Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-13-1999 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1999 Civic Center, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairman Pierce called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. Roll Call: Present: Commissioners Kaplan, Martlage, Murakami, Page, Patrick and Chairman Pierce Absent: Commissioner Bernald Staff: Director Walgren, Assistant Planner Pearson Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - December 9, 1998 On a motion by Commissioners Kaplan/Martlage, the Commission approved the December 9, 1998 minutes as submitted. The motion carried 6-0 with Commissioner Bernald absent. Oral Communication No comments were offered. Report of Posting Agenda Director Walgren declared that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 8, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet Director Walgren indicated that there were no technical corrections to the packet. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. UP-98-016 (503-24-067) - ROSENFELD, 14471 Big Basin Way; Request for Use Permit approval for the placement of a wireless telecommunications facilities (antennas) within the perimeter of the roof of the two-story building located at 14471 Big Basin Way. The rooftop already has antennas from two other telecommunications companies. The site is 9,116 square feet and is located within CH-1 (Historic Commercial) zoning district. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONERS MARTLAGE/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 1. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER BERNALD ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. DR-98-042 (397-28-035 - COOK, 20405 Williams Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 2,880 sq. ft. two-story residence at a height of 24 feet from natural grade on a 7,680 sq. ft. lot located in an R-1-10,000 zoning district. The application includes an exemption request from the floor area reduction requirement for heights over 18 feet. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 13, 1999 PAGE - 2 - Commissioner Murakami inquired about the roof, noting that an element is located on top of the roof, in the middle of the second story. He asked if this element is being used for aesthetic purposes or was it a functional raised roof area? Regarding the increase in height of the structure, he said that he could not figure out how much was added to the total roof line and asked if it was increased by two feet? Director Walgren concurred that the increase in height was no more than two feet. He deferred the questions as to whether the protruding roof element was a design or functional feature to the applicant. Commissioner Kaplan asked where the driveway to the house is to be located? Director Walgren said that the driveway is to be located on the west side of the residence, to the back of the house. He said that a driveway is proposed to follow the property line. Commissioner Kaplan said that normally, she likes to see garages in the back but that she was not sure if she would like to a see a driveway going all the way back to the garage so close to the fence that there is no room to buffer the movement of cars and heights. Commissioner Patrick said that it was her understanding that if the application had been filed a month later, the applicant would not be entitled to a floor area exception. Director Walgren informed the Commission that the ordinance amendment that went into affect last fall no longer allows an exception to be requested before having ruled that there is a predominance of two story structures in a neighborhood. He informed the Commission that there are approximately half a dozen of these applications that were submitted prior to the adoption of the floor area reduction ordinance. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. Jack Cook, applicant, stated that the plans presented were submitted after careful consideration. He said that traffic and cars seem to be an issue in the neighborhood, thus the request for designing the garage to the rear and the driveway along the property line. He said that the architectural design was that of a craftsman style design, consistent with that of the neighborhood. He said that consideration and adjustments have been made in accordance with the arborist's recommendation. Any impact to the house to the west has been minimized by providing a buffer. Commissioner Murakami asked Mr. Cook if the rise on the roofline was to let out hot air or was it used to increase the ceiling proportions for the two upstairs rooms? Mr. Cook responded that the rise was used as a design consideration as all the ceilings upstairs are of the same height. He said that the house is narrow and that he used the rise out of necessity in order to keep the same roof pitch. Commissioner Martlage requested clarification of Section AA , Sheet A-4 of the drawings. She said that it depicts bedroom #2 in the middle of the structure and a bathroom above bedroom #2. She asked if the drawing was labeled wrong? Mr. Cook clarified that the second floor contains a bathroom that serves two bedrooms. Kirk McKenzie, 12 Bayview Avenue, Los Gatos, informed the Commission that he is appearing on behalf of his mother, Frieda McKenzie, 15311 Bell Court Avenue, Saratoga, owner of the adjoining parcel at 20471 Williams Avenue. Like Mr. Cook's property, his mother's property is comprised of two lots from the original subdivision and developed as one parcel. He expressed concern with the request for the exception of the square footage requirement and height. He agreed that this is a narrow house that gives a row house appearance and that it appears to be massive and bulky. He felt that there should be a concern about having a massive, bulky structure. If the application had been filed at a later date, the exception would not have been made available. He felt that a finding of predominance of two-story structures in the neighborhood would need to be made. If you count all of the lots, a quarter of the lots consist of two story homes. He questioned whether there was a two story predominance on Williams Avenue. He noted that the arborist report said that a number of trees are at risk by virtue of construction, including two trees located on his mother's property. He referred to tree No. 3 which indicates that a five foot mulching strip on his property as well as on Mr. Cook's property would be required. He requested that in the event PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 13, 1999 PAGE - 3 - that the project is approved as submitted, that Mr. Cook bear the burden of the cost for mulching. Janet Cook, applicant, addressed Commissioner Kaplan's concern regarding the driveway. She indicated that the home was designed to provide a buffer. She noted that several homes in the neighborhood also have long driveways that run along the side of the homes with garages located in the back. Director Walgren informed the Commission that a letter was received this evening from Mrs. W.L Peoples, 20480 Williams Avenue, objecting to further intensity of development in the neighborhood. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:56 P.M. Commissioner Page stated that he liked the design of the house and felt that it looked great from the street, acknowledging that this was a narrow lot to work with. However, he expressed concern with the height of the home. He said that if the decorative roof element can be lowered, he could support the application. Commissioner Martlage stated that she liked the design of the home as it fits in and is in keeping with the old flavor of the neighborhood. She stated that she like the articulation in the roofline. If the roofline could be lowered slightly, she could support the application. Commissioner Patrick stated that she could not support the exception request. She said that given the density of the small neighborhood, she did not feel that the Commission should be granting a height exception. She looked at the square footage of the basement and did not see a need for a height exception and would be opposed to it. If the item was continued for a redesign, she would recommend that instead of having a long driveway that is required by these types of lots, that the driveway be relocated to the left side of the home similar to those of subdivision type housing. She also expressed concern with the right side elevation as it is real long. She recommended that further articulation be considered. She stated that the design of the home was nicely designed. Commissioner Murakami stated that he liked the design of the home as well. With the design of non-conforming lots and the passage of the ordinance, he agreed with Commissioner Patrick that even though basement space is not counted, there is a lot of square footage proposed. He did not believe that the one portion of the roof has no functionality. If this portion of the roofline can be lowered, the square footage exception may not be needed. He said that he could support the floor area exception. Commissioner Kaplan concurred with the comments expressed by her fellow Commissioners and that she could not support floor area exception as it is a discretionary approval. She was not convinced with the diagram included in the staff report that there is a preponderance of two story homes in the neighborhood. She said that she could not support the application unless the floor area exception request was withdrawn. Director Walgren said that the center portion of the building is a functional result of the span of the room. He said that the roof is a relatively low pitch for a two story structure. It appears that the commission is asking that the square footage be reduced by approximately 200 feet and that the floor area exception be withdrawn. Chairman Pierce said that he liked the design and that it was a terrific house in a terrific neighborhood. The home would be a nice addition to the neighborhood. He said that most of the homes in the neighborhood are much smaller. He liked the garage being sited in the back. He did not know what else could be done with the driveway unless it can be made a straight way with a turn around area. He agreed with the Commission that reducing the 280 square feet would not be unduly oppressive. He would support reducing the home to the normal size. ON A MOTION BY COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/MARTLAGE, THE COMMISSION APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. DR-98-042 WITHOUT THE FLOOR AREA REDUCTION, REDUCING THE SQUARE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 13, 1999 PAGE - 4 - FOOTAGE OF THE HOME BY APPROXIMATELY 281 SQUARE FEET. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER BERNALD ABSENT. 3. DR-98-040 & V-98-023 (397-01-068) - LEINWAND/ROSTANKOWSKI, 1905O Camino Barco; Request for Design Review approval to add a 1,519 sq. ft. second story to an existing single-story residence. The total floor area on the site will be 5,469 sq. ft. The net site area is 34,215 sq. ft and the property is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Variance approval is also requested for building height exceeding 26 ft. The existing structure is 28 ft. 6 in. from natural grade. Proposal calls for maximum building height of 30 feet. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that it came to staff's attention late in the process that the building was as old as it was. It is not currently listed in the city's Heritage Preservation Inventory. However, staff has included a requirement that the applicant go before the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) to determine if the building should be included in the inventory list. He said that typically, staff would have referred the application to the HPC before the Planning Commission in the event that the HPC may have some plan changes as a condition of their review. In this case, staff wanted to keep the public hearing process on track. This item will be scheduled before the HPC at their first meeting in February. On the chance that there are changes recommended by the HPC, these items will return to the Planning Commission. He informed the Commission that the large coast live oak that abuts the building on the north side, to add up would result in the removal of some of the major limbs. The city arborist reviewed the project and concluded that if his measures are followed very carefully, the tree would survive this degree of limb and foliage removal. He addressed the underfloor issue and said that there are some areas of the underfloor that are unimproved, some areas sloping that are taller than the five foot limit (six+ feet). This would otherwise be considered a story which would constitute a three story building which is not permitted in the code. In order to retain the older structure, the applicant is proposing to upgrade the underfloor area of the structure and mechanical equipment to bring the height down to no more than 4'7" to allow it to be considered a truly an underfloor area and not a story. Staff has accepted the applicant's recommendation and will make the rooms inaccessible and unusable. Staff believes that this solution would be reasonable given the age and condition of the structure. Staff would recommend approval subject to the conditions contained in the resolution, including a requirement that the workshop window be removed. In response to Commissioner Kaplan's question, Director Walgren responded that the applicant could have dug out enough space in the existing under story to make it a proper first ground floor and that this was certainly an alternative. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 8:11 p.m. Gary Schloh, project architect, addressed the design of the home. He said that there is very little of the original design that he is proposing to change. He is trying to add back into the residence some of the charm that has been lost in the last 50 years due to lack of maintenance. He said that the roof is to remain the same and that he is proposing to add a cupola, an architectural element that helps the aesthetics of the structure and is a functional element that allows light ventilation and natural cooling for the structure. This element adds a 1.5 feet over the height of the existing structure. The major change that can be seen is on the north elevation of the house. The roof is being extended on the left hand side of the house overlooking French doors at the deck area that is to be replaced. The lattice will be removed as it is not as appropriate as a natural stone wall would be that is more indigenous to the area. The stone wall would give a sense of better structure for the house to sit on. He addressed the arborist report. The owners have mentioned to him that from the history of the project that there are two trees on the property that the arborist makes mention of. The owner is concerned regarding the deposit being required to stand behind the health and the longevity of the trees. Specifically of concern is oak tree #1 and the requirement to post bond to ensure its survival. He noted that this tree is not on the owner's property and that it belongs to the neighboring property. He informed the Commission that the neighbor does a thorough discing of the property at PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 13, 1999 PAGE - 5 - least once a year which he did not believe was a good thing for an oak tree. He wanted to go on record that if the tree does suffer to the point of termination, that the applicant not be held responsible. He also referred to tree #3 that is located on the property but that it is also is located on the neighbor's side of the driveway. He said that there is no fence in this area and that this area is disced around this tree on an annual basis. There is a concern that there may be a fungus growth on the tree. Commissioner Kaplan requested that Mr. Schloh respond to her question about the feasibility of using the underfloor area and making it a proper first floor? Mr. Schloh said that there is not a lot of evidence of water problems in the crawl space. He said that there is some water in crawl spaces that go from the high side to the low side. He felt strongly that some of the roof design of the existing house really suffers from poor design especially over the kitchen as there is an inappropriate roof design over this area. He said that he has to do considerable work to the roof. The suggestion of putting the living area in the crawl space was not studied to a great detail and that circulation wise, it is physically possible. He said that a very large oak tree is located within 6-8 feet of the basement area. He said that digging into the roof zone would be a negative. He did not believe that the foundation work would be needed and that there would be retrofitting of the crawl space for future beams and for mechanical work. He felt that there is so much area in the added space that using this area made much more sense as far as creating living space. Commissioner Murakami addressed the cupola as far as its functionality and asked if it would be possible to circulate air with a ceiling or attic fan that would eliminate the extra height of the roof structure. Mr. Schloh said that the cupola is serving a physical purpose and is also serving as an architectural aesthetic purpose. He said that skylights could be added to the roof but that he did not believe that the character of the structure would be in keeping with the architectural style. Attic fans could be added but that these items would be mechanical. The cupola is not a mechanical feature but that it is gravity fed and is considered a window located on a vertical surface. From an architectural standpoint, it adds some interest to the roof itself. Commissioner Patrick asked why the area near the oak tree needs to be excavated to add living space. Mr. Schloh responded that at the perimeter of the deck is 8-10 feet. As you go from the perimeter of the deck to the house, the grade is climbing up. At this point, the floor line to the ground is approximately 6.5 feet. This is the point where the cut would start down. He informed the Commission that the canopy of the oak tree is enormous. The arborist makes mention that there is a certain percentage of distance of the canopy of the tree that is not allowed to be excavated into. He said that it is proposed to excavate down 3.5 feet deep and dig deeper to the back of the home relative to the natural grade. Underneath the deck, directly by the tree, would not be excavated. Commissioner Kaplan said that in order to do the work on the roof and add the second story, a good portion of the oak tree will be in danger, especially with the removal of tree limbs. Director Walgren clarified that if the underfloor of the existing home was improved, it would have to be excavated downward, result in some damage to the root system of the oak tree. However, the city arborist felt that the tree would survive if all his recommended measures are followed. Commissioner Page asked about the two windows with shutters located on the north elevation. Mr. Schloh said that shutters are shown only on the dormer windows to be consistent and to add character to the windows. He said that there were some windows that can only take one shutter on one side. To be consistent, architecturally, that only the dormer windows would have shutters. Commissioner Martlage asked about the window fan light and its purpose? Mr. Schloh said that this is decorative woodwork over the French door. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 13, 1999 PAGE - 6 - Commissioner Martlage said that at the site visit, the Commission had a hard time determining the front and the back of the house. She said that there is no delineation of front and back. From an architectural stand point, even if the property owner wants to list the home in the National Register of Historic Places as long as the original facade is maintained, mechanical items can be located to the backside. She felt that it would be appropriate to install operational skylights. Mr. Schloh said that the front of the home has been on the uphill side, tucked around the corner. Regarding the skylight question, he said that if skylights are placed on the back side, they would not be obvious until you walk around the side. He referred back to his comments about aesthetics. He said that if you look at old structures of this vintage, many times they had cupolas. Steve Wong, 14000 Short Hill Court, informed the Commission that his property abuts the garage. He said that this was a nice design but expressed concern that the windows may look directly toward his home. He requested that the windows be made a little smaller. Chairman Pierce said that he walked the property and felt that it would be remote that someone could look out of the window to Mr. Wong's home. COMMISSIONERS MARTLAGE/MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:37 P.M. Commissioner Kaplan said that having visited the property, the Commission spent a lot of time on this issue and expressed concern with the oak tree. She expressed concern with cutting back the number of limbs that are proposed to be cut back. She said that modifying the home in any way would impact the oak tree. The question that she has is what would be the least disruptive giving the size and beauty of the heritage tree. She said that she would vote against the application for many reasons. She felt that there were other alternatives. She said that she would rather see a redesign or that this item be discussed in a study session. She said that she liked the design of the home as it is exciting but that she could not vote in support of it this evening. Commissioner Murakami said that he was also curious about the heritage tree. He was bothered by the fact that the structure was too high. The oak tree issue is another concern. For aesthetics, it bothers him that a cupola is being used. He felt that the mechanical items that have been mentioned can be utilized to eliminate the cupola. He felt that pushing the envelop 30 feet was too much even though there are special circumstances associated with the lower floor. He agreed with Commissioner Kaplan that the Commission should reexamine this application as he does not have the information to approve the project this evening. Commissioner Patrick stated that she liked the use of the copula. She asked if something can be done with the three story perception. She asked if something could be done with the underfloor area. She felt that it was a terrific looking house. However, she felt that questions can be answered to mitigate the concerns in a study session. Commissioner Martlage concurred with the comments expressed and expressed concern with the oak tree. She felt that without the deck on the side of the home, the structure could be pulled back to save the oak tree. She said that she was also bothered by the perception of a three story home. Commissioner Page agreed that a study session would be beneficial as there may be alternative solutions to mitigate the concerns of the Commission. Chairman Pierce concurred with the comments expressed by the Commission. He stated that he liked the cupola. Given the uniqueness of the structure, he could support the 30 feet if the oak tree could be preserved. Therefore, it would be worth spending some time to review alternatives in order to protect the beautiful oak tree. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 13, 1999 PAGE - 7 - COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. Mr. Schloh stated that he would agree to a continuance to a study session. He stated that he also would like to hear the comments of the Historic Preservation Commission before going to a study session. Commissioner Kaplan requested that the arborist be consulted for an opinion of what can be done physically to preserve the oak tree. Director Walgren stated that he would invite the arborist to the work study session. Director Walgren indicated that the Historic Preservation Commission would be reviewing this application on February 9, 1999 and that this item could be continued to February 10, 1999. BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSION CONTINUED THIS ITEM TO A FEBRUARY 10, 1999 6:00 P.M. STUDY SESSION. 4. DR-98-060 (389-34-003) - YAMAOKA DEVELOPMENT, 18180 Sage Ct.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,829 sq. ft. residence on Lot 1 of the Fitzsimmons subdivision. The height of the proposed residence is 18 feet from natural grade. The site is 24,052 sq. ft. DR-98-061 (389-34-003) - YAMAOKA DEVELOPMENT, 18625 Sage Ct.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,752 sq. ft. residence on Lot 2 of Fitzsimmons subdivision. The height of the proposed residence is 19 feet from natural grade. The site is 24,004 sq. ft. DR-98-062 (389-34-003) YAMAOKA DEVELOPMENT, 18587 Sage Ct.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,450 sq. ft. residence on Lot 3 of the Fitzsimmons subdivision. The height of the proposed residence is 19 feet from natural grade. The site is 20,013 sq. ft. DR-98-063 (389-34-003) YAMAOKA DEVELOPMENT, 18380 Sage Ct.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,517 sq. ft. residence on Lot 4 of the Fitzsimmons subdivision. The height of the proposed residence is 18 feet from natural grade. The site is 20,223 sq. ft. DR-98-064 (389-34-003) YAMAOKA DEVELOPMENT, 18288 Sage Ct.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,516 sq. ft. residence on Lot 5 of the Fitzsimmons subdivision. The height of the proposed residence is 18 feet from natural grade. The site is 20,875 sq. ft. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report on the five individual applications. Staff recommended approval of the five applications subject to a change the barrel/mission tile roofing material being proposed be substituted with a flat tile wood shake appearing roofing material to be consistent with the existing homes on Saratoga Avenue. Staff also recommended the addition of a condition to require that the applicant contract a certified arborist as a tree protection manager throughout construction to augment the other efforts to protect the trees on the property. In response to Commissioner Murakami's question he said that staff did not request consideration be given to the use of wood sidings. Commissioner Murakami recommended that a mix in siding be used to break up the use of stucco which make the homes look all the same. In response to Commissioner Kaplan's question, Director Walgren said that there is not to be a gate on this street. Commissioner Kaplan said that she did not recall being present at the final vote on the subdivision. She asked staff if there was any indication whether the Commission made the fencing along Saratoga Avenue compatible with other developments that are to be built? Director Walgren responded that a condition that fencing along Saratoga PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 13, 1999 PAGE - 8 - be compatible with recent development. What was approved was a finished masonry wall with a stone veneer to match the existing wall on the adjoining subdivision. In response to Commissioner Martlage's question, Director Walgren stated that the applicant would be required to keep the property clean. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 8:56 p.m. Stuart Scott, representing the project, stated his agreement with the staff report as presented. He stated that he would agree to add wood siding to one or two of the homes. Regarding the roofing material, he said that he would agree to install flat roofing material. He stated that the he would agree to provide the required tree protection measures. He said that the property would be cleaned up and that he needs the public works department approval before he can proceed with clean up. Commissioner Page referred to lot 4 and inquired as to the length of the home? Director Walgren responded that the length of the building is 120 feet, including the garage. Commissioner Martlage expressed concern with the length of the stucco wall. It appears that the front elevation is the only elevation that has any articulation. She did not know if the landscaping would mitigate the appearance as lots 1 and 2 border Saratoga Avenue. She felt that unappealing walls would face the street due to the lack of detail variation. Commissioner Kaplan said that she reviewed the landscaping plans and noted that on every lot has a live oak and that there appears to be planting under the oak trees. She felt that this needs to be addressed with the landscape architect. She expressed concern that throughout the subdivision about this concern. Mr. Scott stated that he would agree to comply with arborist's recommendation. Lot 1 Commissioner Page said that he has question regarding the position of the home on lot 1. Mr. Scott said that the position of the home was due to the setbacks required as part of the subdivision review process. Commissioner Patrick expressed concern that the garage is located on wrong site, creating a long driveway. She asked if the driveway could be moved to the Saratoga Avenue side, decreasing the driveway. Mr. Stuart said that he would consider relocating the driveway if so directed by the Commission. Commissioner Martlage referred to page AR3, the north Saratoga Avenue elevation , and noted that only two small windows are proposed with the rest of the elevation being a flat stucco surface. Mr. Stuart said that two small windows are proposed to due to the noise of the street. Commissioner Patrick said that there are architectural questions that cannot be answered as the architect is not present this evening. Commissioner Kaplan said that in looking at the material board and the similarity of the project being the same stucco and same color paint, she was not sure that this is what the city would want to see on its heritage street. She recommended that this item be continued to a study session to address the concerns of the commission. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 13, 1999 PAGE - 9 - Steve Nakuchi, landscape architect, said that he was present when these plans were designed and would try to answer questions. Commissioner Murakami said that he liked the overall design but would like to have the architect present to address surface and structures. As far as the driveways, they do not bother him. He said that the commission has to take a complete look at everything. Commissioner Patrick agreed that a study session would be beneficial to have everyone present and a faster process. Commissioner Martlage said that colored renderings would be helpful. Mr. Nakuchi said that he was present when the design was reviewed and said that he might be able to answer some of the questions. He said that when the project was designed, it was designed to have a European pedestrian village feel. The architectural image was to have a lot of similarity between buildings and building materials. The differentiation would occur with the shading, the hue variations in the stucco and the use of plant material. Commissioner Murakami said that he liked the overall the design but that it would have been helpful to have the architect present to answer detailed questions that the Commission has. Regarding the concern of the long garage, he felt that the Commission has to look at the overall design of the project. Commissioner Patrick said that it would be beneficial to have a study session to review and discuss the project with the project architect present and may help expedite the process. Commissioner Martlage said that her questions relate to the architecture of the project. She stated that she would like to see colored renderings of the project. Chairman Pierce said that additional dialogue is needed in order to understand the image of a European village. Director Walgren said that this item could be continued to January 27 to a study session, following the regular public hearing. He recommended that the applicant/architect be prepared to discuss the side and rear expanse of wall. Also to be considered is relocation the garage/driveway, consideration of the incorporation of wood siding and the submittal of a colored board. Commissioner Kaplan also requested that consideration be given to the design of the home on lot 5 as it is extremely large. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/PATRICK MOVED TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO JANUARY 27, 1999 FOLLOWING THE REGULAR PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA. 5. DR-98-055 (397-24-010, -038, -073, -074, -075) - PINN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, 18895 Hayfield Ct.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,558 sq. ft. residence on Lot 10 of the Spaich subdivision. The height of the proposed residence is 18 feet from natural grade. The site is 26,634 sq. ft. DR-98-056 (397-24-010, -038, -073, -074, -075) - PINN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, 18913 Hayfield Ct.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,781 sq. ft. residence on Lot 12 of the Spaich subdivision. The height of the proposed residence is 21 feet from natural grade. The site is 28,183 sq. ft. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 13, 1999 PAGE - 10 - DR-98-057 (397-24-010, -038, -073, -074, -075) - PINN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, 18907 Hayfield Ct.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,971 sq. ft. residence on Lot 11 of the Spaich subdivision. The height of the proposed residence is 18 feet from natural grade. The site is 28,149 sq. ft. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report. He said that there will be grading/excavation that would occur in order to set the homes lower on the site and to lower the profile of the homes from the adjoining views. He noted that the grading for grading of lot 11 seems a little high. He requested that the applicant consider a response to his response to this issue in order to determine the amount of excavation that is to occur. Commissioner Patrick asked if the plans show one wood burning fire place for each home with the remainder gas burning? Director Walgren responded that only one wood burning fire place is proposed for each home and that the remaining fire places are to be gas only. Commissioner Murakami referred to page 5 of the staff report relating to the landscape plans. He asked how closely does staff monitor that at least 50% of the proposed trees to be planted are to be California native trees are to be installed? Director Walgren responded that the landscape plans need to be modified before permits can be issued and that staff will monitor to make sure that trees require would need to be planted as well as the landscaping before the home can be finaled. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 9:24 p.m. Chuck Bommarito, representing Pinn Brothers Construction, concurred with the staff report. He addressed lot 10 and the fact that the arborist is concerned about some grading. He said that he would agree to the arborist's recommendation/requirements. Commissioner Murakami said that it would be helpful if the drawings submitted give a feel of what the homes would look like. He recommended that colored renderings be submitted. He said that he was not comfortable not knowing what the homes would look like. Commissioner Kaplan said that in looking at the colored board, they look similar in the shade of color and pattern. She asked if anything can be done to enhance the colors? Mr. Bommarito said that color palette has some consistency in it. He said that the gable would keep it consistent and that there can be changes in roof colors. He noted that the roofs have large and moderate pitches and are not visible roofs. Commissioner Page said that the chimneys seem to stand out. He asked if the chimneys stand out due to the use of the spark arresters? Mr. Bommarito said that the chimney can be modified. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/MARTLAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:29 p.m. Commissioner Martlage stated that she was pleased with the design as they coordinate nicely with the Julia Morgan House and with each other. Even though the color palette is limited, she felt that there was enough variation support the design of the homes. Commissioner Page said that he has a problem with the chimney. However, he felt that the homes were nicely designed. Commissioner Patrick felt that the homes were too large for the rest of the neighborhood. She said that the resolutions do not state that 50% native landscaping is to be required and recommended that this condition be PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 13, 1999 PAGE - 11 - included as a condition. She would support pulling the chimney down per staff's recommendation. Commissioner Murakami said that it does not bother him that the chimneys are a little high as they are part of the architectural style. He said that although there are more detailed renderings for the Commission to look at besides the color scheme, he was satisfied with the design would be willing to approve the project as the homes are designed to enhance the neighborhood. Commissioner Kaplan concurred with the comments as expressed by the Commissioner . Chairman Pierce said that this project, unlike the previous project that the Commission reviewed, the Commission has been seen the project before and that it has spent a lot of time on the project. Therefore, it was easier to approve these three designs. He stated his agreement with the previous comments by the Commission. Director Walgren agreed that a condition needs to be added to each of the three resolutions to specify that the landscaping per the plan and modified per the discussion contained in the staff report. ON A MOTION BY COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/MARTLAGE, THE COMMISSION APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. DR-98-055 WITH THE MODIFICATION OF LOWERING THE CHIMNEY AND THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION RELATING TO THE LANDSCAPING PLAN, AS MODIFIED. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER BERNALD ABSENT. ON A MOTION BY COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/MURAKAMI, THE COMMISSION APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. DR-98-056 WITH THE MODIFICATION OF LOWERING THE CHIMNEY AND THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION RELATING TO THE LANDSCAPING PLAN, AS MODIFIED. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER BERNALD ABSENT. ON A MOTION BY COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/MARTLAGE, THE COMMISSION APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. DR-98-057 WITH THE MODIFICATION OF LOWERING THE CHIMNEY AND THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION RELATING TO THE LANDSCAPING PLAN, AS MODIFIED. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER BERNALD ABSENT. 6. DR-98-047 (397-28-031) - BLACKWELL HOMES, 20345 Williams Ave.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 3,029 sq. ft., two-story residence on a lot currently developed with a 3,220 sq. ft. two-story apartment building (to be demolished). The sit is 8,590 sq. ft. and is located within an R-1- 10,000 zoning district. The application also includes an exception request from the floor area reduction requirement for heights over 18 feet. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Pearson presented the staff report. He noted that the basement shown in the cross section is part of the existing apartment building. Therefore, significant excavation will not be necessary. He recommended that a condition be added to require that an ISA certified arborist be on site during demolition and construction as recommended by the city's arborist. Commissioner Murakami referred to the cellar located on sheet A-3. He asked if there was going to be any other excavation that is to occur? Planner Pearson said that the applicant would need to clarify this question. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 9:39 p.m. David Britt, project architect, addressed the style of the home. He said that he designed the home to pay close attention to the neighborhood and pulled the craftsman style residence from the other existing residences in the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 13, 1999 PAGE - 12 - neighborhood. He said that it is proposed to remove the existing building, noting that it is bigger and taller than the proposed home. Commissioner Kaplan said that she was pleased to hear that there is to be an arborist on site and requested that staff have unscheduled visits to the site. Planner Walgren said that the city arborist would be requested to perform unscheduled visits to the site during construction. Commissioner Page building section B, it shows a master bath in the hallway and requested clarification. Mr. Britt said that there is an attic and that in the master bath in the hall, the ceiling was flat. In the master bedroom, the ceiling is vaulted. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:42 P.M. Commissioner Page said that this is a great design and that it fits well with neighborhood. He expressed concern with the height and that he would support in reducing the height or the square footage of the home to be consistent with an earlier approval this evening. Commissioner Martlage said that for consistency sake with a project approved early this evening, she felt that square footage needs to be reduced. Otherwise, the design of the home was tremendous. Commissioner Patrick stated that she liked the design of the home but that she would not approve the extra 308 square feet. Commissioner Murakami also stated that he liked the design of the home. Regarding the square footage of the home, he felt that this house was more reasonable in its attempt to request additional square footage where the other request was not reasonable. However, he understood what the commissioners are eluding to as far as consistency. Therefore, he would go along with the commission and request that the additional square footage be eliminated. Commissioner Kaplan concurred with the comments expressed and stated that she would not support the exception request. Chairman Pierce liked the design of the home. He said that the garage is located in the front where the other home had the home in the back, noting that he likes garages in the back. He agreed that in order to be consistent, the Commission needs to deny to deny the floor area exemption. ON A MOTION BY COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/MARTLAGE, THE COMMISSION APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. DR-98-047, DENYING THE FLOOR AREA REDUCTION. 7. DR-98-048 & V-98-016 (397-28-031) - BLACKWELL HOMES, 20345 1/2 (lot 23) Williams Ave.; Request for Design Review and Variance approval to construct a 2,583 sq. ft. two-story residence and a detached 441 sq. ft. garage on a lot currently developed with an 800 sq. ft. residence (to be demolished). A Variance is requested to allow the garage to be constructed with both the front and side yard required setbacks. The site is 9,020 sq. ft. and is located within an R-1-10,000 zoning district. The application also includes an exception request from the floor area reduction requirement for heights over 18 feet. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Pearson presented the staff report and recommended that condition 7 be amended to add the following language: "...except for tree Nos. 4 and 10." PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 13, 1999 PAGE - 13 - Commissioner Kaplan referred to Exhibit A-0 that shows the garage facing the front with the front of the garage on the same plane. She asked if this is going to change? She also asked why the garage could not be moved closer to the home? Commissioner Pierce noted that there is a tree on the street that may not allow the garage to be moved closer to the home. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 9:51 p.m. David Britt, project architect, addressed the location of the garage. He said that the location of the garage is based on the location of the existing carport and driveway. He said that it is proposed to use the vehicular access to access the garage. He said that the arborist had suggested turning the garage as drawn (somewhere between tree #7 and #11). If the garage was to be moved closer to the home, the garage would be closer to tree #7. This is probably why the garage was turned to its side. He said that the house is designed as a farmhouse style, indicative of what is found in the neighborhood when the area was developed at the turn of the century. He said that the mechanical chase serves two functions: 1) if a mechanical chase was not proposed, it would result in a flat section of the home; and 2) farm homes had wood burning stoves in the kitchen or single fireplace. Therefore, the mechanical chase was used as a design feature as well as an indicative character. He said that a basement was not included because it was not needed. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:55 P.M. Commissioner Murakami stated that he liked the style of the home. He said that he could support the variance based on the necessity to mitigate the damage or removal of the trees. Regarding the floor area exception, he said that he would not support it as an adequate amount of square footage is provided necessary to make the home function. Commissioners Kaplan, Patrick, Martlage, and page concurred with Commissioner Muarkami's comments. Commissioner Page expressed concern with the color palette of the wood siding and suggested that it be modified. Chairman Pierce stated that he liked the design and felt that the three designs would add to the neighborhood. However, he would not support granting the floor area exemption. ON A MOTION BY COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN, THE COMMISSION APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. V-98-016. ON A MOTION BY COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN, THE COMMISSION APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. DR-98-048, DENYING THE FLOOR AREA EXEMPTION AND INCLUDING THE MODIFICATION TO CONDITION 7 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. 8. V-98-011 (503-19-157) - LOH, 20651 Leonard Road; Request for Variance approval to allow a recently constructed detached accessory structure to encroach into a required 30 ft. front yard setback. The structure was built without City building permits. The Variance application includes a gazebo structure and a detached rear yard deck that also encroach into required setbacks and were also built without permits. The subject property is 1.48 gross acres in size and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Pearson presented the staff report. Staff felt that in this case, the variance would be a grant of a special privilege as it appears that there is room to construct the structures outside the setback areas. It is recommended PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 13, 1999 PAGE - 14 - that all structures be removed or modified to comply with the setback and height requirements within 180 days. He recommended that a condition be added to require that all debris and construction material also be removed from the property within a 180 days. He recommended that the Commission deny the variance by adoption of the resolution attached to the staff report. Commissioner Kaplan asked how staff came to the recommendation of 180 days on a matter that has been going on for some time? Planner Pearson responded that the 180 days would allow the applicant time to arrange for the work to be done. However, this time can be modified by the Commission. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the staff report states that there are several code related problems associated with the accessory structures as the problem meets exactly the allowable floor area for the zoning district (5,771 square feet). She said that the accessory structure located by the gate/driveway could not be approved per the zoning district. Planner Pearson said that the letter referenced was written prior to a code change. Director Walgren said that there was some confusion early on as to what the allowable square footage was and that the square footage listed in the letter is not correct. He said that the square footage is not a part of the variance and that the accessory structure is within the allowable square footage for the property. He said that the variance was a setback issue. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 10:03 p.m. Fu-Meia Loh, applicant, submitted correspondence from the city and letters from adjacent neighbors regarding the accessory structure. She apologized for the situation. She said that she contacted various architects to assist her with the design with estimates given at $750-$1,000. She said that she removed the old storage building and replaced it with a portable storage shed. She said that the only location that she could place the storage was in the front and side yard setbacks due to the constraints of the lot. She said that the shed is not visible to the neighbors. She asked all of her neighbors if they opposed the structure and none opposed the structure. She requested Commission approval of the variance. If required to relocate, she has been advised that it would be difficult. Commissioner Murakami asked Ms. Loh who made the decision to locate the storage shed in the front yard? Ms. Loh responded that it was her decision to place the storage shed in the front yard. She indicated that she is a realtor. Kay Duffy, 20637 Leonard Road, neighbor across the swale, stated that she did not support the shed. If another shed is allowed on the property, the current location of the shed would have less of an impact versus having the shed in the rear. She said that the shed is an attempt to clean up the property as construction material has been going on for four years. If shed is required to be torn down, she requested that the construction material be cleaned up. Mildred Perry, 20615 Leonard Road, said that when you see the shed, it looks like a guard house. She said that construction has been ongoing for four or five years. She did not believe that the variance should be allowed, noting that the shed is not attractive. If the variance is allowed, that there be a limited amount of time be giving to tear down the accessory structures and removed. Starr Davis, 20681 Leonard Road, adjoining property owner, reiterated the concerns contained in the letter. She expressed concern that she received a call from Ms. Loh who informed her that the gazebo's height was lowered and that the variance was no longer required. She also expressed concern with the safety of the tree. Mrs. Perry said that her husband delivered a letter to the city before the last meeting and asked if it was on file. Director Walgren indicated that the letter referenced by Mrs. Perry was not attached to the staff report but that it PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 13, 1999 PAGE - 15 - was in the application file. Mr. Loh responded to the comments made about the gazebo. She said that a staff official did not inform her that the gazebo was not allowed in its current location. She was advised that if the height of the gazebo was reduced, it met city regulations. She said that she reduced the height of the gazebo and that she was surprised about this issue. She said that she has been given two different opinions about the storage shed relating to the setback requirements. Director Walgren said that staff has been working to help Ms. Loh resolve the problem for over a year. He said that accurate as built drawings were never submitted to staff and that field assumptions were made. He said that the gazebo is still more than 10 feet in height from grade and that it must meet setback requirements. If reduced, it can encroach various degrees into the setbacks, depending on the height of the structure. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/MARTLAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:24 p.m. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the structures are considered non-conforming, the variance is not approved and the Commission directs that the buildings be removed and if an appeal to the City Council fails, what authority or avenue does the city have to remove the structures and bring the property into conformity and get the property cleaned up. Director Walgren stated that this evening's variance hearing allows the city to conclude the city's administrative remedies and then file a notice of nuisance abatement against the property to ensure that the property confirms. Commissioner Kaplan said that given what she has read, heard, and seen this property is a poster child for cleaning up suburban blight. She said that this makes it clear to her why the city has zoning requirements. It is to prevent helter-skelter, indiscriminate structures being plopped down on properties and creating substandard conditions. She felt that the structures decrease property values for everyone in the area and felt that the area was a mess. