it is possible to Condition that requirement as part of this approval.
Commissioner Garakani pointed out that at one time, this site had been considered as an alternative site
for the Post Office.
Commissioner Roupe said that now that he better understands the function of this dental practice, he
has fewer concerns about the number of employees but that he also would support the Condition to
require Planning Commission review and Conditional Use Permit approval for the second tenant on this
site.
Director Tom Sullivan said that the Commission can also condition a six and/or twelve month review of
this use, or upon complaint, and bring it back before the Commission if it becomes necessary.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Agreed to the proposal to remove the gate with the nexus being the pedestrian link and benefit to
adjacent businesses.
• Supported the requirement for a landscape plan and replacement plan for trees in poor condition.
• Suggested that the concrete wall should be faced with some sort of stone veneer.
• Supported the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit for the second tenant in this building.
• Said that there are parking concerns as this use is an intensification of previous uses.
Saratoga Planning Commissio inutes of March 13, 2002 Page 7
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that there will be an opportunity to revisit this use if problems cause
staff to bring it back before the Commission.
Director Tom Sullivan reminded that the fact that this building will be owner occupied would be a
benefit. It is in Dr. Anthony Elleikiotis' best interests that this works.
Commissioner Roupe suggested that it would be helpful to have elevations in the future.
Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that it is a stretch in this case to require them since there are no
design issues under consideration by the Planning Commission but that staff will note that preference
for future applications.
Chair Barry suggested a Condition that directs staff to further review the windows.
Director Tom Sullivan assured that staff would be doing this review when the tenant improvement
plans are reviewed.
Planner Lata Vasudevan said that she would add this Condition to the Resolution to require staff to
review the proposed placement of new windows carefully.
Commissioner Zutshi said that it is good that this building will be used and agreed that parking can be
reviewed in the future if problems should occur.
Commissioner Kurasch proposed an automatic review and questioned whether operational hours should
be restricted in some way.
Commissioner Hunter said that she believes that parking for this site is adequate.
Chair Barry said that the hours of operation are already limited by the nature of the practice, since the
patients are children. Said that she does not have any concern about operational hours.
Commissioner Kurasch asked about the requirement to enhance the concrete wall.
Commissioner Hunter said that this requirement might be expensive.
Director Tom Sullivan said that the wall could be surfaced for a reasonable amount of money, using
stucco or plaster. Suggested that the material tie in with the materials used for the building itself.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
Planning Commission approved Application #2 -025 to allow the establishment of
an 3,682 square foot orthodontics office at 20514 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, with
the following additional Conditions of Approval:
• Require a Conditional Use Permit for the second tenant in this building:
• Prepare a landscape /tree replacement plan and install prior to occupancy;
• Install a decorative treatment on the concrete wall to coordinate with materials
used on the building;
Saratoga Planning CommissiL ,Iinutes of March 13, 2002 Page 8
• Removal of the wrought iron gate at the rear of the property to facilitate
pedestrian access; and
• Review of this Conditional Use Permit in six months, 12 months and upon any
complaint.
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Jackman
Commissioner Jackman returned to the dais at 8:17 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO. 2
Annlication #02 -007 (Citvwide) Resolution AmendinLy the Zoning Reauirements related to Rear
Yard Setbacks for Two Story Dwellings: The Planning Commission has requested that it consider
amending the language of the Zoning Ordinance that regulates rear yard setbacks for two story
dwellings. Currently the minimum yard requirements differ for lots that have been developed prior to
May 15, 1992, vs. vacant lot and lots created after May 15, 1992. The ordinance also has different
setbacks for single -story and multi -story dwellings. (SULLIVAN)
Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that he had contacted Architect Warren Held who in turn contacted the AIA to invite any
interested architects to participate in this evening's hearing.
• Said that the same report was distributed from the February 13, 2002, Planning Commission Public
Hearing.
• Said that the goal is to have the practice /interpretation and written word to be the same.
• Reminded that this is a continued Public Hearing item from February 13 th .
Chair Barry reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:22 p.m.
Mr. Warren Heid, Architect, 14630 Big Basin Way, Saratoga:
• Expressed regret that his fellow architects did not make this meeting.
• Pointed out that the header of the minutes of the past hearing incorrectly read January 23, 2002,
instead of the actual meeting date of February 13, 2002.
• Said that staff has developed an excellent way to explain rear setbacks but he has some concern.
Commissioner Garakani asked why not include front and side yard setbacks.
Commissioner Roupe said that this could be done at a later date. At this time, the Commission directed
staff to deal only with rear setbacks.
Director Tom Sullivan said that at the meeting of February 13, 2002, the Commission gave no direction
to readvertise this item with a expanded scope.
Mr. Warren Held:
Saratoga Planning Commissio Minutes of March 13, 2002
Page 9
• Suggested that the text of the proposed Ordinance that deals with adding one foot for every foot
above 18 feet should be clarified by adding "for the portion above 18 feet." This simple addition
will clarify the intent.
• Said that page 2 of the staff report reads "10 feet from the fagade." He wondered if it more
accurately should read "10 feet from the property line."
Director Tom Sullivan said that it was staff's intent to say fagade.
Mr. Warren Held said that he questions what he was agreeing to in the last minutes on page 22.
Commissioner Roupe said that staff will put this matter on a future agenda and incorporate the added
text "above 18 feet."
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:34 p.m.
Commissioner Kurasch asked where the 10 foot standard came from.
Director Tom Sullivan said that it was probably borrowed from another Ordinance. The impact on
single story and multi story structures is where the difference exists between the written word and
common practice or interpretation.
Commissioner Kurasch said that recent practices require different setbacks between first and second
floors.
Director Tom Sullivan said that the Commission gave that instruction.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if there is any architectural reason for 10 feet instead of 12.5, etc.
Director Tom Sullivan replied no. He said that someone had to make a decision and someone did.
Commissioner Roupe said that staff seems to have the right interpretation. Said that the question is
whether the Commission wants to go with the practices over the last 15 years or go with this new
proposal.
Chair Barry said that it would be nice to hear from other practicing architects.
Commissioner Zutshi sought clarification that the second story is set back 10 feet further than the first
story element.
Commissioner Garakani said that this is a great proposal and gives flexibility to developers /designers.
Commissioner Kurasch said that she differs in opinion.
Commissioner Jackman said that this Ordinance would not create a one size fits all architectural
standard and that they have to start someplace. This is just the minimum and is a good start. The
expanded setback compensates to give use of land while keeping privacy for adjacent properties.
Saratoga Planning Commissic Minutes of March 13, 2002 Page 10
Chair Barry said that she sees a difference between small lots (10,000, 12,500 or 15, 000 square feet)
and larger lots. Sought assurance that this Ordinance is not allowing greater encroachment into the
setback.
Commissioner Garakani said that there is no encroaching into the setback at all.
Director Tom Sullivan said that the Municipal Code provides a difference between corner and interior
lots and between single story and multi story structures. When the Ordinance was written, corner lots
did not require to stagger setbacks.
Commissioner Kurasch said that she does not see a conflict with one setback standard for single -story
and another for multi -story structures.
Commissioner Garakani asked if there are any disadvantages.
Commissioner Kurasch said that many are concerned about maxed out properties and air and quality
issues. It is important to have large spaces between buildings and nice landscaping. It is a reason why
people move and live here in Saratoga.
Chair Barry said that on smaller lots, if the first story is allowed to go back further, it could lead to
privacy issues or noise impacts on adjacent neighbors.
Commissioner Garakani pointed out that single -story rear setbacks remain at 25 feet.
Commissioner Kurasch added that multi -story structures have a larger setback at 35 feet.
Chair Barry said that issues include air, space and light.
Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that smaller parcels allow 60 percent coverage and greater FAR than
larger parcels.
Chair Barry said that the Commissioners will not all see this the same way. Added that she did not feel
comfortable allowing this on smaller lots (R -1- 10,000, R -1- 12,500).
Commissioner Garakani suggested that this might promote two -story structures on smaller lots.
Director Tom Sullivan agreed that it is easier to accommodate on larger lots.
Commissioner Kurasch said that Saratoga is typically a single -story town.
Director Tom Sullivan agreed that many Codes do encourage single stories.
Commissioner Garakani said that he would like input from other architects.
Director Tom Sullivan reminded that AIA (American Institute of Architects) was contacted and
Architect Warren Held personally contacted 10 to 12 local architects.
Saratoga Planning CommissiL Jinutes of March 13, 2002 Page 11
Chair Barry agreed that the attempt was made to solicit input.
Commissioner Hunter expressed concern that the Ordinance may become restrictive.
Mr. Marty Oakley, Builder /Designer:
• Said that he has worked in Saratoga over the past 28 years.
• Expressed that there is not much problem with the existing Ordinance and that it is clear as written
• Said that the additional 10 feet is fine with larger lots.
Chair Barry said that the question of whether or not to change the Ordinance is what is being
considered this evening.
Mr. Marty Oakley:
• Said that, in his opinion, the Ordinance does not need to be changed.
• Said that these changes become an issue when dealing with 10,000, 12,500 and 15,000 square foot
lots. The side and front setbacks are crucial.
• Asked the Commission to reconsider expanding the rear setback requirement.
• Said that everyone has been able to work with the existing Ordinance interpretation and it has not
been a problem in the past.
Chair Barry said that the practical interpretation of the Code has been different from the written word.
It is her impression that builders have actually not lived with a true interpretation of the Code as it was
written.
Mr. Marty Oakley said that he has appeared before many Planning Commissioners and the rear yard
setback is typically not raised by the Planning Commission as a concern.
Commissioner Jackman said that the issue arises when additions are made on existing tract homes.
Said that the Commission is trying to ensure neighborhood compatibility.
Mr. Marty Oakley said that today there is more redevelopment than new homes in Saratoga. Old homes
are torn down and rebuilt to today's standards. The Ordinance as it exists is fine.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 9:17 p.m.
Director Tom Sullivan said that the Commission has several options. To move forward with the
proposed drafts, to amend those drafts or to put them aside and keep operating as it is today.
Chair Barry said that it might be helpful to determine whether the Commissioners are ready to take a
stand this evening.
Director Tom Sullivan said that it would be appropriate to take a straw vote.
Chair Barry asked for a show of hands. Commissioners Kurasch, Hunter and Barry voted to leave the
Ordinance as it is. Commissioners Roupe, Jackman and Garakani supported changing the Ordinance.
Commissioner Zutshi abstained.
Saratoga Planning Commissic iinutes of March 13, 2002 Page 12
Director Tom Sullivan said that historically, there have been two different minimum setbacks for first
and multi -story structures, requiring the whole structure to be moved if a multi -story. The proposal
would change that so that there would be a different setback for the first story and another for the
second floor.
Commissioner Jackman said that with the proposed Code amendment, the first story would be closer to
the back property line than the top story.
Commissioner Kurasch said that the whole structure would be further away from the rear setback.
Motion: Upon motion of Chair Barry, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the
Commission approved the Negative Declaration for amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance requirements related to Rear Yard Setbacks.
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: Kurasch
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the
Planning Commission adopted a Resolution to amend the Zoning Ordinance
requirements related to Rear Yard Setbacks as proposed.
AYES: Garakani, Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: Barry, Hunter and Kurasch
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
DIRECTOR ITEMS
There were no Director Items.
COMMISSION ITEMS
Basements: Consider adopting new Zoning Ordinance requirements regarding the construction of
basements. (VASUDEVAN)
Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff update as follows:
• Advised that she has distributed a revised version of the proposed Zoning requirements for
basements, which clarifies definitions.
• Said that they have provided definitions of a light well.
• Suggested incorporating wording to read "36 -inch high guardrail with self - closing gate or grate."
Commissioner Roupe asked for assurances that light wells must meet applicable setbacks and not
encroach into required setbacks.
Director Tom Sullivan said that this is already the practice.
Saratoga Planning Commissic linutes of March 13, 2002 Page 13
Commissioner Garakani read the description of the light well as including four sides and open from the
top. Asked how exiting occurs.
Planner Lata Vasudevan replied by use of stairs or ladder.
Chair Barry said that the intent is to permit light wells but provide a maximum size for light wells.
Commissioner Roupe suggested that instead of saying guardrail, the requirement can be for a 36 -inch
high enclosure since it could also be a wall.
Chair Barry pointed out that this will still come before the Commission for Design Review.
Commissioner Garakani asked why the recommendation is for a maximum four -foot width.
Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that the Uniform Building Code requires a 36 -inch clearance. That is a
very narrow and tight space. However, the intent is to limit the width to prevent a daylight basement.
Director Sullivan clarified that there is nothing wrong with a daylight basement but the space would
have to be counted as livable space.
Commissioner Jackman said that they want to treat a basement as a basement with these proposed
standards.
Commissioner Garakani asked what represents a daylight basement according to Code.
Director Sullivan said that now only the top two feet can be above the natural or cut grade. The UBC
requires light wells. Basements become floor area if they are a daylight basement with greater than two
feet above grade.
Commissioner Kurasch said that the setback must be retained even with larger light wells.
Commissioner Roupe reiterated that if the basement meets Ordinance requirements for a basement, it is
not counted as living space.
Commissioner Jackman said that the only change in the current draft from the last draft is the definition
of a basement.
Commissioner Roupe suggested changing item 2 from "such space" to "the entire basement area."
Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that a line of text was removed from item 7 and wondered if this
was intentional or accidental.
Commissioner Jackman said that this line should be returned to the draft.
Director Tom Sullivan said that staff would be splitting the review between a geotechnical consultant
and staff.
Saratoga Planning Commissic linutes of March 13, 2002 Page 14
Commissioner Kurasch asked for the reasoning behind supporting a 12 -foot high ceiling in a basement.
Pointed out that between 32 and 33 cubic feet of soil must be removed for every foot of basement
height.
Commissioner Garakani suggested that the height may be needed to accommodate pipes.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Said that the 12 -foot height is not finished ceiling.
• Recommended reducing the height from the proposed 12 to 10 feet.
• Proposed amending item 1 - "... of the main structure, including the attached garage."
• Proposed amending item 4 - "...net -Attashed te th strustur-o any accessory or detached
Onictnre "
Commissioner Hunter expressed support for the 12 -foot maximum ceiling height.
Commissioner Roupe said he could go with either 10 or 12 feet.
Director Tom Sullivan said that he would like direction from the Commission to do the appropriate
Ordinance amendment and environmental determination advertising.
Commissioner Kurasch mentioned a previous proposal to consider the possibility of a "not to exceed"
area of basement. Asked why this idea was dropped.
Commissioner Jackman said because it is hard to regulate.
Planner Lata Vasudevan said that they had looked at other cities and none regulated the size of the
basement.
Commissioner Roupe said that it is good policy to encourage basements over building up.
Commissioner Garakani pointed out that the cost is high for constructing basements.
Commissioner Roupe agreed saying it is twice as much. He added that he likes the proposed
requirement for a road repair bond for road maintenance.
Commissioner Jackman asked how such a bond amount could be determined.
Director Tom Sullivan said that in his previous City, Moraga, if more than 50 cubic yards of import or
export of cut or fill is required, the applicant pays a fee to the City for use for road maintenance.
Commissioner Roupe proposed limiting the allowable hours for trucks to excavate a site.
Director Tom Sullivan said that Code already limits hours. That is outside of this Ordinance.
Commissioner Roupe said a requirement for a disposition plan for cut should be required.
Saratoga Planning Commissi� /linutes of March 13, 2002 Page 15
Chair Barry suggested imposing a time frame for completion of a basement installation.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that the UBC addresses this issue. The basement is considered a part of
the foundation walls. Real progress must be achieved within six months and requires a building
inspection.
Commissioner Jackman suggested a final review with Planner Lata Vasudevan.
Chair Barry said it appears that staff is ready for Public Hearing on this proposal.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for this Commission Item at 10:10 p.m.
Mr. Marty Oakley, Builder /Designer:
• Thanked staff for creating an Ordinance on the subject of basements as this is really needed.
• Said it is important for the Commission to truly understand what a basement represents.
• Said that square footage is the most important thing and that the City of Saratoga is quite strict on
the subject of allowable building space.
• Advised that these days, a basement is intended to function just like the main floor, as true living
space. The ceiling height is important. At least one regular flight of stairs exiting the basement is
recommended.
• Said that a three -foot wide light well is not enough space to climb out and get above grade in an
emergency.
• Suggested that the maximum depth should be increased to five feet for a light well.
• Added that today, a nine -foot ceiling is the standard and suggested imposing a maximum finish
height in the 10 to 11 foot range.
Commissioner Kurasch suggested a maximum depth of excavation limit.
Director Tom Sullivan said that the maximum needs to be set by Zoning while the minimum is set by
the UBC. Added that the maximum excavation depends on the geology.
Mr. Marty Oakley offered to prepare diagrams to depict basement height maximum standards.
Director Tom Sullivan said that he would like to incorporate Mr. Oakley's drawings within the
Ordinance.
Mr. Marty Oakley said that a basement plays a positive part in a home and is not just storage. Invited
the Commissioners to visit a few projects he has constructed that incorporated basements to
demonstrate what a basement is all about.
Commissioner Jackman advised that a light well is needed by for basement level bedroom.
Mr. Marty Oakley said that this is part of the design that certain rooms within a basement require
windows.
Chair Barry pointed out that this issue will have the benefit of a Public Hearing and that all issues will
not be solved this evening. Suggested leaving the rest for the Public Hearing.
Saratoga Planning Commissic iinutes of March 13, 2002 Page 16
Commissioner Hunter proposed adding the visit to the basements to the next Commissioners' site visit
schedule.
Director Tom Sullivan asked Mr. Oakley to provide the appropriate addresses so that they could be
added to the next site visit agenda.
Mr. Marty Oakley said that he would be glad to give a tour.
Director Tom Sullivan said that the direction from the Commission seems to be a concurrence to move
forward to Public Hearing.
Chair Barry suggested that due to the lateness of the hour, the other items on tonight's agenda under
Commission Items be continued to the April 10`h meeting.
Commissioner Jackman said that her experience sitting in the audience this evening made her aware
that the Commission seems very far away from the audience. Suggested that the Commissioners will
need to work at being more welcoming to those in the audience.
Chair Barry advised that the League of Women Voters will hold a meeting at West Valley College on
March 281h at 7 p.m. to discuss how the college can better meet the needs of the community. Suggested
that a staff and Commission representative attend. The meeting will be held in the Regular Board
Room in the Chancellor's Office at the Administration Building.
Commissioner Roupe asked if this would include audience participation.
Chair Barry said the first 30 minutes would be a presentation.
Commissioner Hunter:
• Assured that the League of Women Voters always seeks active participation in its sponsored
events.
• Advised that the Heritage Commission is designing a kiosk for installation in front of the Library,
which will incorporate the names of people who adopt trees.
• Announced that she plans to attend the Planners Institute and offered a ride to any other
Commissioners who might plan to attend.
Commissioner Zutshi announced a pending site visit for the Library and promised to email the details.
Commissioner Garakani encouraged the Commissioners to read the memo prepared by Associate
Planner John Livingston regarding Energy Efficiency prior to the next meeting as there is a lot of
information contained therein.
Commissioner Roupe asked if comments are desired prior to the next meeting.
Commissioner Garakani replied that they are not necessary but are welcome.
Saratoga Planning Commissi( Iinutes of March 13, 2002
Page 17
Director Tom Sullivan said that since Associate Planner John Livingstone will be on vacation on April
10`x' it would be best to continue this matter of the Energy Element to April 24"
Chair Barry asked if any Commissioners were planning to attend the Silicon Valley Manufacturing
Group's meeting on March 201h
Commissioner Zutshi said she would attend if another Commissioner would go with her.
Chair Barry offered to attend with Commissioner Zutshi.
Energy Efficiency — Review Conservation Element of the General Plan and consider adopting an
Energy Element to form the basis for energy conservation ordinances. (LIVINGSTONE)
Due to the lateness of the hour, this item was continued.
Ordinance Review — Review of the initial topical areas that Subcommittee will address. (SULLIVAN)
Due to the lateness of the hour, this item was continued.
COMMUNICATIONS
Written — Minutes from Regular City Council meetings of January 16, 2002, and February 20, 2002.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Chair Barry adjourned the meeting at 10:42 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, March
27, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, February 27, 2002
PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Chair Barry called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III M,1. CAT.T.
Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Roupe
Absent: Commissioners Jackman and Zutshi
Staff: Planner Ann Welsh and Planner Christy Oosterhous
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of February 13, 2002.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the
regular Planning Commission minutes of February 13, 2002, were approved with a
one word correction to page 12.
AYES:Barry, Hunter, Garakani, Kurasch and Roupe
NOES: None
ABSENT: Jackman and Zutshi
ABSTAIN: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no Oral Communications.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Planner Christy Oosterhous announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this
meeting was properly posted on February 21, 2002.
CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar items.
REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS
Planner Christy Oosterhous announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda
by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the
decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b).
Saratoga Planning Commissi, dinutes of February 27, 2002 _
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1
Page 2
DR -01 -045 (517 -19 -042), ELLIS —14920 Vickery Avenue: Request for Design Review to construct a
two -story single - family Mediterranean- Contemporary style residence. The floor area of the proposed
home is 3,431 square feet with a 1,487 square foot basement. The lot, located in the R -1- 20,000 zoning
district, contains 36,368 square feet. The applicant proposes a maximum structure height of 23 feet.
The existing two -story structure, garage, pool and shed are to be demolished. (WELSH)
Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicant is seeking approval to demolish an existing two -story residence, pool and
shed and construct a new 3,431 square foot residence with a 1,487 square foot basement. The
parcel is located within the R -1- 20,000 zoning district at 14920 Vickery Avenue.
• Describe the proposed residence as a Mediterranean- Contemporary style that conforms to the
zoning district requirements. There is a minimization of the perception of bulk through the L-
shaped design. The home would be integrated into the environment as it will back into a steep
slope. Privacy issues are addressed naturally by vertical separation of this structure from its
neighboring structures.
• Added that there are few issues with this proposal. There is a possibility that a retaining wall near
the pool may need to be moved back. Additionally, another minor issue exists with a light well that
exceeds three feet in depth at one point.
• Recommended approval and stated that the necessary findings can be met.
• Pointed out that Fire Requirements 14 and 17 should be omitted as a correction to the staff report.
Commissioner Hunter asked if there is a basement with this home.
Planner Ann Welsh replied yes.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that this proposed home is close to the maximum allowable square
footage and asked whether the square footage at the front entry was double counted due to its height
above 15 feet.
Planner Ann Welsh replied no. She clarified that the applicant has revised plans to deal with a couple
of minor issues and to meet square footage requirements.
Commissioner Roupe asked if these changes show the front entry to be less than 15 feet in height.
Planner Ann Welsh advised that the applicant has redesigned the turret so that it does not have walls.
There must be three walls and a roof to be counted and with the redesign there are only columns and a
roof.
Commissioner Roupe clarified that he is speaking to the issue of the foyer and not the porch feature.
He repeated his question as to whether the open space above the foyer has been properly double
counted in the final square footage.
Planner Ann Welsh assured that the foyer roofline is lower than 15 feet.
Commissioner Roupe asked if the plans in the packet are the most current.
Saratoga Planning Commissi, dinutes of February 27, 2002 Page 3
Planner Ann Welsh replied yes.
Chair Barry asked that the typical condition for retaining water on site be added to the Conditions as
has been the practice.
Planner Ann Welsh said that this can easily be added.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Pointed out that the Commission has established some pretty standard issues that they no longer
feel compelled to call out for each application. Included are fireplace, fence and drainage issues.
• Asked staff to discuss these with Director Sullivan as a format issue to ensure that these issues are
always routinely addressed by appropriate Conditions of Approval.
Planner Ann Welsh agreed that it is not unusual to have boilerplate Conditions of Approval.
Commissioner Roupe said it is important that these are always included unless an exception is called
out.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:20 p.m.
Mr. Don Andre, Project Architect, 723 E. Lake Avenue, Watsonville, CA 95076:
• Stated that it is difficult to show this L- shaped design on a two - dimensional plan.
• Assured that the height is at 14 feet in the entry and that there is no area above 14 feet.
Commissioner Roupe asked that staff carefully look at the entry foyer and ensure that the entry square
footage is counted twice if any found to be above 15 feet in height.
Planner Ann Welsh said that staff can have the applicant provide a cross section.
Mr. Don Andre agreed that he could do that.
Chair Barry suggested that this request could be added as a Condition of Approval.
Mr. Don Andre said that they have had an exhaustive site study prepared including a geotechnical
report. There will be a better situation on this property with the new house on this site. It will be more
stable with better site drainage and natural landscaping is to be retained.
Commissioner Roupe commended Mr. Andre for the story poles, which were very well installed and
helpful.
Mr. Don Andre said that they demonstrate that the house would not be seen from Vickery.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Said that it is hard to see that the four elevations come from the same house. Each has a radically
different look.
Saratoga Planning Commissi, dinutes of February 27, 2002 Page 4
• Asked how these different appearing styles would go together as it does not appear that there is one
continuous style. It is hard to put this house altogether.
• Asked what this variety of style was going toward, including different style windows. On one
elevation, it appears as if no two windows look alike.
Commissioner Roupe agreed that it is difficult to read the two - dimensional drawings and pointed out
that it is helpful to have a key plan. Suggested to staff that in the future they might ask to have a key
plan included on the plan set.
Commissioner Garakani asked about the retaining wall near the pool.
Mr. Don Andre advised that the landscaping plan was conceptual and that the retaining wall is being
moved forward per the Arborist's report recommendation.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:30 p.m.
Commissioner Hunter:
• Said that she knows this property well and agrees that the new home will not be visible from the
roadway.
• Stated that as long as the owners like this design, that's fine and good luck to them.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Said that this is a good, nice - looking design that is well protected for privacy.
• Agreed that the architectural continuity is not evident but that it looks into a land slope and is
perhaps more of an inside out kind of design situation.
• Stated that this is an acceptable project.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Said that it is not good to ignore architectural design even if someone cannot see it.
• Added that she has no other objections and agrees the project is well suited to the property even if it
is not particularly attractive.
Chair Barry:
• Clarified that the two issues raised include having staff verify the proper count of the square footage
for the foyer feature, charging double square footage if appropriate, and to ensure water retention on
site.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the
Planning Commission approved DR -01 -045 to allow the construction of a new
residence at 14920 Vickery Avenue with the added Conditions:
• That staff review the total square footage to ensure that the project does not
exceed allowable, paying particular attention to how the square footage of the
entry foyer is counted, depending on maximum height and double counted if
found to be higher than 15 feet; and
• That on -site drainage be addressed as a Condition of Approval.
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter and Roupe
Saratoga Planning Commissi, Qinutes of February 27, 2002 Page 5
NOES: Kurasch
ABSENT: Jackman and Zutshi
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO. 2
Application #02 -021 (Citywide): The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment to create standards to
permit small wind energy conversion systems in accordance with State Assembly Bill 1207. (WELSH)
Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that as a result of State Assembly Bill 1207, each municipality is expected to not unduly
regulate the establishment of small wind energy conversion systems but rather to encourage their
use.
• Said that if a municipality does not adopt local review requirements by July 1, 2002, right to install
wind energy conversion systems would allow any applicant that complies with the minimum
guidelines established by the Bill.
• Said that the draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment prohibits installations within scenic corridors,
requires a minimum parcel size of one acre and establishes setback and noise requirements. Finally,
if an installation is not used for 12 months, the property owner must dismantle it.
Commissioner Kurasch suggested the added provision that cellular antennas not be permitted to be
installed atop these systems for aesthetic reasons.
Commissioner Roupe expressed concern for going forward with such an Zoning Ordinance
Amendment.
Planner Ann Welsh cautioned that though a municipality could pass on adopting such an Ordinance, it
will have more controls if they do. Included in this draft are limits on Hillsides, agricultural zoning
districts, scenic corridors and scenic highways. Creating this Ordinance gives the City more controls.
Commissioner Roupe said that it is important to have design control including how these units are
painted. Asked why not do the same thing for cellular antennas.
Commissioner Hunter said that due to the energy crisis, she supports wind power and is willing to pass
this Ordinance to meet the intent of the Bill the Legislature and Governor have passed.
Chair Barry asked if these types of installations will come before the Planning Commission for Design
Review approvals.
Ms. Ann Welsh said that her original draft had even more restrictions that this proposal before the
Commission. However, the City's Attorney eliminated a number of them. The Ordinance before the
Commission is a bare bones Windmill Ordinance. If the State finds that a local municipality's
Windmill Ordinance is too restrictive, it would be found to be non - compliant and thrown out. The City
cannot add a lot of restrictions.
Saratoga Planning Commissi.- Qinutes of February 27, 2002 Page 6
Chair Barry asked if the application process for a windmill installation would be for a Use Permit or
Design Review.
Planner Ann Welsh replied that the application process would be for a Conditional Use Permit only.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if the State would review the Ordinance.
Planner Ann Welsh said that the State is relying on the prudence of each local municipality.
Commissioner Hunter said that windmills are a big issue in some of the Northern California Counties
that are more agricultural.
Commissioner Kurasch said that a goal stated within the City's General Plan is to lessen the
dependence on non - renewable resources.
Commissioner Roupe said that a potentially 60 foot high tower, minimum height, plus blades, does not
seem to fit anywhere in the City.
Chair Barry said that the likelihood for such installations is low in Saratoga and stressed that it would
not make sense to allow these windmills on a ridgeline.
Planner Ann Welsh pointed out that the draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment does not permit windmills
on a scenic easement, within an earthquake zone, on a scenic highway corridor, to name a few
restrictions.
Chair Barry said that with all respect to the City Attorney, she would support putting in additional
restrictions and see if the Ordinance will stand up to State scrutiny.
Planner Ann Welsh said that she would try to address ridgeline installations and present the changes to
the City Attorney for review for compliance with the Bill's intent.
Chair Barry stressed the need for controls over location and design issues for windmill installations.
Commissioner Roupe asked staff to raise these issues with the City Attorney.
Commissioner Kurasch asked staff to also seek advice on the consequences of not adopting an
Ordinance.
Chair Barry agreed that it is worth the effort to push the envelope.
Commissioner Garakam questioned how it is possible to ensure continuous operation of a windmill and
how this could be monitored.
Planner Ann Welsh advised that abandoned windmill complaints would be handled on a Code
Enforcement basis.
Saratoga Planning Commissi, Qinutes of February 27, 2002 Page 7
Commissioner Hunter said that windmills are dangerous for birds and that the Audubon Society is upset
by the use of windmills.
Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that windmills will have a metering system, which will be a simple
way to monitor whether a windmill is generating power.
Chair Barry opened and closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:52 p.m.
Chair Barry stated that the Commission will not take action this evening but rather would direct staff to
revise the Draft Ordinance per the comments made by the Commission.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO. 3
DR -01 -021, BSA -01 -002 & V -01 -012 (517 -14 -080) — HUSTED, Kittridge Road: Request for Design
Review and Building Site Approval to construct a two -story, Craftsman style, single - family residence
on a vacant lot. The floor area of the proposed residence and attached two -car garage is 4,810 square
feet. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The site is zoned Hillside Residential. A
variance is requested in order to construct retaining walls in excess of five feet. An exception is also
requested to exceed one thousand cubic yards of cut and fill. (OOSTERHOUS)
Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicant is seeking approval for a two story Craftsman style single family
residence on a vacant lot that is eight acres gross and five acres net. The FAR is 4,810 and the
proposed maximum height is 26 feet. The zoning is Hillside Residential.
• Said that the site has received geotechnical clearance.
• Described the proposed structure as having cherry stained cedar shake siding and stone veneer.
There are three acres of private access easements.
• Said that a fire truck turnaround is proposed. This is a public safety requirement made by the Fire
District.
• Said that the average slope of the property is steep, except for the building pad, which is the only
level pad on the site.
• Said that story poles were constructed and the proposed structure is not imposing from the roads
and residences in the area but rather the home will be tucked into the hillside, minimizing impact.
• Said that two retaining walls are required for the driveway. One is approximately 20 feet high
upslope at the highest location. Another is approximately 16 feet high on the downslope side. A 9
to 21 foot high retaining wall is required near the proposed residence. The residence itself will
minimize the impacts of that retaining wall.
• Added that the retaining walls will incorporate a rock formation finish.
• Stated that the application includes a Building Site Approval, Variance for retaining walls greater
than five feet in height and a Design Review Approval for the new home. Also a grading exception
is required to exceed 1,000 cubic yards of cut and fill.
• Recommended approval.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that since the turnaround area is required by Fire, that issue is beyond
the purview of the City Ordinances, etc.
Saratoga Planning Commissi, Ainutes of February 27, 2002
Planner Christy Oosterhous agreed.
Page 8
Commissioner Kurasch asked staff if there is any liability to the City in the event that the retaining
walls or hillsides should fail.
Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that the road was approved. The City has immunity from liability
for any permits it makes.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if the Hold Harmless provision includes approval of a variance for
retaining walls.
Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes.
Chair Barry asked if damage were to occur to a public road as a result of conditions on a private road
that should fail, could the City recover costs.
Commissioner Hunter reminded that Kittridge is also private.
Chair Barry asked if there is any City -owned road that could be impacted by this project.
Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that she was not sure offhand.
Commissioner Kurasch said that she has never seen a 20 -foot high retaining wall in previous proposals
and asked staff why they support this request.
Planner Christy Oosterhous said that this was an issue of concern for staff as well who discussed ways
to minimize the walls but there is not a way to do so. Added that the applicant's civil engineer can
discuss this issue further.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:05 p.m.
Mr. Chuck Husted, Applicant:
• Made himself available for questions and introduced his team.
• Said that he and his wife, Susan, are looking forward to joining the community.
Mr. Larry Kahle, Project Architect:
• Described the 8 acre gross lot that is irregularly shaped with only one building pad available.
• Said that they have worked hard to lessen the impact of the retaining walls, which are required due
to the slope of this lot.
• Said that they had originally proposed another retaining wall to create the fire truck turn around but
that former Director Walgren had suggested the deck instead. This would be a solidly engineered
deck.
• Stated that they are prepared to go with the deck or a retaining wall for the fire truck turnaround,
although they prefer the wall to the deck.
Chair Barry asked why.
Saratoga Planning Commissi-, Ainutes of February 27, 2002 Page 9
Mr. Larry Kahle replied because the wall would allow them to use some of the fill from this site.
Mr. Mark Helton, Civil Engineer:
• Said he would answer any questions the Commission might have for him.
Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Helton for the highest wall height.
Mr. Mark Helton replied 23 feet if a retaining wall were to be used for the fire turnaround.
Commissioner Garakani asked if the walls would be visible.
Mr. Mark Helton said it was possible but the he thought they would mostly be invisible.
Commissioner Garakani asked how the walls are to be supported.
Mr. Mark Helton replied that they would drill peers and tie them into the hillside. This is a fairly
common practice. While it is not difficult engineering, it is costly.
Commissioner Garakam asked if there are any neighbor concerns.
Mr. Mark Helton said he was not sure as it has not be his role to work with the neighbors.
Chair Barry asked why it would not be possible to use staggered walls for the driveway instead of 20
and 16 -foot high walls.
Mr. Mark Helton replied that the height is due to the slope of the hillside. If the walls were to be
broken up as suggested on this slope, it would give the appearance of being even higher than what is
actually proposed.
Commissioner Roupe asked how much fill could be used with the retaining wall for the fire truck
turnaround.
Mr. Mark Helton replied a substantial amount. While he could not be certain, he guessed about several
hundred yards or about 10 truck trips.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if it is possible to realign the driveway by moving it five to 10 feet in
order to get it away from the downslope that is requiring these high retaining walls.
Mr. Mark Helton said that he had thought of that and tried to see if it would be possible. However, it
would be more disturbing to the hillside and would eliminate the building site itself, limiting to
approximately 2,500 square foot floor area.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Said that the retaining wall is necessary to accommodate the size of this house.
• Said that this is an intensively developed home for this property.
Saratoga Planning Commissi-, .1inutes of February 27, 2002
Page 10
• Asked if the garage were to be shifted to the east, what would the impact be on the retaining wall
heights.
Mr. Mark Helton said that the garage is located where it is because the fire turnaround needs to be
above it. If they had to drop the garage elevation, it would add another three feet of height to the
retaining wall. They actually moved the garage up to reduce the height of the retaining wall.
Commissioner Kurasch asked, if the house were smaller and reconfigured, if there is any way to reduce
the retaining walls.
Mr. Mark Helton replied no. It would have an impact on the existing driveway to access the neighbor's
property.
Commissioner Kurasch suggested shrinking the house away from the slope.
Mr. Mark Helton said that it would not be possible.
Commissioner Hunter said that she had heard that the pad on this property was cut into the mountains
in the 1950s but also heard 15 years ago, approximately 1985. Asked if Mr. Helton know more
concisely.
Mr. Kahle replied that they obtained the 1950s date from the Fire Department.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the staff report actually says prior to 15 years ago rather than
specifically 15 years ago.
Commissioner Kurasch asked who would assume the burden or responsibility for any problems from
this project on adjacent property.
Mr. Mark Helton said that from an engineering standpoint, this project was designed very well, using
proper engineering sense. It would take a major event to have something happen.
Commissioner Kurasch read an excerpt from the General Plan and pointed out that there is a policy to
plan for 50 and 100 -year events.
Mr. Bruce Ashford, Project Overseer, 3741 Norris Canyon Road, San Ramon:
• Said that he is the project overseer.
• Said that the nearest public street is Norton Drive in one direction and Bohlman in the other.
Kittridge is private.
Mr. Glenn Romig, Soils Engineer:
• Said that he prepared a Geotechnical Report.
• Advised that the pad was cut prior to 1971 but no one is sure exactly when.
• Said that this is one of the most stable sites they have looked at up there.
• Said that the house will have a retaining wall at the back to stabilize the steep cut slope.
• Informed that they took a boring of the area for the fire truck turnaround. They can put in either a
good deck or retaining wall.
Saratoga Planning CommissiL /Iinutes of February 27, 2002 Page 11
• Said he was available for any questions.
Chair Barry asked if it would be possible to plant around the retaining wall for the fire truck turnaround
to further screen it without destabilizing it.
Mr. Glenn Romig replied that landscaping would enhance it as long as it did not include eucalyptus
trees.
Chair Barry asked if there are known slide areas on this site.
Mr. Glenn Romig replied that there are no mapped landslides.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the downhill neighbor is concerned about the drainage on site
and where water runoff would go and how it would be controlled.
Mr. Glenn Romig replied that the roof and driveway runoff would be directed to two dissipaters.
Commissioner Roupe asked if any additional water would go down the drive.
Mr. Mark Helton said that they plan to retain the historic drainage pattern and that culverts were
installed with this in mind.
Commissioner Kurasch suggested establishing an open space or scenic easement for the bulk of this
property and that the General Plan supports this and might be appropriate as a mitigation for this
development. Would the applicant support this addition to the Conditions of Approval.
Mr. Chuck Husted said he had no problem with that provision and would be happy to do so.
Chair Barry reminded the Commission that they had done so with the Sobrato property recently. Added
that the natural vegetation and terrain would remain as it is.
Mr. Chuck Husted agreed with the exception for screening landscaping for the retaining walls and a few
walkways on the property.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the two properties to the east of the proposed turnaround do not
belong to this applicant.
Planner Christy Oosterhous said that this is correct. The turnaround is located at the property line and
the applicant does not have control of the property to the east of the proposed fire truck turnaround.
Ms. Heather Rose, 604 Wellsbury Court, Palo Alto, CA:
• Said that she owns the property to the east.
• Said that she will be planting redwood trees to help stabilize that gully around a documented slide
area on her property.
• Added that her landscape architect has designed a plan using mature as well as littler trees.
• Said that she is willing to plant other trees.
• Advised that she has been working with other residents on development of a joint road association.
Saratoga Planning Commissic Iinutes of February 27, 2002
Page 12
• Said that there is a road association for Kittridge Road. This road is not up to code.
• Said that she has had patchwork done on Kittridge Road and has asked her developers to take care
of the work. They bring equipment up on rubber tires to prevent tearing up the road.
• Said that she has a tree bond to replant trees on her property.
• Added that she removed non - indigenous trees.
• Suggested a "good developer" bond to ensure that the road is cleaned of any construction spillage
and that repairs are made to any damage caused to the road by construction equipment and traffic.
Commissioner Roupe supported Ms. Rose's suggestion for a bond to ensure the condition of the road
and asked her if she has any suggestions on how to establish a value for the road bond.
Ms. Heather Rose said that the bond would be calculated on the potential damage to the road. She
added that it may be cheaper to replace the road rather than repair it.
Commissioner Roupe questioned how to implement such a bond.
Commissioner Hunter suggested that this is a question for Director Sullivan.
Commissioner Garakam said that there is a bond for the private road he lives on.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Ms. Rose if she is proposing an assessment district.
Ms. Heather Rose:
• Said that there is a lack of City support for the roads, water and sewer, which are private in this
area.
• Said that the residents are uncomfortable legally with an assessment district. To establish one, 80
percent of the residents would have to agree to do so.
• Added that the residents are comfortable enough for an association to work together on road
maintenance.
• Mentioned that there is even more development occurring in the County jurisdiction using the same
roads, sewer and water hook ups.
Chair Barry thanked Ms. Rose for her leadership.
Commissioner Hunter agreed that there is additional development pending in the area.
Ms. Heather Rose pointed out that there are three new homes on Quickert Road in County jurisdiction
and that there are also other developable lots.
Commissioner Roupe encouraged staff to look into sphere of influence, particularly for those projects
that require travel over Saratoga private and public roads for access.
Commissioner Hunter asked why the Cooper - Garrod project in County jurisdiction came to this
Commission for review while other projects in the County do not.
Mr. Ed Farrell, 20877 Kittridge Road, Saratoga:
• Identified himself as a member of the Board for a private mutual water company.
Saratoga Planning Commissic linutes of February 27, 2002 Page 13
• Said that there are 10 connections pending in this area.
• Said that as far as the road maintenance has been handled, in the past they have held "go and fix the
road Saturdays," where neighbors would spend the day cleaning up the roadway and repairing it as
necessary.
• Said that there is road damage and spillage of gravel and cement from construction and that the
concept of a bond is appealing.
• Pointed out that last month he watched a tractor drive down the street as it tore up the roadway.
• Said that he is looking for the heavy hand of authority from the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Roupe said that the concept for a bond to leave the road in an "as is" condition is not
unreasonable.
Chair Barry said that there is a practical problem of determining who is responsible for any damage.
Mr. James Campagna, Bohlman Road, Saratoga:
• Said that he lives just below the subject property.
• Stated that the proposed Craftsman style house fits nicely and that the variance is unobtrusive and
tastefully done.
• Urged support and approval as submitted.
• Pointed out that in a major emergency exiting is possible from Bohlman Road.
Mr. Bob Samsel, 15300 Kittridge Road, Saratoga:
• Advised that he had forwarded a complaint to Code Enforcement regarding the tractor that tore up
the roadway recently.
• Said that he is here this evening to raise the issue of water runoff and expressed concern over
additional water being run down Quickert Road.
• Said that the culvert is ineffective along this property and suggested that water be collected and sent
somewhere.
• Asked that the Husteds not use the dirt road to access their site as only Parcel 83 has access rights
along that dirt road.
Commissioner Roupe said that any water would be going down the road and not down the dirt road.
Mr. Bob Samsel said that this would be wonderful.
Commissioner Roupe said that the road runoff should be directed down the over slope and not down the
dirt road.
Chair Barry questioned who would need to cooperate in the water runoff issues as it clearly is not just
this property involved.
Mr. Bob Samsel said that he was not sure. He suggested one more catch basin to divert water.
Chair Barry stressed that impacts have to be evaluated on a number of properties.
Saratoga Planning Commissic linutes of February 27, 2002 Page 14
Commissioner Roupe said that the suggestion for a bond gives assurance of road repair as necessary
and the application has no objection. The structure of the bond would need to be worked out by staff.
Mr. Chuck Husted agreed that he has no problem with the concept of a bond. Assured that he would
not do anything to negatively impact his neighbors.
Chair Barry pointed out that the issue of policing subcontractors is horrendous. It is a challenge to stay
on top of what is occurring.
Mr. Chuck Husted said that this is the reason he has hired Mr. Ashford to oversee this construction.
Mr. Bruce Ashford, 3741 Norris Canyon Road, San Ramon:
• Assured that he will enforce all subcontractors and will use wood to protect the roadway from
damage when construction equipment is brought to the site.
Commissioner Roupe suggested that the road be graded so water runoff is directed toward the uphill
side and not downhill. Asked what could be done so drainage occurs appropriately.
Mr. Bruce Ashford said that they plan to maintain the historic route of water.
Mr. Ed Farrell, 20877 Kittridge Road, Saratoga:
• Said that a natural drainage ditch at the hairpin turn solves the problem.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if the retaining wall, currently proposed at 16 feet in height, at the rear of
the house, could be reduced if the house were moved away from the larger hill.
Mr. Chuck Husted replied that this retaining wall is well behind the house and not visible as it is backed
up to the slope.
Commissioner Kurasch said that the impact concerns are not just visible impacts but also include
environmental impacts. Less disruption of the slope will be more stable and she does not want to set a
precedent for extensive use of retaining walls on Hillside developments.
Mr. Chuck Husted said that the home has been placed to mitigate impacts of the retaining walls and that
these walls have been designed to deal with a one to one slope.
Mr. Mark Helton, Civil Engineer:
• Said that moving the house further from the hillside slope would not reduce the walls.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if the house is moved and retaining walls not installed would it be okay.
Mr. Mark Helton replied that it might be okay for 20 years but not longer.
Mr. Mark Husted said that he appreciates the comments from his neighbors as this is a good way to
learn. Assured that they will mitigate impacts as possible.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 9:30 p.m.
Saratoga Planning Commissk linutes of February 27, 2002 Page 15
Commissioner Roupe:
• Stated that this is a very well designed project that will fit nicely into the Hillside as it is tucked in
and not very evident.
• Said that this project is just fine.
• Agreed that the retaining walls are big and an issue but that this is probably as well as can be done.
• Commended the retaining wall material choice.
• Expressed support for a retaining wall fire turnaround instead of a proposed deck, especially since
this would reduce the soil exported from the site.
• Said that the bond for road maintenance makes sense and would propose leaving the details to staff
to work out.
• Said that any water runoff generated on site should not add to water flow already there.
• Suggested that the applicant work with the neighbors.
• Said that this is a good project that he can endorse.
Commissioner Hunter:
• Stated that she cannot support this use of retaining walls and does not believe that this is a good
building lot.
• Declared that the turnaround is an abomination on this hillside.
• Said that she cannot support this project despite the fact that the house design itself is very nice.
Commissioner Garakani asked if a variance for the retaining wall for the fire turnaround is required.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Replied that that particular retaining wall is outside the purview of the Commission since it is a Fire
Department requirement.
• Stated that this is a massive use of this site and that the need for these tall retaining walls point to
the difficulty of building on this lot.
• Said that she cannot support this proposal.
• Said that she could support the establishment of a scenic easement.
Chair Barry asked Commissioner Kurasch if she will support the project with the scenic easement.
Commissioner Kurasch replied no.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Pointed out that there is provision for variances if findings can be made.
• Said that there are good arguments for a variance in this situation.
Commissioner Hunter said that she did not know how strongly she felt against the retaining walls until
this evening and that she does not agree with the staff findings.
Commissioner Garakani asked if there is any way to design without a 23 -foot retaining wall.
Commissioner Roupe replied no.
Saratoga Planning Commissic. Iinutes of February 27, 2002 Page 16
Chair Barry asked staff to clarify whether there is already an approved building site.
Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that the Commission is being asked to grant a Building Site
Approval this evening.
Commissioner Garakani stated that if the Commission does not grant a Building Site Approval, this
applicant has a lot on which they cannot build.
Chair Barry pointed out that the Commission's decision can be appealed to Council. Restated that the
question here is whether this parcel can be approved for building of any kind.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the required criteria for an approved building site includes six
findings.
Commissioner Garakani asked if the applicant just recently purchased this property.
Chair Barry:
• Stated that while the Commission may have empathy for the applicant, it is not a criteria for basing
its decision.
• Said that she strongly agrees with the sentiment that she does not want to encourage these kinds of
retaining walls, although they can be partially mitigated with landscaping.
• Said that she would like to see screening vegetation planted as a Condition.
• Said that she believes that this road and area will be improved if these improvements are made and
saying no to this proposal will not improve the situation for this whole area.
Commissioner Kurasch asked what the criteria for this decision would be.
Chair Barry:
• Pointed out that staff has advised that the variance criteria is met with this project.
• Suggested a continuance to a Study Session.
• Said that her main concern with the retaining walls is the perceived creation of a canyon effect.
• Said that she does not feel good about denying this application and sees value in going forward with
a Study Session.
Commissioner Garakani:
• Pointed out the letter from the neighbor raising issues about too many trucks and the instability of
the road.
• Said that these proposed retaining walls make the hillside more stable.
Chair Barry said that this is half yes and no. The hillside is stabilized with retaining walls but the
construction traffic is detrimental to the roadway.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Said that the problem is the long -term potential for non - predicted events.
• Said that every time there is a cut into a hillside, it destabilizes the hill in some way.
Saratoga Planning Commissi( Iinutes of February 27, 2002
Page 17
Said that she is not sure about the cumulative effect and that she cannot support the scale and form
of this project as it is proposed.
Chair Barry suggested asking the applicant to provide conceptual alternative site plan possibilities at a
Study Session.
Commissioner Roupe suggested that there is a threshold question here, is this a buildable site or not. If
it is deemed not, there is no point in going forward with a Study Session.
Commissioner Kurasch said there appears to be a question as to whether this is a buildable site.
Chair Barry pointed out that the cuts are there. Added that she is not happy with the canyon effect of
the retaining walls.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the hillside has been stable for 50 years, which speaks for itself.
Added that he has no problem with the concept of a Study Session but the Commission must let the
applicant know whether it believes this is even a buildable site.
Commissioner Kurasch questioned whether redesign is possible.
Commissioner Garakani pointed out that the Geologist Report says that this is a buildable lot.
Commissioner Roupe proposed putting a motion forward for a yes or no vote as to whether this is a
buildable site. The response will support either going forward to a Study Session or coming to a
conclusion tonight.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the
Planning Commission proposed to approve the vacant parcel at Kittridge Road as a
buildable site with the question of specific structures to be the subject of a future
Study Session.
AYES:Garakani and Roupe
NOES: Barry, Hunter and Kurasch
ABSENT: Jackman and Zutshi
ABSTAIN: Roupe
The motion failed.
Commissioner Garakani suggested more direction for the applicant for a Study Session.
Commissioner Kurasch said that direction would include minimizing the face of the retaining walls,
scaling them back in height and perhaps use smaller jumped walls if possible and including as small a
structure on the site as possible.
Commissioner Garakani asked if Commissioner Kurasch is concerned about hillside stability or the
appearance of the walls.
Commissioner Kurasch said that she wants the project to adhere more closely to the City's standards.
Saratoga Planning Commissi( linutes of February 27, 2002 Page 18
Commissioner Hunter asked why not let Council decide.
Chair Barry replied that it is the role of the Commission to work out these types of issues when
possible.
Commissioner Hunter pointed out that two Commissioners are absent from this discussion. Asked if it
might be better to discuss this project when all Commissioners are present.
Commissioner Roupe replied that there is a quorum present tonight.
Chair Barry asked for clarification on the nature of concerns with the retaining walls.
Commissioner Kurasch replied their location, scale and size.
Chair Barry said that these comments should provide adequate direction to the applicant.
Commissioner Hunter said that she disagrees with staff about these retaining walls but is fine with
holding a Study Session.
Commissioner Kurasch said that she is looking for the lowest retaining wall possible.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the
Planning Commission proposed to continue consideration of construction a
residence on a vacant lot on Kittridge Road to a Study Session to review different
conceptual designs and use of land and provide proposals that have less impact on
the environment with the following guidelines to the applicant:
1. Include vegetation to screen the retaining walls,
2. Process a Hold Harmless Agreement to be recorded with the deed, holding the
City harmless in the event that failure on this property causes any damage to
adjacent parcels and /or the public right -of -way,
3. Include a fire turnaround constructed with a retaining wall as opposed to the
proposed deck;
4. Process a bond to ensure the road is left in its current condition upon
completion of construction;
5. Process an Open Space Scenic Easement; and
6. Enter into a lower road drainage agreement.
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter and Kurasch
NOES: Roupe
ABSENT: Jackman and Zutshi
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Barry said that the applicant can choose to go with this recommendation for a Study Session or
can simply appeal to Council on the Commission's vote against the Building Site Approval.
Commissioner Garakani questioned why the Commission should even go forward if it has found that
this is not a buildable site.
Saratoga Planning Commissic linutes of February 27, 2002
Chair Barry reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 10:20 p.m.
Page 19
Mr. Bruce Ashford:
• Said that there is a misconception regarding the concept of a canyon being created by the retaining
walls.
• Advised that there are not walls on both sides that would create a canyon effect.
• Added that the lower wall will be camouflaged with vegetation.
Commissioner Garakam asked if these retaining walls would help stabilize the road.
Mr. Bruce Ashford replied yes.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Ashford for more clear drawings to demonstrate the retaining walls.
Mr. Chuck Husted asked for more information about the format for the Study Session.
Chair Barry advised that a Study Session is not a formal hearing as occurred this evening but rather is
held as a roundtable discussion. There are no votes taken at a Study Session but a direction is
established for a project.
Mr. Chuck Husted asked if he would leave a Study Session with more of an idea on what the Planning
Commission would more likely support.
Chair Barry replied yes.
Mr. Chuck Husted said that he is willing to go forward with the Study Session.
Chair Barry directed staff to schedule this Study Session with the applicant as soon as is possible.
DIRECTOR ITEMS
There were no Director Items.
COMMISSION ITEMS
Addition to Museum
Commissioner Hunter advised that she attended a Heritage Preservation Commission meeting at which
a proposed addition to the Museum was discussed.
Business Meeting
Commissioner Hunter advised that she attended the Business Meeting and that the Gateway project is
quite something, incorporating lots of trees, fancy pavers and will be quite good looking. Added that
Saratoga Planning Commissik linutes of February 27, 2002
Page 20
there are approximately 25 new residents to Saratoga per year and the group is proposing a Welcome
Wagon program.
Sidewalks
Commissioner Garakani expressed his concern for the safety of children in walking to school due to the
lack of sidewalks in Saratoga.
Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the City was purposely designed to be without sidewalks.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the City did not have traffic problems when that decision was
made and suggested that sidewalks are probably appropriate along major arterials.
Chair Barry said that right now the City's policy decision is not to include sidewalks.
Planner Christy Oosterhous said that it would fall under the purview of the Public Works Department to
evaluate this issue.
Commissioner Garakani pointed to the Argonaut area where children walk in the street to get to school.
Commissioner Hunter suggested designating bike lanes where people could also walk safely. Drivers
stay off of bike lanes to prevent being ticketed.
Chair Barry suggested that Commissioner Garakani contact someone on the Public Safety Committee.
Commissioners Subcommittees
Commissioner Roupe asked if any discussion on basement standards would occur this evening.
Chair Barry advised that the next Planning Commission meeting would be devoted to Commission
Subcommittee reports, including Basements.
Safety Plaza Designs
Commissioner Garakani advised that Council would be presented with the conceptual Safety Plaza
Designs at 7 p.m. on March 6th during the Council meeting.
Boilerplate Conditions of Approval
Chair Barry advised staff that the Commission would like to review boilerplate Conditions of Approval.
County Sphere of Influence
Planner Christy Oosterhous added that the Commission's desire to review the relationship with the
County on review of projects within the City's sphere of influence will also be added to a future
meeting agenda.
Saratoga Planning Commissi( Iinutes of February 27, 2002 Page 21
COMMUNICATIONS
There were no Communication Items.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Chair Barry adjourned the meeting at 10:37 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, March
13, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, February 13, 2002
PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Chairperson Barry called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe
Absent: Commissioner Zutshi
Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner John Livingstone and Planner Lata
V asudevan
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of January 23, 2002.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the
regular Planning Commission minutes of January 23, 2002, were approved as
submitted.
AYES:Garakani, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe
NOES: None
ABSENT: Zutshi
ABSTAIN: Barry and Hunter
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of January 9, 2002.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the
regular Planning Commission minutes of January 9, 2002, were approved with the
following corrections:
Page 5 — Stated that in 2001, they had 18,000 riders on their trials trails.
Page 9 — added text "Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No.
4" just above the first comments made by Ms. Grace San Filippo.
Page 10 — Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Camargo if the solar system will
provide electricity or radian radiant heat...
Page 11 — Said that she thinks she Ms. San Filippo will really like this house....
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman and Roupe
NOES: None
ABSENT: Zutshi
ABSTAIN: Kurasch
Saratoga Planning Commissic linutes of February 13, 2002 Page 2
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no Oral Communications.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Director Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting
was properly posted on February 7, 2002.
CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar items.
REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS
Director Sullivan announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing
an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision,
pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b).
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1
lication #02 -006 (366 -35 -019) OAK CREEK INVESTMENTS; BRIGHTER FUTURE
LEARNING CENTER (tenant), 12175 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road: Request for a Conditional Use
Permit to establish a learning center in an existing 2,626 square foot office space at the Oak Creek
Center. The office space is located in the C -V zoning district. (VASUDEVAN)
Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit to allow the establishment of a
learning center (Brighter Future Learning Center), which is considered an institutional facility per
the Zoning Ordinance.
• Said that this location will serve as the corporate headquarters, offering tutoring for students as well
as training for licensees of other Brighter Future Learning Center locations.
• Stated that other uses in the Oak Creek Center include a restaurant, hair salon and architectural firm.
The proposed tenant space has been vacant for approximately one year.
• Advised that staff finds that this use will benefit the Oak Creek Center and surrounding businesses
and that findings can be made to support this application.
Commissioner Roupe said there is potential that this use could intensify parking although he believes
that it most likely would not. Asked staff how they came to the conclusion that parking needs for this
use would not represent intensification from the previous use.
Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that according to Ordinance, five spaces must be provided for
employees. Added that the bulk of the use for this business is in the late afternoon, after school.
Commissioner Roupe asked for specific peak times of operation.
Saratoga Planning Commissic. .1inutes of February 13, 2002 Page 3
Planner Lata Vasudevan replied from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m.
Commissioner Jackman added that she believes this learning center would be providing one on one
tutoring.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:16 p.m.
Mr. Brian Kelly, Owner of Oak Creek Center, 14772 Live Oak Lane, Saratoga:
• Advised that the former tenant was a real estate office with 50 to 60 agents and that parking was
never a problem.
• Assured that parking available on site is more than adequate to meet all the needs.
• Pointed out that the bulk of the business for this learning center is after school, between the hours of
3 and 6 p.m.
• Added that there are three full -time employees on site and that the students are typically dropped off
for their tutoring sessions.
Mr. Henry Young, Applicant, Brighter Future Learning Center, 10062 Miller Avenue, Cupertino:
• Advised that their learning center is operated much like the Sylvan Learning Center and that they
provide tutoring in math and English.
• Added that they additionally have licensees who operate additional locations of the Brighter Future
Learning Center and also publish books and programs and operate a demo classroom.
Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Young how many students are on site between the hours of 3 and 6
p.m.
Mr. Young replied that they operate three time periods every afternoon, 3:30 to 4:30 p.m., 4:30 to 5:30
p.m. and 5:30 to 6:30 p.m. The maximum number of students per class is six.
Commissioner Hunter commended Mr. Young for locating in Saratoga and said it was wonderful to
have them in town.
Mr. Young said that they like Saratoga very much. Added that they have an office in Cupertino right
now and that the parents of their Saratoga students are very happy to know that the Brighter Future
Learning Center is coming to Saratoga.
Commissioner Kurasch asked staff if this proposal has any impact on the Zoning for the site.
Planner Lata Vasudevan replied no. She added that there are Permitted and Conditionally Permitted
uses for this zoning. A learning center is a Conditionally Permitted use.
Chair Barry pointed out the traffic potential with the overlap of students leaving and arriving between
sessions.
Commissioner Roupe said that as far as he is concerned this issue of traffic is resolved. With a
maximum of six students and only three sessions, his concerns are satisfied.
Commissioner Garakani pointed out that is the potential for three classes per hour.
Saratoga Planning Commissic. Iinutes of February 13, 2002 Page 4
Mr. Young clarified that there are three classrooms but that all three are typically not used at the same
time. While they could have up to three classes at a time, they usually only have one or two.
Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Young what the maximum number of students is anticipated in the
future.
Mr. Young replied 30 to 40 in the future.
Commissioner Kurasch asked how many at any given time.
Mr. Young replied 18. That represents six students times three classrooms.
Commissioner Hunter asked for the ages of the students.
Mr. Young advised that the students range up to middle school. In the future, they hope to add SAT
preparation courses on weekends for high school students.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:28 p.m.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out a discrepancy in the staff report in that the previous use on site was
not a bank but rather a real estate office.
Commissioner Jackman stated that this business would be an asset to the community. Parents in
Saratoga are education oriented and this learning center would bring people into the Oak Creek Center.
This learning center represents a good use for the Oak Creek Center and will provide a good service for
Saratoga.
Commissioner Kurasch suggested attempting to assign a maximum number of students but said that this
would be hard to do. Said that there should not be much of a problem with parking, as the provided
parking on site seems reasonable to serve all uses.
Chair Barry stated that this is not a more intensive use than the previous real estate office.
Director Sullivan pointed out Condition 3, which dictates that if this proposed use intensifies, the Use
Permit can be brought back before the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Garakam asked whether there is adequate exterior lighting for the safety of the children
in the evening hours.
Commissioner Hunter pointed out that Jake's Pizza is in this center with a lot of evening activity so that
it can be expected that the exterior lighting is at a safe level.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Director Sullivan how intensification could be evaluated.
Director Sullivan replied that it is determined either by observation or complaint.
Saratoga Planning Commissic iinutes of February 13, 2002 Page 5
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the
Planning Commission approved Application #02 -006 to allow a Conditional Use
Permit to establish a learning center at the Oak Creek Center at 12175 Saratoga -
Sunnyvale Road as proposed.
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe
NOES: None
ABSENT: Zutshi
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO. 2
DR -01 -046 & UP -01 -019 (503 -24 -025) — LEE, 20645 Fourth Street: Request for Design Review
approval to add 283 square feet to the fourth floor and 283 square feet to the fifth floor of The Inn at
Saratoga. The Use Permit approval is necessary to allow the expansion of a conditional use. The Inn at
Saratoga is located on a 29,807 square foot parcel in the CH -1 zoning district. (VASUDEVAN)
Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review and a Use Permit to allow a 283 square foot
addition to both the fourth and fifth floors of The Inn at Saratoga.
• Described the sloping lot, which has a front elevation with the appearance of two stories and a rear
elevation with five stories.
• Added that the Design Review approval is required when more than 500 square feet are added to an
existing structure within a Commercial district.
• Advised that staff finds this proposal to be consistent in that it blends with the existing structure
with the use of matching composition roofing. The addition has a compatible bulk, height and
design and will not negatively affect the existing structure. The proposal is consistent with the
Saratoga Village Design Guidelines.
• Informed that a Use Permit is required for expansion of an existing Use Permit.
• Said that the necessary findings can be made to support this proposal. The exercise room and
business office are necessary components for the use of the hotel's guests.
• Recommended approval and distributed a photo of The Inn.
Commissioner Roupe asked for clarification about the project number protocol.
Director Sullivan replied that the new numbering system is in place for anything beginning as of
January 1, 2002. Any files submitted prior to that date already had the older file numbering assigned.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:36 p.m.
Dr. Lee, Owner, The Inn at Saratoga, 20 Joyce Road, Hillsborough:
• Informed that he purchased The Inn at Saratoga in April 1993 and that he has previously converted
two rooms into meeting rooms to meet the needs of today's business guests.
• Added that to be competitive in today market, they also need an exercise room for their guests as
well as a small office equipped with computers, copiers and fast internet access.
Saratoga Planning Commissi,_ Minutes of February 13, 2002 Page 6
Commissioner Kurasch asked if there is any change in materials.
Dr. Lee replied no.
Mr. Warren B. Held, Project Architect, 14630 Big Basin Way, Saratoga:
• Said that the materials being questioned by Commissioner Kurasch represents a firewall between
the barn and this building. This is a four -hour firewall that was required in addition to fire
sprinklers on the roof adjacent to the barn.
• Advised that The Inn was constructed on a steep hill, which is why there is a two -story appearance
on one elevation and a five -story elevation on another.
• Stated that The Inn at Saratoga has been an asset to the City of Saratoga.
• Said that they have incorporated many elements to the roofline in order to break up the facade.
• Added that a centrally located exercise room and well- equipped office at The Inn are necessary for
guest use.
• Said that the porch will remain as it is but that they came forward with an overlap that is in keeping
with the ridgeline of the roof. This addition will not detract architecturally and is minimal as far as
square footage.
• Made himself available for any questions.
Commissioner Kurasch said that the entry appears prominent and expressed concerned that the roof will
cut off the entry.
Mr. Warren 13. Held replied that this element was purposely brought forward and that it cuts the porch
roof by two feet.
Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Heid if he designed The Inn originally.
Mr. Warren B. Heid replied yes.
Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Heid how many years he has been an architect working in Saratoga.
Mr. Warren B. Heid replied that he has recently begun his 45`h year.
Commissioner Jackman asked about the break down in occupancy.
Dr. Lee replied that 85 percent of their guests come from within the Silicon Valley and about 15 yercent
are local. During the summer there are more tourists. Pointed out that since September 1It , hotel
occupancy is dramatically down and that last weekend the hotel had but five guests.
Commissioner Jackman agreed that both the exercise room and office facilities are necessary to keep
the hotel competitive.
Chair Barry asked Dr. Lee if he participates in the Village Planning Group.
Dr. Lee replied no but added that his manager works closely with the Rotary.
Chair Barry suggested that Dr. Lee consider participating.
Saratoga Planning Commissic iinutes of February 13, 2002 Page 7
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:55 p.m.
Commissioner Hunter said that she is delighted to have The Inn and agrees that the exercise room and
computer room are in order for The Inn to remain competitive. Stated that she is glad to support this
request.
Commissioner Roupe said that the architecture is a nice fit and agreed with the comments made by
Commissioner Hunter. Pointed out that The Inn's addition will look like it was always there and that
this will represent a nice addition to the community.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
Planning Commission approved DR -01 -046 and UP -01 -019 to add 283 square feet
to the fourth floor and 283 square feet to the fifth floor of The Inn at Saratoga on
property located at 20645 Fourth Street as proposed:
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe
NOES: None
ABSENT: Zutshi
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO. 3
Application #02 -003 (510 -01 -046) — NEALE, 15081 Pepper Lane: Request for Administrative
Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approval to add 683 feet to the existing detached two -car
garage. The proposed addition will create a three -car garage. The proposed addition will match the
existing design and roof pitch of the existing garage. The 22,101 square foot parcel is located in the $-
1- 20,000 zoning district. (LIVINGSTONE)
Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the this request is for an Administrative Design Review to allow a 683 square foot
addition to an existing detached garage and the conversion of a two -car area into a pool house. This
addition will add three new parking stalls.
• Said that a Use Permit is necessary to allow the 15 -foot height of an accessory structure. The height
is necessary to establish architectural compatibility with the main structure. This proposal is
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
• Said that staff finds this proposal meets Design Review requirements and Use Permit findings.
• Advised that the trees will be retained with the exception of one small six -inch fruit tree that will be
removed.
• Recommended approval.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that in the Case History within the staff report the date of December
28, 2002, should be corrected to read December 28, 2001. Asked if the impervious coverage listed
takes into account the patio and pool.
Saratoga Planning Commissic iinutes of February 13, 2002 Page 8
Associate Planner John Livingstone replied yes and added that this project is in good shape as far as
impervious coverage is concerned.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:00 p.m.
Mr. David Neale, Applicant and Owner, 15081 Pepper Lane, Saratoga:
• Declared that he and his wife love their home and the City of Saratoga and have lived here for two
and a half years.
• Commended Associate Planner John Livingstone and made himself available for any questions.
Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that the Arborist has made the recommendation to change spray
heads to drip lines near some trees and asked if Mr. Neale is prepared to make that change.
Mr. David Neale replied that his Landscape Architect will incorporate that recommendation.
Associate Planner John Livingstone said that the Commission could also add this requirement as a
specific Condition of Approval.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Neale if he would be reusing the garage doors.
Mr. David Neale replied that he did not believe so. He added that some of them are rotted but that they
will try to match the doors as best as possible.
Commissioner Roupe said that he has come to the realization that his home may well be within 500 feet
of this project site and therefore he would recuse himself from any further participation on this hearing
process.
Commissioner Roupe left the dais at 8:04 p.m. to sit in the audience.
Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Neale if he knows when his house was built.
Mr. David Neale replied that he was not certain but believes it was constructed some time in the 1930s
or 1940s.
Commissioner Jackman said that she believes the house was constructed before 1927. Added that she
is glad that the Neales did not tear the house down or make a big addition to it.
Mr. David Neale said that it is hard to specifically date this house. He added that an old plan was found
but that it was undated.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:06 p.m.
Commissioner Hunter said that she has been attending the Heritage Preservation Commission meetings
and a discussion was held on ensuring that garages are matched to houses. Said that she supports
matching the garage to the house in this situation and thanked the Neales for the lovely work on this
house.
Saratoga Planning Commissi-, I linutes of February 13, 2002 Page 9
Commissioner Kurasch suggested that page 18, number 12 be included in the Conditions.
Chair Barry thanked staff for taking the initiative to offer the 15 foot height in order to match the garage
to this house.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the
Planning Commission approved a Design Review and Conditional Use Permit
(Application #02 -003) to allow the addition of 683 square feet to an existing
detached two -car garage on property located at 15081 Pepper Lane as proposed.
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman and Kurasch
NOES: None
ABSENT: Zutshi
ABSTAIN: Roupe
Commissioner Roupe returned to the dais at 8:08 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.4
Application #02 -007 (Citvwide) — Resolution Amendine the Zoning Requirements related to Rear
Yard Setbacks for Two Story Dwellings: The Planning Commission has requested that it consider
amending the language of the Zoning Ordinance that regulates rear yard setbacks for two story
dwellings. Currently the minimum yard requirements differ for lots that have been developed prior to
May 15, 1992 vs. vacant lot and lots created after May 15, 1992. The Ordinance also has different
setbacks for single -story and multi -story dwellings. (SULLIVAN)
Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows:
• Reminded the Commission that it had adopted a Resolution of Intent to Amend the Zoning
Ordinance regarding rear yard setbacks for two -story dwellings.
• Stated that currently there is a difference in minimum yard setbacks if a parcel was created before
1992 and after 1992.
• Pointed out that staff has prepared drawings showing existing setbacks and mandatory staggered
setbacks.
• Said that it is unclear whether Section 15.45.040 requires an addition to the setback standards for
two -story structures. There is conflict within two sections of Code.
Commissioner Roupe asked if what is being proposed this evening will address the problems and make
them go away or is there still some ambiguity to address.
Director Tom Sullivan said that he credits Staff Planner Ann Welsh for discovering ambiguity between
two sections and that staff needs an interpretation from the Commission. With that interpretation, staff
will come back with Ordinance clarifications.
Commissioner Kurasch pointed out the fact that the language seems to talk about the whole structure
and not just the second story element.
Saratoga Planning Commissic .mutes of February 13, 2002 Page 10
Director Tom Sullivan said that the Design section requires that the second story setback move one foot
for every foot above 18 feet in height.
Commissioner Roupe clarified that this evening's focus is on rear yard setback.
Director Tom Sullivan said that this is correct. He added that the Design Review Ordinance makes no
distinction between pre and post 1992. He said that there are two sides to the argument including
implementing the Design Guidelines or having a one size fits all standard.
Commissioner Roupe asked what the historic interpretation was and whether staff had looked into that
subject.
Director Tom Sullivan replied no. He stated that the letter of the law must be changed so that it is the
same as the interpretation.
Chair Barry asked if there is a difference in setback for a one story versus a one -story that is higher than
18 feet.
Director Tom Sullivan replied yes.
Chair Barry asked if this still applies if the house is moved forward on the site.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that there are different rear yard setbacks.
Commissioner Jackman asked if it matters whether there are one or two - stories or simply the overall
height.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that it does matter as there are different setbacks within the Zoning
Ordinance. At the present time, with a two -story structure, the entire structure moves back. What is
proposed is that just the second story element is moved back and not the first story.
Commissioner Kurasch said it appears that the existing Design Review standard and proposed
interpretations are the same.
Director Tom Sullivan said that per the existing Code as written the entire structure of a two -story must
be moved back from the rear property line.
Commissioner Roupe suggested not imposing that requirement on smaller lots but to do so for larger
parcels.
Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that design standard requirements are sometimes more important on
smaller lots than on larger lots.
Commissioner Kurasch asked why the rear yard setback (25 feet for a single -story and 35 feet for a two
story) is the only one that varies while the front setback for a two story does not.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that the only differentiation is for the rear yard setback for a two -story.
Saratoga Planning Commissi� /Iinutes of February 13, 2002 Page 11
Commissioner Kurasch asked if is possible to apply this requirement to the front rather than rear
setback since at most hearings the impact of the front is of more concern.
Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that multi -story concerns are generally privacy impact issues. There
is typically a standard front setback for structures. The penalty for taller structures is an increased
setback requirement. Reminded that the Residential Design Guidelines provide the direction for staff.
The Commission can decide to abide by them or tweak the Zoning Ordinance.
Commissioner Garakani suggested using the same idea for sideyard setbacks.
Director Tom Sullivan said that this is possible if the standard is changed.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the Commission did not give staff instruction to change sideyard
setback standards but it is not a bad idea.
Commissioner Kurasch said that the way the Ordinance is interpreted now is simple and consistent with
clear recommendations that can be interpreted.
Commissioner Roupe stated that nothing stops a flush two -story house as long as the whole structure is
brought forward to meet the minimum setback requirements.
Chair Barry opened the Public hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 8:40 p.m.
Mr. Warren B. Heid, Architect, 14630 Big Basin Way, Saratoga:
• Said that he appreciates what Director Sullivan is doing here.
• Agreed that privacy and bulk have been problems faced by Planning Directors, Architects and
others over the years. Said that the standard has been 25 -foot rearyard setbacks for single -story
structures and 35 -foot rearyard setbacks for two -story structures to get rid of bulk.
• Said that the interpretation for two story massing is more difficult to handle on a smaller lot than on
a larger lot. The standard one -foot for every foot above 18 has been imposed. Stepping in
structures above 18 feet in height is not a problem.
• Stated that most existing homes would not meet this Ordinance if it is changed.
Commissioner Kurasch asked why not apply the same interpretation for front yard setbacks as a means
to reduce bulk and mass.
Mr. Warren B. Held replied because the issue has never come up as a problem.
Commissioner Roupe said why not give architectural flexibility and apply the standard to the single -
story element setback.
Mr. Warren B. Held said that each project needs to be reviewed individually.
Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the full width of the street that separates front yard to front yard.
Agreed that a 10 -foot difference between a single story and two -story could be changed.
Saratoga Planning Commissh Qinutes of February 13, 2002 Page 12
Mr. Warren B. Held suggested that Zoning can be changed to Planned Development in order to allow
percentages on smaller lots.
Director Tom Sullivan said that if the City had large tracts, this suggestion would be great. The City
has but a few infill lots and a majority of remodels that need to fit into existing neighborhoods.
Commissioner Kurasch said that continuity to front setbacks makes sense.
Mr. Steve Benzing, Architect, 144630 Big Basin Way, Saratoga:
• Said that he has worked with Warren B. Held for 17 years.
• Pointed out that front elevations are driven by client concern for resale value and are rarely a
straight box.
• Expressed concern that the proposed changes in interpretation would render many existing homes
into non - conforming status that would hinder remodeling work.
• Said that the penalty for height applies for any area over 18 feet. This is how it has been
interpreted.
Chair Barry asked Mr. Benzing if he feels this interpretation could force one similar architectural style.
Mr. Steve Benzing replied yes. He added that setting back the second story gives more sunlight and
ensures privacy. He added that Saratoga already has the most restrictive design standards.
Chair Barry asked Mr. Benzing if he believes that Saratoga has less architectural variety than other
communities.
Mr. Steve Benzing replied no. He added that Saratoga has more architectural variety but does not allow
real radical design. He stated that Montalvo could not be built today. Tall and unique homes are not
allowed by today's standards. He stated the importance in allowing a little bit of architectural freedom.
Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Benzing if he would prefer to have the continuation of the existing
interpretation or the proposed interpretation.
Mr. Steve Benzing replied that the practice should continue to have the penalty apply to area above 18
feet as there are already enough negatives to not sell second stories. The client can choose livable space
versus exterior height. He said that he prefers the existing interpretation as it has been used over the
last 15 years.
Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that the rear setback has been 25 feet for a single -story and 35 feet
for a second story.
Mr. Warren B. Held expressed that it is nice to have the City review its policies with new thoughts. He
added that he is accustomed to the existing interpretation.
Chair Barry closed the Public hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:07 p.m.
Saratoga Planning Commissic inutes of February 13, 2002 Page 13
Chair Barry said that Saratoga has the blessing, but also the complication, in that the City has no typical
tract style neighborhoods but rather it has much variety. She said that she would prefer to not tweak the
Ordinance at this time.
Commissioner Roupe said if this proposed interpretation is best, he is concerned about putting it off.
Chair Barry suggested imposing a time frame to come back with preliminary review of where the
conflicts are. This could include changing the definition of structure. Reiterated that she would rather
wait.
Commissioner Hunter stated that this is an interesting process and she is learning a lot and is glad that
there are two architects present this evening. Added that she is not wild about change and prefers
keeping the interpretation as it is, if it is working. Agreed with the recommendation to hold off for a
while on any changes.
Commissioner Jackman said that the Commission Subcommittee should set some deadlines.
Commissioner Hunter said that the flexibility of the interpretation is not that bad.
Commissioner Jackman cautioned that there should not be too much flexibility as staff tends to turn
over.
Commissioner Garakani asked for the pros and cons of both the existing and proposed interpretations.
Director Tom Sullivan suggested a continuance of this Public Hearing.
Chair Barry agreed that this is a good idea to allow more input before making a final decision.
Commissioner Kurasch said that the Commission hears community input at each meeting. All can
agree that the impact of a two -story structure is greater than the impact of a single -story structure.
Having a simple setback standard is the resolution.
Commissioner Garakani said the setback stays the same with both rear yard setback interpretations.
Director Tom Sullivan said that it does not stay the same. The difference would be that the whole
structure (two -story) would have an additional 10 -foot setback.
Chair Barry asked if the 10 -foot number is arbitrary.
Commissioner Kurasch recommended requiring the 25 -foot rear setback for single -story and 35 foot
setback for two -story structures.
Chair Barry restated her support for a continuance to solicit additional input.
Director Tom Sullivan agreed that input from other practicing architects could be solicited.
Commissioner Kurasch added that input from community members would also be helpful.
Saratoga Planning Commissi(- Iinutes of February 13, 2002 Page 14
Chair Barry reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:24 p.m.
Mr. Warren B. Held said that he concurs with the concerns expressed by Commissioner Kurasch,
whereby the 26 -foot maximum height is allowed at the front setback.
Chair Barry pointed out that privacy and bulk are always major concerns when reviewing design
proposals. She added that it is important to guard against preventing flexibility and to provide an
interpretation that does not penalize architecture.
Director Sullivan stated that the Zoning Ordinance establishes a three dimensional envelope where a
structure can be designed. Proposed continuing for one month to allow the involvement of more
people.
DIRECTOR ITEMS
There were no Director Items.
COMMISSION ITEMS
Appointment of Commissioner to Attend Village Economic Planning Committee Meetings
Chair Barry suggested appointing a Planning Commissioner to attend the Village Economic Planning
Committee meetings and proposed Commissioner Hunter for that assignment due to her depth of
knowledge on the history of buildings in Saratoga.
Commissioner Jackman said that this is a good idea.
Commissioner Hunter accepted the assignment, saying that she is happy to do so.
Planners Institute
Commissioner Hunter inquired if any Commissioners planned to attend the Annual Planners Institute
and whether the City would reimburse the costs of attendance.
Director Sullivan replied yes.
Commissioner Hunter asked for recommendations on which programs might be most beneficial. She
offered free accommodations to any interested Commissioners at a home she has available in the
Monterey area.
Commissioner Kurasch said that she would be attending the Planners Institute on Thursday.
Commissioners Subcommittees
Saratoga Planning Commissic, iinutes of February 13, 2002
Commissioner Roupe asked if the discussion on basements would continue this evening.
Page 15
Commissioner Jackman said that the latest revision was distributed at the last meeting and that further
discussion would occur at the next meeting. Upon further reflection, she advised that she will actually
not be in attendance at the next meeting on February 27th
Director Sullivan suggested dedicating a full meeting in March, either the 12th or 27th, to an in- depth
discussion of Subcommittee reports as well as the continuation of the rear yard setback interpretation.
That meeting could have a minimum of specific development review.
Commissioner Kurasch suggested splitting up those two topics at separate meetings.
COMMUNICATIONS
There were no Communication Items.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Chair Barry adjourned the meeting at 9:42 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday,
February 27, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, January 23, 2002
PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Acting Chair Jackman called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Garakani, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe
Absent: Commissioners Barry, Hunter and Zutshi
Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Planner Christy Oosterhouse, Planner Lata Vasudevan and
Planner Ann Welsh
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of January 9, 2002.
As there was not a quorum present eligible to vote on the January 9, 2002, Planning Minutes, the vote
will carry forward to the February 13, 2002 meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no Oral Communications.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Director Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting
was properly posted on January 17, 2002.
CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar items.
REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS
Director Sullivan announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing
an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision,
pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b).
Saratoga Planning Commissi, Qinutes of January 23, 2002
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1
Page 2
DR -01 -034 (503 -20 -061) — BARKATULLAH, 20520 Verde Vista Lane: Request for Design Review
approval to demolish an existing 2,134 square foot residence and construct a new 4,320 square foot
two -story residence with a 1,771 square foot basement. Maximum height of the structure will be 22
feet. The 21,778 square foot parcel is zoned R- 1- 12,500. (VASUDEVAN)
Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval to demolish an existing 2,134 square
foot residence and the construction of a new 4,320 square foot two -story residence with a 1,771
square foot basement. The maximum height will be 22 feet. The property is zoned R -1- 12,500.
• Described the proposed house as a contemporary style home and distributed a colored elevation and
color board.
• Informed that this applicant has worked with his neighbors and that a letter of support has been
distributed as a table item this evening.
• Added that one neighbor originally had concerns about views and privacy impacts but those
concerns have since been resolved.
• Pointed out that there are a large number of trees on this property. The Arborist's report has been
revised and the location of the driveway has been altered to retain tree #30, a coastal redwood.
• Said that staff is conditioning a final landscape plan prior to issuance of building permits.
• Said that this project complies with design guidelines and is compatible with the neighborhood in
style, proportion and height.
• Recommended approval.
Commissioner Roupe questioned a statement on page five of the staff report that says that the large
front setback and mature trees would mitigate the perception of height and bulk.
Director Tom Sullivan clarified that the setbacks for this home are larger than the older setback
standards used when other homes on the street were built.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the plans do not identify which of the fireplaces is wood burning
and which are gas.
Planner Lata Vasudevan assured that a condition will be included that states that only one wood -
burning fireplace is allowed by Code.
Acting Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:12 p.m.
Mr. Gulon Mahzad, Project Architect:
• Said that he would be available for any questions.
• Said that this contemporary style matches this neighborhood and that they have saved as many of
the trees on the property as was possible, following the recommendations of the Arborist.
• Added that they have met all setback and height limitations.
Commissioner Kurasch stated that she visited this site yesterday and that her main concern is the
number of trees proposed for removal.
Saratoga Planning Commissi, Ainutes of January 23, 2002 Page 3
Mr. Gulon Mahzad, Project Architect, said that they had inquired about reducing the front setback in
order to preserve some of the trees but are unable to do so.
Commissioner Kurasch said that it might be possible to grant a Variance to the front yard setback.
Mr. Gulon Mahzad said that that concern was raised early.
Acting Chair Jackman asked what the total number of trees is for this property.
Planner Lata Vasudevan replied 32 trees were impacted.
Commissioner Garakani pointed out that other homes on the street are located closer to the street.
Director Tom Sullivan replied yes.
Planner Lata Vasudevan said that the other homes are approximately 25 feet from the front property
line.
Director Tom Sullivan elaborated by saying that this lot was created in 1999 under new rules for
setbacks.
Commissioner Garakam expressed concern that this change in setback might actually disturb the look
of the neighborhood and asked how many trees would be impacted if the house location were moved.
Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that tree #26 could be retained. However, staff explored the possibility
of a Variance and was unable to make the necessary findings for support of such a Variance.
Director Tom Sullivan added that the shape, topography or some physical condition of the lot is
necessary to support such a Variance both per Code and State Law.
Commissioner Garakani said that the proper use of land is very important and that having a smaller
front setback would give the property owner the use of a larger back yard.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the new house next door also meets the new setback requirement
of 44 feet.
Commissioner Kurasch asked whether homes that might be remodeled or rebuilt would have to
conform to these new setback standards.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that the legal setback requirements are based upon what was in effect at
the time a particular lot was created.
Commissioner Kurasch sought clarification that when staff refers to trees being "impacted," that means
removed. Asked if the pine trees are designated for removal.
Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that the Arborist has not designated the pine trees for removal however
the final landscape plan would be submitted prior to issuance of building permits.
Saratoga Planning Commissh Minutes of January 23, 2002 Page 4
Commissioner Kurasch pointed out two balconies on the plans, one in front of the garage and the
second to the rear and said that they provide the potential for privacy impacts.
Mr. Azam Barkatullah, Applicant and Property Owner, 20520 Verde Vista Lane, advised that his
neighbors to the rear want to have the pines removed and replaced with evergreen trees. They are
proposing redwood trees in replacement.
Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that this house is proposed at the maximum allowable.
Acting Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:27 p.m.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Stated that this is a fine house with a good design.
• Said that it is important to make it clear that the landscape plan must be finalized prior to issuance
of building permits.
• Expressed support for this application.
Commissioner Garakani:
• Pointed out that a neighbor's letter addresses concern that a walnut tree ( #42) could be damaged
during construction.
Acting Chair Jackman advised that, per the Arborist's report, a protective fence will be placed around
tree #42.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Reiterated her main concerns as being the appropriateness of the size and design of this house.
• Offered that one solution would be the scaling back of the home.
• Said that the setback issue is confusing and that she could support moving the house away from the
London plane tree.
• Commended the applicant for his work with his neighbors.
Commissioner Garakani asked staff if the Commission could make findings for support of a Variance to
move this house forward on the site.
Director Tom Sullivan replied no.
Acting Chair Jackman clarified that a Variance does not appear to be in order and that there will be
replanted trees on this parcel.
Commissioner Kurasch added that there is still potential to scale back this house.
Acting Chair Jackman pointed out that the trees slated for removal are located at the center of the
available building envelope.
Commissioner Garakani added that this house, at only 25 percent lot coverage, is actually a reasonable
size for this lot.
Saratoga Planning Commissi� Qinutes of January 23, 2002 Page 5
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the
Planning Commission approved DR -01 -034 to allow the construction of a new
residence on property located at 20520 Verde Vista Lane as proposed.
AYES:Garakani, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barry, Hunter and Zutshi
ABSTAIN: None
Acting Chair Jackman advised that there is a 15 -day appeal period.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.2
DR -98 -046 & UP 98 -015 — AZULE CROSSING, 12340 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road: The applicant
requests Planning Commission approval for existing exterior lighting at the residential portion of the
Azule Crossing development located at Harvest Lane. (OOSTERHOUS)
Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicant is seeking Planning Commission approval for existing exterior lighting at
the residential portion of the Azule Crossing development.
• Added that the lighting proposal is identical to that reviewed by the Commission for the commercial
portion of Azule Crossing.
• Said that staff is recommending the removal of one fixture ( #51412).
• Informed that due to some vandalism, staff provided temporary authorization for this installation
until final Planning Commission approval could be secured.
• Added that since the lights were turned on a week ago, no complaints have been received.
Commissioner Roupe reminded that there had been considerable debate about the commercial lighting
plan.
Planner Christy Oosterhous said that there was a memo from the planner that outlined the concerns as
being scale and frequency and the importance of keeping glare from impacting the adjacent residential
uses.
Commissioner Roupe remembered that the Commission had deferred the matter back to staff for final
approval.
Director Tom Sullivan said that this is correct.
Commissioner Garakani asked when the temporary approval was issued.
Planner Christy Oosterhous advised that staff authorized PG &E to turn the lights on a week ago.
Director Tom Sullivan added that the fixtures had already been installed and staff had to advise the
applicants that Planning Commission approval would be required.
Commissioner Kurasch said that she thought the project had but one owner.
Saratoga Planning Commissi� Qinutes of January 23, 2002 Page 6
Planner Christy Oosterhous said that the commercial and residential portions of this project are
separately owned.
Director Tom Sullivan added that the project was bifurcated.
Planner Christy Oosterhous said that the two owners do talk to each other.
Commissioner Kurasch asked what the requirements are for glare or coverage.
Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that staff refers to accepted industry standards and that this
installation falls within the acceptable range.
Acting Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:41 p.m.
Mr. Dave Krasowski, Representative, Classic Communities:
• Said that their application was submitted in November 2000 but that most of the planning staff
around at that time have since left.
• Said that complying with staff's recommendation to remove one fixture is not a problem as long as
the fixture on the commercial side is left on all night. If not, the lighting in that area would be
inadequate.
Commissioner Roupe suggested that it might be better to keep this fixture on the residential side and
remove one from the commercial side.
Director Tom Sullivan said that alternately the applicant could find another location for this one fixture.
Commissioner Kurasch suggested placing this fixture on the corner near the arbor feature.
Mr. Dave Krasowski:
• Said that they want to ensure that the lights stay on all night.
• Added that he can work this out with the commercial property owner.
• Stated that taking out a fixture altogether is a lot easier than relocating that fixture.
Commissioner Garakam suggested that smaller lighting be placed on the fence.
Mr. Dave Krasowski said that staff finds that one fixture to be redundant and that there is not the need
for more light in that area.
Commissioner Roupe suggested that the Commission take staff's recommendation to remove the one
fixture with the understanding that the light fixture on the commercial portion stays on at night.
Director Tom Sullivan said that if no agreement to that condition can be made, staff will leave this one
fixture as a matter of public safety.
Acting Chair Jackman asked Mr. Krasowski if he would like to see that fixture retained in the interest
of public safety.
Saratoga Planning Commissi, Minutes of January 23, 2002 Page 7
Mr. Dave Krasowski replied yes.
Commissioner Garakani asked staff to clarify their reasoning for removal of this one fixture.
Planner Christy Oosterhous said that this recommendation is in response to the Commission's previous
concern regarding frequency of fixtures, mainly aesthetics.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Said that she take issue with another fixture, #51413, located on Harvest Lane. This light pole is
located between Lots 15 and 16. The placement is right outside the windows and is in conflict with
the tree. There is no aesthetic logic for this location.
• Suggested the move of fixture #51413 to the other side between Lots 14 and 15, outside the garage.
Commissioner Roupe suggested moving fixture #51413 across the street.
Mr. Dave Krasowski:
• Said that the fixtures as placed are evenly distributed. Moving that fixture would lessen the lighting
for Lots 6 and 7.
• Pointed out that the light being case is down and forward and the placement is such that the impact
is less across the street.
Commissioner Roupe expressed support with staff's recommendation to remove one fixture.
Acting Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:55 p.m.
Commissioner Kurasch said that she supports Commissioner Roupe's suggestion to move the fixture
across the street. She questioned whether the tree planted near this fixture would adversely impact in
the future.
Director Tom Sullivan agreed that within 10 years, the tree and lighting fixture might be in conflict as
currently placed.
Planner Christy Oosterhous offered that she actually thinks that the tree canopy would grow over the
light fixture over time.
Director Tom Sullivan added that he was not sure the space for this coast oak is large enough to
accommodate this tree over time and there is the option to move that tree.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if this is within the Commission's purview.
Acting Chair Jackman reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:58 p.m.
Mr. Dave Krasowski:
• Stated that it would not be a better situation if the fixture is moved across the street as it would then
be right in front of Lot 5.
• Agreed that they could relocate or replace the oak tree.
Saratoga Planning Commissi, Qinutes of January 23, 2002 Page 8
Commissioner Garakani asked about moving two lights.
Mr. Dave Krasowski pointed out that there are bedrooms over the garage that would be impacted by the
move. Said that the fixtures were placed so as to cast light on the street and away from buildings.
Acting Chair Jackman reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8 p.m.
Commissioner Garakani expressed support for staff recommendation to remove fixture #51412 as well
as the relocation of the oak tree.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
Planning Commission approved the existing exterior lighting for the residential
Harvest Lane portion of the Azule Crossing development (DR -98 -045 & UP -98 -015)
on property located at 12340 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road with the added Conditions:
1. To remove fixture #51412;
2. To relocate the oak tree behind fixture #51413; and
3. That the applicant work with the commercial property owner to ensure
adequate overnight lighting;
AYES:Garakani, Jackman and Roupe
NOES: Kurasch
ABSENT: Barry, Hunter and Zutshi
ABSTAIN: None
Acting Chair Jackman advised that there is a 15 -day appeal period.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.3
DR -01 -023 (503 -23 -016, Lot 1) — SCHUCK, 14221 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, Lot 1: Request for
Design Review approval to construct a one -story craftsman style single - family residence on a newly
established 18,569 square foot parcel. The floor area of the proposed residence and attached three -car
garage is 4,206 square feet with a basement area of 994 square feet. The maximum height of the house
will be 18 feet. The site is zoned R -1- 15,000. (WELSH)
Assistant Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval to construct a 4,206 square foot
single -story residence with a maximum height of 18 feet and a 994 square foot basement.
• Described the lot as 18,560 square feet gross and 18,309 net.
• Said that the proposed home is a craftsman style that is compatible with the Julia Morgan home
located within this subdivision. The home is L- shaped and includes a cross - gabled roof and
attached garage. The home fronts onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road.
• Outlined the major issues, which include:
• a non - conforming rear yard setback of 12 feet;
• the requirement for a 43.5 foot front yard setback;
• privacy issues for the adjacent neighbor to the north whose home is located six feet and 10
inches from the property line and whose kitchen, bedroom and bathroom windows require
measures to ensure privacy;
Saratoga Planning Commissit Iinutes of January 23, 2002 Page 9
• the fact that the light wells on the north side fall within the setback for which the City's policy
has been not to permit; and
• The need to establish a maintenance agreement for the planted streetscape that was required
with the approval of this subdivision.
• Advised that staff is recommending approval of this residence with the elimination of the non-
conforming rear yard setback, the assurance of privacy for the neighbors and the conformance of
the light wells.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Agreed that the terrace feature does encroach and needs to be brought into conformance.
• Suggested that the house be move forward but questioned whether that would impact trees.
• Asked staff how they suggest this project could be brought into conformance.
Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied that the house would only need to be moved to the east by eight
feet.
Commissioner Roupe said that there are a lot of beautiful trees.
Director Tom Sullivan added that the move of the structure should be subject to review by the Arborist
and that the reduction of the terrace should bring the project into compliance.
Commissioner Roupe asked about the light well issue.
Director Tom Sullivan said that since his tenure as Community Development Director in May 2001, the
interpretation of the Codes is such that light wells are no longer permitted within setback areas.
Commissioner Roupe suggested either eliminated the light well altogether or moving the house
sideways.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Asked why the retaining wall is required for the driveway.
• Suggested conditioning minimal retaining walls on this project and that the use of retaining walls be
eliminated where possible.
• Questioned the best way to phrase that condition.
Director Tom Sullivan said that the Commission's desire is clear and suggested adding the language
"pursuant to the approval of the Public Works Director."
Acting Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:17 p.m.
Mr. David Britt, Project Architect:
• Thanked staff and made himself available for questions.
Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Britt how he could bring the terrace into conformance.
Mr. David Britt replied that he thought the house could be left as proposed and simply not attach the
terrace to the home but rather construct basically a patio instead.
Saratoga Planning Commissi, Minutes of January 23, 2002 Page 10
Director Tom Sullivan cautioned that if the terrace /patio is above grade it represents a structure within
the setback but if it is constructed at grade that it is not an issue.
Commissioner Roupe added that steps would be required to access the patio from the house. He asked
Mr. Britt how he proposed to deal with the light well issue.
Mr. David Britt replied that this is a new issue for them. Added that there is a 12 -foot side yard setback
and nine feet between the fence and light well which seems a good dimension.
Commissioner Kurasch clarified that this light well represents a structure within a setback.
Acting Chair Jackman clarified for Mr. Britt that in the past the Code in this respect was not always
enforced completely. Suggested that the house be moved forward and angled to solve the problems.
Commissioner Roupe questioned whether there was any other area of the basement more appropriate
for the light well.
Acting Chair Jackman suggested that the basement be placed under the garage with the light well to the
right.
Mr. David Britt agreed that this would be possible.
Commissioner Kurasch pointed out the long look of this home and asked why a second story was not
considered in order to create a smaller footprint.
Acting Chair Jackman said that this single story design is a good solution to preventing privacy impacts
on the neighbor above.
Mr. David Britt agreed that this is a key reason for the single -story design and said that there is still
plenty of opportunity to relocated the basement to satisfy the setback policy.
Director Tom Sullivan said that staff is willing to work with the applicant to work out the location of
the light well.
Commissioner Roupe said that the condition could be included that the light well will not be located
within the required setback.
Mr. David Britt said that the slight adjustment to the location of the house or the relocation of the
basement or a combination of the two would solve these issues.
Acting Chair Jackman asked staff for suggestions on how to phrase that condition.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that the Commission could direct staff to work these issues out with the
applicant.
Commissioner Roupe clarified that the issues to be worked out include the terrace, light well and the
maintenance agreement for the streetscape.
Saratoga Planning Commissi, Qinutes of January 23, 2002 Page 11
Assistant Planner Ann Welsh reminded that 63 feet of frontage for this Lot must be planted with
streetscape landscaping.
Acting Chair Jackman inquired whether there would be a homeowners association for this project.
Mr. Larry Schuck, Property Owner /Applicant:
• Promised that the maintenance agreement issue is still to be worked out.
• Listed one possible solution by having each owner responsible for 25 percent.
• Said that another option is to have the property owners responsible for any streetscape landscaping
in front of their respective lots, specifically Lots 1 and 4, which seems to be the most
straightforward.
Acting Chair Jackman asked if there is a map that shows all lots.
Assistant Planner Arm Welsh replied no since this evening's hearings are for the Design Review of
each individual parcel.
Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the open space is a common parcel owned by the four lots.
Added that it would be necessary to have one single point of contact.
Commissioner Kurasch how to ensure the continuity of the streetscape.
Director Tom Sullivan replied by conditioning that this occurs prior to issuance of building permits.
Commissioner Kurasch suggested that the applicant work with Public Works to eliminate any conflicts
with tree #12 and the retaining wall.
Mr. Larry Schuck said that he could probably eliminate that retaining wall completely.
Commissioner Roupe said that the elimination of that retaining wall should be included in the
conditions of approval.
Acting Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:38 p.m.
Commissioner Roupe said that with the added conditions to deal with the terrace, light well, streetscape
maintenance and the elimination of the retaining wall, this is a nicely designed house that fits well and
for which he has no other reservations.
Commissioner Garakam asked what the neighbors' concerns are and what will solve them.
Assistant Planner replied that buffering trees would solve the concerns of the neighbors.
Commissioner Garakani suggested moving the house to the east by eight feet because he was very
concerned over the fact that the proposed patio is beneath the canopy of a very beautiful tree.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that moving the house that way would place three eight -inch oaks at
risk. Added that this still may be a reasonable trade off and that he did not have a problem with that
suggestion.
Saratoga Planning Commissic linutes of January 23, 2002 Page 12
Commissioner Garakani said the house could also be moved forward four to five feet.
Commissioner Roupe agreed that this is a good suggestion.
Director Tom Sullivan agreed that the 60 -inch oak is a rare and majestic tree.
Commissioner Kurasch agreed and said that this is a $50,000 tree.
Acting Chair Jackman reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:42 p.m.
Mr. Larry Schuck said that this proposal might be in conflict with the recorded map.
Commissioner Roupe disagreed and stated that as long as the project meets Code required setbacks
there is no conflict.
Acting Chair Jackman reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:43 p.m.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if the Tentative Map is wrong.
Director Tom Sullivan clarified that when the subdivision occurred, conceptual plot plans with
measurements for a proposed structure were included but are not cast in stone. They are able to move
the proposed structure as long as the structure remains consistent with Code requirements.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Agreed that moving the structure would minimize conflict with exceptional trees while the smaller
trees now impacted could be replaced if necessary.
• Suggested that the elimination of the retaining wall be subject to the Arborist's review.
• Said that she would support the move of the house eight feet to the east, which eliminates the light
well conflict.
Director Tom Sullivan assured the Commission that staff has the overall direction needed to work with
the applicant.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
Planning Commission approved a Design Review (DR -01 -023) to allow construction
of a new residence on Lot 1 at 14221 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road with the added
Conditions:
1. That the house be moved by approximately eight feet to the east and in a
southerly direction to the extent possible to eliminate light well conflicts with
the required setback, subject to the approval of the Community Development
Director;
2. That the landscape plan be approved, including the elimination of the retaining
wall subject to approval by the Arborist and Public Works Director;
3. That a contract for the streetscape maintenance agreement by finalized prior to
issuance of building permits with a single point of contact.
AYES:Garakani, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe
NOES: None
Saratoga Planning Commissi� Minutes of January 23, 2002 Page 13
ABSENT: Barry, Hunter and Zutshi
ABSTAIN: None
Acting Chair Jackman advised that there is a 15 -day appeal period.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.4
DR -01 -024 (403 -23 -016, Lot 3) — SCHUCK, 14221 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, Lot 3: Request for
Design Review approval to construct a two -story craftsman style single - family residence on a newly
subdivided 19,456 square foot parcel. The floor area of the proposed residence and detached two -car
garage is 3,891 square feet, with a basement area of 1,140 square feet. The maximum height of the
house is 24 feet. The detached garage is proposed at 14 feet, 6 inches in height. The site is zoned R -1-
15,000. (WELSH)
Assistant Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval for a two- story, 3,891 square foot
residence with a 1,140 square foot basement and a maximum height of 24 feet. The lot is 19,546
gross square feet and 17,812 net square feet. Included is a 15 -foot high, detached garage.
• Described the house as a craftsman style structure in keeping with the Julia Morgan home nearby.
Architectural features include cobblestone veneer and cedar shake shingles.
• Pointed out the major issues which includes the front yard setback and tree #36 which is at issue
with the location of the house. The Arborist has suggested that the structure be moved to the south
by seven feet. Another issue is the balcony on the second floor at the rear of the house, which could
impact privacy of the neighbors. Additionally, the streetscape maintenance issue also applies.
• Recommended approval subject to moving the house to the south.
Director Tom Sullivan said that even with the clarity to the Zoning Ordinance that must occur to more
firmly establish the interpretation for setbacks for two -story homes, this project conforms to both the
old and proposed interpretations.
Assistant Planner Ann Welsh added unless the house is moved.
Director Tom Sullivan said that this could be resolved although it make take an adjustment in the
placement of the house.
Commissioner Kurasch asked staff how they propose to deal with the privacy impacts from the
balcony.
Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied perhaps landscaping for screening.
Commissioner Garakani asked for the height of the balcony from the ground.
Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied approximately 12 feet.
Commissioner Garakani pointed out that it would take a 24 -foot high tree to screen this balcony.
Saratoga Planning Commissic linutes of January 23, 2002 Page 14
Acting Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:00 p.m.
Mr. David Britt, Project Architect:
• Said that he has reviewed staff's recommendations and is happy to move the house.
• Pointed out that the 15 -foot height for the garage is required to keep the roof pitch consistent with
the house.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Britt how he would propose to solve the potential privacy issues
resulting from the rear balcony.
Mr. David Britt replied that he felt it could be mitigated through landscaping or the installation of a roof
over it.
Commissioner Roupe said that he would support landscape screening over the elimination of the
balcony.
Commissioner Kurasch asked for the size of this balcony.
Mr. David Britt replied that it is 10 feet wide and three feet deep.
Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the neighbor has not expressed concern. Suggested that the
City, applicant and neighbor meet to resolve issues if there are any.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if the process of involving neighbors was incorporated in this project.
Director Tom Sullivan reminded that this is an older application, which did not require the same level
of neighbor input as current projects require.
Acting Chair Jackman closed the Public hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:05 p.m.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Said that with staff's suggestion to move the house to the south, this house fits on the lot well and
that she had no objection to the design and, in fact, prefers this one to the one on Lot 1.
• Said that she is in favor subject to conditions that include the requirement for the landscape plan and
maintenance agreement.
Commissioner Garakani agreed that he too was in support of moving the home to the south.
Commissioner Roupe asked if the garage height issues are handled.
Director Tom Sullivan said that the height of the garage is addressed in the Resolution.
Commissioner Garakani said that the height of the lower gable should perhaps be the same as the gable
on the garage.
Commissioner Kurasch disagreed stating that the proportions are well worked out.
Saratoga Planning Commissi, dinutes of January 23, 2002
Page 15
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the
Planning Commission approved a Design Review (DR -01 -024) to allow construction
of a new residence on Lot 3 at 14221 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road with the added
Conditions:
1. That the house be moved to the south, per staffs recommendation, to
eliminate conflict with protected trees;
2. That a landscape plan, using native species, be finalized prior to issuance of
building permits;
3. That a maintenance agreement for the required streetscape landscaping be
finalized to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director; and
4. That a meeting be held between the neighbor, applicant and staff to work
out any privacy impacts from the balcony, to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director.
AYES:Garakani, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barry, Hunter and Zutshi
ABSTAIN: None
Acting Chair Jackman advised that there is a 15 -day appeal period.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.5
DR -01 -025 (503 -23 -016, Lot 4) — SCHUCK, 14221 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, Lot 4: Request for
Design Review approval to construct a one -story craftsman style single - family residence on a newly
subdivided 18,560 square foot parcel. The floor area of the proposed residence and attached three -car
garage is 4,016 square feet, with a basement area of 1,344 square feet. The maximum height of the
house is 18 feet. The site is zoned R -1- 15,000. (WELSH)
Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval for a single story, 4,016 square foot
house with a 1,344 square foot basement and an attached garage. The maximum height is 18 feet.
The lot is 18,560 square feet gross and 18,120 square feet net.
• Described the proposed residence as a craftsman style using cobblestone and cedar shingle.
• Said that the main issue is the non - conforming roof over the porch, which is within the setback, the
inconsistent fencing, light wells within the southern setback and the need for a maintenance
agreement for the required frontage streetscape landscaping. Additionally, there is a five -foot
pathway with trees and the question remains as to who would maintain that area. Finally, there are
potential privacy impacts for the neighbors to the south and west.
• Recommended approval with conditions to eliminate the non - conforming rear yard and to assure the
neighbors' privacy.
Commissioner Kurasch asked about the rear yard non - conformance.
Assistant Planner Ann Welsh pointed out that the front yard is inaccurate and the rear yard is non-
conforming. The solution is to move the structure to the east toward Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road.
Saratoga Planning Commissic linutes of January 23, 2002 Page 16
Commissioner Roupe asked staff how it determines the height of a retaining wall.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that the wall is measured from the finish grade to the top of the wall.
Assured that staff will review the approved grading plan.
Acting Chair Jackman asked if the neighbors were contacted.
Commissioner Garakam asked if permission was received for the retaining walls.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that the approved grading permit from the Public Works Department also
approved the retaining walls. Added that no materials were conditioned for these walls and the City
cannot go backwards to add those conditions now.
Acting Chair Jackman restated that the Commission couldn't change that approval now.
Commissioner Roupe added that this could be addressed with landscaping.
Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that the path to the open area is kind of steep and five feet wide and
expressed concerns over potential impacts on the surrounding trees.
Assistant Planner Ann Welsh said that Barrie Coates has recommended elimination of that path.
Commissioner Roupe cautioned that since this provides access to the open space, this path might be
required. If eliminated, it may be in conflict with public access to open space. Asked why the trail was
needed anyway.
Commissioner Kurasch asked staff to clarify the fencing issue.
Assistant Planner Ann Welsh said that in one location of the plan, it reads no privacy fencing while in
another location on the plan, it reads redwood fence.
Acting Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5 at 9:22 p.m.
Mr. David Britt, Project Architect:
• Stated that this was the most difficult house to design as there were lots of issues.
• Said that the best solution for the terrace issue is to eliminate that element from the design and
address it as a patio instead rather than moving the house.
• Pointed out that they did not want a garage that faces onto the street.
Commissioner Kurasch inquired about the privacy issues on the rear and south side property owners.
Mr. David Britt advised that the previous project planner, Allison Knapp, requested a fence to deal with
privacy issues.
Commissioner Garakani asked for the height of the retaining wall on the south side.
Mr. Larry Schuck, Applicant and Owner:
Saratoga Planning Commissic Iinutes of January 23, 2002 Page 17
• Said that all retaining walls have already been approved as has all site grading. They were all
engineered by a licensed civil engineer.
• Added that the retaining walls are state of the art.
Commissioner Garakani asked for the height as the neighbors should know that fact.
Mr. Larry Schuck replied that as shown on the map, the walls are five feet high.
Acting Chair Jackman explained to Mr. Schuck that the policy now is to have applicants work closely
with neighbors.
Mr. Larry Schuck said that this is the third hearing and the neighbors were notified of each. Assured
that they have no problems with the neighbors and that he is on the site all the time and available to the
neighbors.
Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that the retaining wall is not yet constructed and asked how they
will be buffered and landscaped.
Mr. Larry Schuck replied that the first wall is only 18 inches high and the neighbor has a six -foot high
fence.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Schuck if he would have a landscape plan.
Mr. Larry Schuck replied yes.
Commissioner Kurasch asked about the pedestrian walkway.
Mr. Larry Schuck reminded that this walkway has been approved via Resolution and he has already
bonded for the pathway.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if the path represents a walkway to Lot A.
Mr. Larry Schuck advised that there is a 20,000 square foot open space area available. A stone
walkway, set in soil, will be used to access that space. He added that they would be submitting
landscape plans for each lot.
Commissioner Kurasch said that these issues are important to her and that she would either like to see
the elimination of that pathway or construction at grade per review by the Arborist.
Mr. Larry Schuck reminded that this is not part of Lot 4.
Commissioner Roupe asked if the purpose of the path is to provide access to the open space for Lot 4.
Mr. Larry Schuck added that the access is also for Lots 1, 2 and 3.
Commissioner Garakani expressed concern for the 60 -inch oak.
Mr. Larry Schuck assured that the stone walkway is at grade per the Arborist's recommendation.
6
Saratoga Planning Commissic. Iinutes of January 23, 2002 Page 18
Acting Chair Jackman reminded that the walkway is a separate lot.
Director Tom Sullivan added that it is included on the plans for this parcel. Added that they are due to
get a construction landscape plan and will judge the landscape plan against Barrie Coates'
requirements. Assured that the guidance is crystal clear to staff.
Acting Chair Jackman reminded that the Commission is not approving this walkway tonight.
Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that the walkway is part of the Commission's purview and that staff
had brought it up as an issue for consideration.
Director Tom Sullivan clarified that staff brings up any potential issues for consideration.
Commissioner Kurasch expressed support for the maintenance agreement for the streetscape frontage
and asked about materials for the frontage walls.
Mr. Larry Schuck said that this is shown on the Tentative Map.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if there would be landscaping for the wall.
Mr. Larry Schuck replied that former Director Walgren recommended submitting a landscape elevation
plan for a fence to screen this subdivision from Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. This was approved in
October 2000. Said that he would submit a landscape plan to assure the privacy to the south.
Commissioner Garakani asked about the fence and gate.
Mr. Larry Schuck replied that former project planner, Allison Knapp, requested that the fence and gate
be included with the landscape plan.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that while some of the retaining walls are installed, others are not yet
installed. Asked if Mr. Schuck has any problem with using cobblestone facing for the walls.
Mr. Larry Schuck replied that lots of ivy would be used. Added that the cost is high to place stone face
on walls. However, it could be considered for the portion facing Lot 4 as part of the landscape design
work.
Acting Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5 at 9:50 p.m.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Pointed out that the rear porch issue has disappeared with its elimination by the applicant and
replaced with a plan to use a patio instead of a terrace feature.
• Said that the fencing will be part of the landscape plan.
• Said that while he worries about the path it is not a part of this lot and that by taking the Arborist's
guidance as absolute directives, he leaves this to the discretion of the Community Development
Director.
Commissioner Kurasch stressed the importance for the frontage maintenance agreement.
r
Saratoga Planning Commissit Iinutes of January 23, 2002 Page 19
Director Tom Sullivan added that one agreement for all frontages is important.
Commissioner Kurasch expressed support for the recommendation to incorporate cobblestone facing on
the north side wall.
Acting Chair Jackman cautioned that this might be fairly expensive.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the applicant has agreed to do the portion of the wall facing Lot
4.
Commissioner Kurasch said that with the elimination of the terrace, the submittal of a landscape and
fencing plan and the strong recommendation for a minimal path within the tree drip lines or even the
complete elimination of the pathway, she can support this proposal.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the
Planning Commission approved a Design Review (DR -01 -025) to allow construction
of a new residence on Lot 4 at 14221 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road with the added
Conditions:
1. That the rear terrace be eliminated;
2. That the fencing issue be addressed with the landscape plan prior to
issuance of building permits;
3. That the maintenance agreement for the street frontage be a common effort
with the other lots; and
4. That the front facing of the retaining wall, as facing into Lot 4, be faced with
stone compatible with the architecture of the property.
AYES:Garakani, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barry, Hunter and Zutshi
ABSTAIN: None
Acting Chair Jackman advised that there is a 15 -day appeal period.
DIRECTOR ITEMS
There were no Director Items.
COMMISSION ITEMS
Planning Commission Subcommittees
Acting Chair Jackman distributed revised basement guidelines.
Commissioner Roupe suggested that this material be emailed to each Commissioner to allow feedback,
as he would be gone for the next meeting on February 13, 2002.
r
A
Saratoga Planning Commissic Iinutes of January 23, 2002
COMMUNICATIONS
There were no Communication Items.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Page 20
Acting Chair Jackman adjourned the meeting at 9:58 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for
Wednesday, February 13, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, January 9, 2002
PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Chair Barry called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi
Absent: Kurasch
Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner John Livingstone and Planner Lata
Vasudevan
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Meeting of December 12, 2001.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the
regular Planning Commission minutes of December 12, 2001, were approved with
the following modifications:
Page 6 - Commissioner Hunter said that retaining walls might become prevalent.
Page 7 - Commissioner Hunter said that it is very valid to state that a 4,800 square
foot home is a very large house. Dninterl nut that she lives in a 3,000 square fun+
house with fou,_r -kid-S, amn-d- her_- hurshand and it is- pleat), . Said that she would go
for a smaller house on this lot, considerably smaller.
Page 9 - remove the first bullet within the motion for approval: That the
applicant reduce the strurture by an additional eight percent
Page 9 - Chair Barry said that Commissioner Garakani is simply suggesting a
Study Session be held early on. Arlrlerl that if she had her way, there iyoulrl he no
building on tho hillgidag at all
Page 12 - Chair Barry pointed out to Mr. Pridham that the intent of the
Ordinance is that folks in the Hillside Residential Zoning District give gj*e-s. up the
fenced -in aspect of properties.
Page 13 - Chair Director Sullivan suggested that the Commission vote on the
proposed amendment and than then vote on the main motion.
Page 14 - Bullet 3 from Associate Planner John Livingstone's report should read:
Stated that this applicant has contacted each of his neighbors...
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Kurasch
ABSTAIN: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no Oral Communications.
Saratoga Planning Commissic Iinutes of January 9, 2002
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Page 2
Director Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting
was properly posted on January 3, 2002.
CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar items.
NON PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1
GARROD FARMS, 22600 Mount Eden Road (503 -10 -028): Request for General Plan clarification
to allow three new dwelling units on one parcel of land where two dwelling units currently exist. The
area is within the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County and is prezoned Hillside Residential. The County
requires the project be consistent with the City of Sara5toga's General Plan. (LIVINGSTONE)
(CONTINUED FROM 11/14/01)
Associate Planner John Livingston presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicants seek approval for the construction of three new homes on a site with two
existing residences. One unit is proposed at 3,000 square feet plus a garage and the two remaining
units are proposed at 2,500 square feet plus garages. There will be 1,500 cubic yards of cut and
1,200 cubic yards of fill.
• Identified the site as being located within an unincorporated area of Santa Clara County within
Saratoga's sphere of influence. The County requires that this proposal meet the General Plan
policies of the City of Saratoga. Following that determination, the County would process
Architectural and Site approvals.
• Stated that staff finds this proposal to be in conflict with the Hillside Specific Plan.
• Recommended that the Commission review this proposal and provide direction to staff and the
applicant.
Commissioner Roupe sought assurances that public testimony can be taken on a Non Public Hearing
Item.
Director Tom Sullivan replied yes.
Chair Barry clarified that the Commission's direction is being requested. Asked about the Open Space
Plan proposed.
Associate Planner John Livingstone:
• Advised that the applicant is proposing a trail dedication to the City to try to meet the Open Space
section of the plan, concentrating on the phrase "preferred" instead of "required."
• Pointed out that the Commission can take one of four actions including:
1. Find the proposal consistent with the General Plan and Hillside Specific Plan and instruct staff
to come back with a Resolution for approval under Consent, including the acceptance of the
trail easement proposal.
Saratoga Planning Commissi, Minutes of January 9, 2002 Page 3
2. Find the proposed density to be inconsistent and recommend staff to forward that finding to the
County.
3. Explore additional revisions to the project to enhance the Open Space to justify the increased
density.
4. Applicant could submit an application to amend the Hillside Specific Plan.
Commissioner Garakani asked for more of an explanation for Option 3.
Director Tom Sullivan restated that this would require enhancements to those options already offered.
Commissioner Zutshi asked if this means fewer units.
Director Tom Sullivan stated that it means further options to enhance the proposal.
Commissioner Jackman said that revisions to the Hillside Specific Plan would require a community
vote.
Director Tom Sullivan reminded that this parcel is not currently within the City's limits.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:10 p.m.
Mr. George Cooper, Property Owner /Applicant, 22701 Mount Eden Road, Saratoga:
• Said that he has resided on the property since 1945.
• Expressed appreciation for the patience of the staff and Planning Commission.
• Advised that the family has retained the law firm of Matteoni, Saxe and O'Laughlin.
• Said that he would provide a project overview.
• Pointed out that they seek authorization to construct three new residences on an 11 -acre parcel to
house family members and staff. The new homes would be single -story ranch style homes
consistent with the existing homes on site. They plan to retain the agriculture and landscaping on
the property.
• Describe that the family operates two agricultural /recreational businesses on their property, both of
which are labor intensive businesses, mainly family operated. Key on -site employees have housing
provided. Currently his own daughter drives 65 miles from Pleasanton to work for the family
business. The Garrod family has farmed on its property continuously since 1893. The riding
stables were established in 1966. The vineyard was planted in 1972. The winery established in
1991. The have achieved a national reputation for their wines, having won numerous awards. Said
that the businesses include horse shows, wine tasting and fundraising events.
• Informed that there are currently eight houses on the entire 120 -acre property. Three of the homes
house senior family members. The Operations Manager, Wine /Marketing Manager, Stable
Manager, Riding Director and Office Manager occupy the five other homes. There are currently
three units short of what they need.
• Reminded that they have deeded 120 acres of the original 240 -acre property to the Mid - Peninsula
Open Space Authority. They also propose to provide links to the trails as called for in Saratoga's
Master Plan.
• Introduced his attorney, Peggy O'Laughlin.
Peggy O'Laughlin, Attorney for the Garrod/Cooper Family:
• Said that she wanted to put Mr. Cooper's proposal into context.
Saratoga Planning Commissi, dinutes of January 9, 2002 Page 4
• Pointed out that the Garrod/Cooper family are not developers but rather they operate a farm. This is
a unique use in Saratoga. The family has been in the area for more than 100 years.
• Said that she has reviewed the City Attorney's memorandum to the Community Development
Director and agrees on the law that applies.
• Said that the Commission clearly has the discretion to determine if the proposal is consistent with
the General Plan and Hillside Specific Plan.
• Reminded that State Law does not require a precise match.
• Described a court case out of Oakland where the Court stated that a City can find a proposal is in
harmony with the General Plan.
• Assured that this proposal is in harmony with Saratoga's General Plan.
• Read Policy 7 of the General Plan into the record.
• Pointed out that a significant component of the Open Space Element comes from agricultural uses,
including the discouragement of early cancellation of Williamson Act lands. The Element also
allows additional dwellings on family farm operations. Additionally, a density bonus can be
allowed if a significant investment exists on the property.
• Reiterated that these three homes represent necessary housing for this family to continue its farm
operations.
• Said that the Garrod/Cooper family has shown its commitment in preserving open space,
specifically by dedicated 120 acres to Mid - Peninsula Open Space Authority. Additionally, they are
offering to deed a trail easement to Saratoga, 1,000 feet in length. This easement will provide a
crucial link that Saratoga includes as desirable within its Master Trails Plan.
• Said that although City staff finds conflict with this proposal with the Hillside Specific Plan, the
plan does not include a mandate but rather a preferred density.
• Reminded that this is a Williamson Land Act holding.
• Recommended adoption of Alternative 1 as provided by staff.
Chair Barry asked Attorney Peggy O'Laughlin if her clients would support a Deed Restriction that
requires the property to revert to compliance with existing General Plan Zoning in the event that they
opt out of the Williamson Act.
Attorney Peggy O'Laughlin:
• Advised that she spoke early in the process with Saratoga's City Attorney as well as staff.
• Informed that the Garrod /Cooper family has just renewed with the Williamson Act for another 10
years.
• Reminded that this is not a subdividable lot. The units cannot be sold outside of the family.
• Said that an Agricultural Easement Overlay had been considered in the past but found to be
unnecessary.
Chair Barry asked if they would object if the Commission were to require an Overlay.
Attorney Peggy O'Laughlin replied that it would have to be specific.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the Williamson Act lasts for 10 years and there are no guarantees
that it will be renewed after that time.
Attorney Peggy O'Laughlin reminded that the family has been on this land since 1892.
Saratoga Planning Commissi. Ainutes of January 9, 2002 Page 5
Commissioner Roupe suggested that a formal stipulation should be considered as the City may be
setting a precedent by stating that this project conforms to the City's General and Hillside Specific
Plans.
Attorney Peggy O'Laughlin clarified that tonight's request reflects just 11 acres of the entire 120 acre
family holding. They might consider a deed restriction on those 11 acres tonight but not the entire 120
acres. The Garrods had previously expressed reluctance to do so.
Commissioner Garakani sought clarification that there are two homes existing on this 11 acres with the
proposal to construct and additional three units.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:42 p.m.
Mr. Bruce Jensen, 12679 Carneysville, Saratoga:
• Expressed his support of this proposal.
Ms. Deborah Lang, 13172 Montrose Street, Saratoga:
• Expressed her support of this proposal.
• Pointed out the long- standing commitment to the community demonstrated by the Garrod /Cooper
Family.
• Said that they represent a part of the past and an ability to maintain farming in the area.
• Identified herself as a 4H leader of a group with 90 youth members.
• Stated her support for the efforts to maintain the farm operation by providing affordable living units
for its employees.
Mr. Vince Garrod, Property Owner /Applicant:
• Informed the Commission that the Williamson Act contracts last 10 years but are renewed
automatically each year for an additional 10 -year period. They plan to continue with the Contract
and continue the family use of the land for agricultural uses as long as it is economically feasible to
do so.
• Stated that in 2001, they had 18,000 riders on their trails.
• Said that they are also in the fruit business. The community likes grapes and the wine business.
• Asked for the Commission's support to allow them to continue their operations.
Commissioner Zutshi asked for clarification from Attorney O'Laughlin on the Williamson Act renewal
process.
Attorney Peggy O'Laughlin said that the Act works just as Mr. Garrod described. It is renewed
annually. Additionally, the Williamson Act Contract is not easy to cancel and, if cancelled, that
cancellation is not effective for 10 years.
Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that if back taxes are paid, the Williamson Act Contract can be
cancelled. Reminded that the purpose of the Act is to lower property taxes for farmland.
Attorney Peggy O'Laughlin said that the Garrods are not proposing the cancellation of their Williamson
Act Contract.
Commissioner Garakani questioned if some sort of guarantee not to cancel can be offered.
Saratoga Planning Commissi, Minutes of January 9, 2002 Page 6
Attorney Peggy O'Laughlin said that it is hard to guarantee forever. Added that the Williamson Act
first passed in 1971.
Director Tom Sullivan proposed that a Condition can be imposed that if any further urbanization of this
120 acres occurs, the owners will be required to process an Annexation of their property into the City of
Saratoga's jurisdiction.
Chair Barry questioned whether the applicant makes this request for Annexation or the City.
Commissioner Roupe sought clarification regarding what Director Sullivan means by the urbanization
of the property and whether that means the potential of development of the property.
Director Tom Sullivan said that if any further urbanization is proposed, this property should be within
the City of Saratoga rather than within County jurisdiction. An agreement to that effect can be
processed.
Attorney Peggy O'Laughlin said that this possible Condition can be discussed. With the trigger being
the cancellation of the Williamson Act, this Condition could be appropriate.
Commissioner Roupe asked who initiates this action.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that the City, Applicant and County would do it together. The
applicants are here today at the request of the County.
Chair Barry asked if Attorney O'Laughlin finds this proposal to reflect the family's willingness.
Attorney O'Laughlin replied that they can look into the idea.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 8:00 p.m.
Commissioner Hunter:
• Stated her support for Alternative 1.
• Said that the Cooper /Garrod family is an extraordinary family that has been here for more than 100
years.
• Said that she is grateful for the 120 acres they have already deeded to Open Space.
• Said that they have helped make Saratoga what it is today.
• Said that the City can be flexible as there is room here to accommodate this request.
• Asked staff to draft a Resolution of approval.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Said that he shares Commissioner Hunter's view and is also in support of Alternative 1.
• Stated that the Commission does have the discretion to support this request.
• Pointed out that there is ambiguity in the General Plan with the language reading "preferred" rather
than absolute.
• Said he is in favor but also intrigued by the proposed Condition to require Annexation if the land
comes out of the Williamson Act Contract. This Condition makes sense.
Saratoga Planning Commissi, Qinutes of January 9, 2002
Page 7
Commissioner Jackman:
• Agreed.
• Said that this land is important to the history of Saratoga.
• Pointed out that the Housing Element demonstrates how difficult affordable housing is to develop.
• Supported Alternative 1.
• Declared that she would like to see this family farm continue for another 100 years.
Commissioner Zutshi:
• Stated her support for Alternative 1 with the added Condition requiring Annexation in the event that
the Williamson Act Contract is discontinued.
Commissioner Garakani:
• Stated his support for Alternative 1.
• Agreed with the need for housing for agricultural uses.
• Supported the Annexation requirement.
Director Sullivan said that staff would bring back the Resolution.
Chair Barry:
• Stated that while the family has farmed this land for 100 plus years, the Commission has to consider
that the property may have to be split in the future.
• Agrees that the Commission has the discretion to approve this request.
• Thanked the family and their attorney and encouraged them to work with the Community
Development Director.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.2
DR -01 -021, V- 010 -012 & BSA -01 -002, HUSTED, Kittridge Road: Request for Design Review and
Building Site Approval to construct a two -story craftsman style, single - family residence on a vacant lot.
The floor area of the proposed residence and attached two -car garage is 4,810 square feet. The
maximum height of the residence will be 26 feet. The site is zoned Hillside Residential (H -R). A
variance is requested in order to construct retaining walls in excess of five feet. An exception is also
requested to exceed one thousand cubic yards of cut and fill allowed in the H -R Zone.
(OOSTERHOUS) THIS ITEM IS REQUESTED TO BE CONTINUED
Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report:
• Informed the Commission that as there are many issues still to be addressed, this item will be
renoticed to a future meeting date.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.3
UP -01 -018 (381 -01 -026) AUGUST PARTNERS II, LLC; DR. KATHLEEN BAN, DDS (tenant),
12132 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road: Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to establish a dental
Saratoga Planning Commissi. dinutes of January 9, 2002 Page 8
office in an existing 1,440 square foot office space in the Park Saratoga Center. The office space is
located in the Visitor Commercial (C -V) zoning district. (VASUDEVAN)
Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicant is seeking approval to establish a general dental practice within a 1,440
square foot office within a Visitor Commercial (C -V) zoning district. This use requires a Use
Permit from the Planning Commission.
• Stated that the space has been vacant for more than one year. It is easily visible, located close to the
main entrance. This use will be beneficial to the Center.
• Said that there are 195 parking spaces available. Staff finds parking to be sufficient as this use is
not intensifying the former use, a hair salon. Both uses have the same parking requirement.
• Informed that necessary findings can be made to recommend approval.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:12 p.m.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:12 p.m.
Commissioner Roupe expressed his endorsement since the proposal meets all requirements.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit (UP -01 -018) to allow the
establishment of a dental office at 12132 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road:
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Kurasch
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Barry advised that there is a 15 -day appeal period.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.4
DR -01 -031 & UP -01 -017 (397 -05 -091) — SAN FILIPPO, Sobey Road: Request for Design Review
approval to construct a new 4,981 square foot two -story residence with 608 square foot basement and
528 square foot cabana on a vacant lot. The Use Permit is necessary to allow the cabana to be 15 feet in
height. The maximum height of the residence will be 26 feet. The site is 43,042 square feet and is
located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. (LIVINGSTONE)
Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval for a 4,500 square foot, two -story
residence with a 600 square foot basement, 500 square foot two -car garage and 500 square foot
cabana on a vacant lot. Additionally, a Use Permit is required to allow the cabana at 15 feet in
height. Without a Use Permit, the height would be limited to 12 feet.
• Informed that this project has a history, having come before the Commission and Council before.
That proposal was denied.
• Said that this is a new application with changes that now meet the five design policies. It will
follow the contours of the slope; the landscaping plan includes native trees and shrubs and various
Saratoga Planning CommissiL dinutes of January 9, 2002 Page 9
materials to soften the structure as well as protect privacy for the neighbors; varying roof lines
break the elevation; the structure meets design for energy efficiency. The use of solar panels as
alternative energy to heat the pool and provide radiant floor heating.
• Described the color palette as being dark tan.
• Said that the cabana is proposed at 15 feet in height. Zoning allows 12 feet or up to 15 with
Planning Commission approval if two findings can be made. One required finding is that the
increased height is necessary for architectural compatibility. The second is that the proposal is
compatible with the existing neighborhood. Staff finds that these two findings can be made in this
case.
• Recommended approval.
• Advised that the neighbor that had previously expressed concerns is now in support of this revised
plan.
Commissioner Roupe asked if this application has received partial credit for use of pervious materials.
Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that they have just a small portion that received credit. The
applicant is using the most pervious material available. To receive an additional credit a percolation
test would be required. The applicant can do this later.
Chair Barry asked staff to identify this material that is the most pervious available.
Associate Planner John Livingstone promised to provide samples to the Commission in the future.
Commissioner Roupe said that this sample is not necessary as part of this application.
Chair Barry agreed but added that it would help with future projects.
Commissioner Jackman asked if a side view drawing of the cabana is available.
Commissioner Roupe pointed it out to Commissioner Jackman. He added that there appears to be a
substantial slope with a 16 -foot drop and asked whether a retaining wall is necessary that will require a
variance.
Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that there are no retaining walls required that exceed Code
allowances.
Commissioner Roupe asked if there would be plantings to buffer the side of the house.
Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that there would be a fairly dense landscaping plan.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4.
Ms. Grace San Filippo, Applicant, Sobey Road, Saratoga:
• Said that she is hoping for approval this evening.
• Advised that her architect and contractor are available for questions.
Saratoga Planning Commissi., Qinutes of January 9, 2002 Page 10
Commissioner Roupe expressed appreciation for the effort to substantially change this project to
address the concerns of the Commission. The applicant has found an middle ground. Thanked Ms. San
Filippo for her efforts.
Commissioner Garakani asked about the glass blocks and solar panels.
Mr. Maurice Camargo, Project Architect:
• Said that the glass blocks are part of a floor system to allow light into the lower floor.
• Said that the solar panels are located on the south facing flat roof area that will be screened by a
parapet.
Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Camargo if the solar system will provide electricity or radiant heat,
since the same panel cannot serve both functions.
Mr. Maurice replied that these are heat - collecting panels and not electricity generating.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 8:30 p.m.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Stated that this new proposal represents a substantial improvement.
• Stressed that the applicant's work with the neighbor was important.
• Said that the new proposal has addressed the bulk and mass issues, with the rearrangement of the
structure's second floor.
• Said that a remarkable job has been done in toning down this home. While it will still be imposing
since it is on a hill, it also fits within the surrounding community quite nicely.
• Stated that the story poles were quite helpful and in this case were a good idea.
Commissioner Jackman:
• Expressed that she is pleased with the redesign. It fits better.
• Agreed that installation of the story poles really told a story.
• Said that this home will be a nice addition to the community.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Added that the step down of the retaining wall helps keep it from being a monolithic structure. A
nice job was done in addressing a difficult problem.
Commissioner Garakani asked for the maximum retaining wall height for this project.
Commissioner Roupe replied five feet.
Mr. Maurice Camargo clarified that the highest point is actually four feet and that a planter area is also
incorporated.
Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Camargo if there are plans to install vegetation.
Mr. Maurice Camargo replied that the area will be fully landscaped.
Saratoga Planning Commissi� Minutes of January 9, 2002
Commissioner Hunter said that the house looks fine and is very nice.
Page 11
Commissioner Barry:
• Agreed with the comments made by Commissioners Roupe and Jackman.
• Said that this is a really nice design and that she is pleased with the changes.
• Said that she thinks Ms. San Filippo will really like this house and that she is glad the issues with
the neighbors were resolved.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the
Planning Commission approved DR -01 -031 & UP -01 -017 to allow the construction
of a new 4,981 square foot, two -story residence (maximum height of 26 feet) with a
608 square foot basement and 528 square foot cabana (maximum height of 15 feet)
on property located on Sobey Road:
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Kurasch
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Barry advised that there is a 15 -day appeal period.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.5
DR -01 -043 (397 -28 -005) — FITT, 20461 Walnut Avenue: Request for Design Review approval to add
360 square feet to the first floor, 334 square feet to the second floor and 360 square feet to the basement
of the existing 1,800 square foot dwelling. Maximum height of the structure will be 24 feet. The 7,658
square foot parcel is located in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district. (SULLIVAM
Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicant is seeking approval for a 360 square foot first floor addition, 334 square
foot second -story addition and 360 square foot basement to an existing home that was constructed
in 1906.
• Said that the Heritage Preservation Commission researched the list and Ordinance and Walnut was
not listed. Staff will be working with the Heritage Preservation Commission to add to the Historic
Resources Inventory.
• Stated that the addition will match the existing dwelling. A new roof will be installed. Fire had no
requirements. Public Works had no requirements.
• Said that new windows will be included on the second story on the south, north and west elevations.
There are no privacy impacts with the windows on the south and north elevations. The windows on
the west elevation could have privacy impacts. Staff is recommending the use of either opaque or
translucent glass on the west elevation windows to ensure privacy.
• Said that staff is pleased with the design. Consideration of a garage modification had been
considered. However, to do so would destroy the existing yard. It was decided to leave the garage
alone.
• Recommended approval.
Commissioner Zutshi asked where the two -foot setbacks are located.
Saratoga Planning CommisslL .linutes of January 9, 2002 Page 12
Director Tom Sullivan replied only for the garage.
Commissioner Roupe asked if the two -car requirement is being waived for this addition.
Director Tom Sullivan said that since the applicant is not adding 50 percent or more to the home, they
are not triggering the requirement for compliance with the provision of a two -car garage.
Commissioner Hunter:
• Advised that it has been the practice of the City to forward any homes constructed prior to 1950 to
the Heritage Preservation Board for review.
• Said that she is uncertain when that practice was stopped.
• Declared that this is a fabulous 1905 home.
• Asked what list Director Sullivan refers.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that the Municipal Code sets out the duties and responsibilities and how
heritage structures are determined. Staff and the Commission must follow the Code or change it.
Commissioner Hunter stated her hope that the list gets updated soon.
Director Tom Sullivan assured that it is his intention to have staff update the list.
Chair Barry suggested that this matter, as far as potentially changing Code, could be deferred to later in
the agenda under Commission Sub - Committee Reports.
Commissioner Hunter said that she is grateful for the care the Planning Commission takes in their
consideration of each application. It is just as careful as the Heritage Preservation Commission.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5 at 8:50 p.m.
Ms. Elsbeth Newfield, Project Architect, 119 Bryan Street, Palo Alto:
• Said that she would be available to address any technical questions.
Commissioner Roupe asked Ms. Newfield if she could incorporate opaque or translucent glass in the
windows on the west elevation.
Ms. Karen Fitt, Applicant, 20461 Walnut Avenue, Saratoga:
• Agreed that she does not want to look into her neighbor's property.
• Pointed out that the windowsill is located at the four -foot level.
Commissioner Jackman asked about concerns raised on the site visit regarding the dormer height in
relation to the chimney.
Ms. Karen Fitt replied that they would be dropping the height of the dormer.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5 at 8:52 p.m.
Commissioner Garakani stated that this project looks good.
Saratoga Planning Commissi. Qinutes of January 9, 2002
Page 13
Commissioner Roupe said that it is a good design that fits into its neighborhood. Said that it is
important to ensure the privacy with the bedroom windows and asked staff to work with the applicant
on that issue.
Director Sullivan said that he would amend Item 5 in the Resolution.
Commissioner Hunter said that this is a wonderful house now and will also be wonderful with this
addition. Suggested that the current colors look marvelous and that the applicant should consider
keeping it the same color.
Chair Barry agreed that this will be charming and that the design is appropriate and nice.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
Planning Commission approved DR -01 -043 to allow an addition to a home at 20461
Walnut Avenue, with the amendment to Condition 5 regarding the west windows
on the second floor.
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Kurasch
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Barry advised that there is a 15 -day appeal period.
Chair Barry pointed out that she noticed a lot of different front setbacks along Walnut.
Director Tom Sullivan said that in some cities, it is required that front setbacks be staggered.
DIRECTOR ITEMS
Planning Commission Mission Statement:
Director Sullivan provided a second draft of the Commission's mission statement for review.
Commissioner Roupe said that this is a big improvement and that he liked it.
Commissioner Garakani said that it looks good.
Chair Barry said that Commissioner Kurasch had wanted to use the term "shared." Other than that, she
is happy with the draft.
Commissioner Roupe asked whether goals and objectives will be developed down the road.
Director Sullivan said that this finishes the exercise for now.
Saratoga Planning Commissit 1inutes of January 9, 2002 Page 14
Commissioner Hunter said that many people do not know what the Planning Commission does or how
it is appointed.
Director Sullivan said that he has prepared a document for the City Clerk to distribute. Promised to
provide a copy to the Commission.
Chair Barry asked about the status of the Trail Access.
Director Sullivan said that he met with Mr. Durland and that work on the Trail Access is proceeding.
Commissioner Hunter advised that the Heritage Preservation Commission is sponsoring "A walls
through the mustard." The date is Sunday, February 10, from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. and will begin at the
Warner Hutton House.
Director Sullivan asked for a voice vote on the mission statement.
Motion: By consensus, the Commission adopted the mission statement for the Planning
Commission. (6 -0 -1; Commissioner Kurasch was absent)
COMMISSION ITEMS
Planning Commission Subcommittees
Ms. Lata Vasudevan, Planner:
• Provided a brief overview on the Basement Policies Subcommittee, led by Commissioner Jackman.
• Said that the basic issues included the definition of a light well, clarification of the current definition
of a basement.
• Read the draft definition of a light well into the record.
Commissioner Roupe said that it is important to determine the desirable horizontal distance from the
base to grade.
Commissioner Garakani said that lots of the basements that come before the Commission include living
space. Said why not give these rooms light by limiting to four feet.
Director Sullivan pointed out that the current restriction is three feet or else the basement must be
counted as floor area and becomes a floor instead of a basement.
Chair Barry suggested that basements can help the City achieve its Fair Housing Allotment by creating
garden level units as BMR units.
Director Sullivan said that the City will need to adopt a rewritten Secondary Dwelling Ordinance by
July 2002 as part of the Housing Element Update.
Commissioner Jackman suggested leaving the subject of BMR units in the Housing Element instead of
within the Basement Guidelines. Said that she wants simple guidelines.
Saratoga Planning Commissik /Iinutes of January 9, 2002 Page 15
Commissioner Garakani said that basements are an enhancement for the whole community and
represent a proper use of land.
Commissioner Jackman:
• Cautioned that basements can also lead to density problems.
• Added that another provision of their draft policies is the requirement that a basement fit beneath
the footprint of the main structure and be located no more than 10 feet from any adjacent property
line.
Commissioner Roupe asked if basement space can be included beneath an attached garage.
Commissioner Jackman replied yes.
Commissioner Roupe suggested a modification that no excavation occur within six feet of an adjacent
property.
Director Sullivan said that a Geotechnical Report can be required.
Planner Lata Vasudevan clarified that a 10 foot minimum is proposed because sometimes setback
requirements are less than 10 feet.
Commissioner Garakam questioned the restriction to 10 feet as long as a Geotechnical Report says that
it can be safely done.
Commissioner Jackman asked staff for the smallest setback.
Director Sullivan replied six feet.
Commissioner Garakani pointed out that basements cost more than twice as much to construct as above
ground construction.
Commissioner Hunter stated that basements are really smart and wonderful to have. They represent an
intelligent use of land.
Commissioner Roupe said that there is no reason to object to basement space under a cabana.
Commissioner Jackman suggested eliminating Requirement No. 5.
Commissioner Zutshi asked if there would be different standards for Hillside District basements.
Director Sullivan said that at one of his previous cities, there was an impact fee imposed for hauling
excessive cut from a site, beyond an established amount, to cover the cost of wear and tear on City
roadways.
Commissioner Roupe suggested a requirement to designate where the cut is going.
Director Sullivan said that it is the policy to prescribe what route has to be used for removal of cut at
least through the City's jurisdiction.
6
Saratoga Planning Commissik Iinutes of January 9, 2002 Page 16
Commissioner Garakani proposed incentives for energy efficient homes.
Commissioner Jackman pointed out that basement space is actually the most energy efficient space in a
house.
Chair Barry said that encouraging active solar is a good idea. She commended Commissioner Jackman
and Lata Vasudevan for their work on these basement guidelines.
Commissioner Roupe asked for clarification on the Joint Planning Commission/Council Session.
Director Sullivan advised that the date is Tuesday, January 22nd
Commissioner Hunter advised that she will be out of town and cannot attend.
Chair Barry advised that she will be out for the February 13th Planning Commission meeting.
COMMUNICATIONS
There were no Communication Items.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Chair Barry adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, January
23, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk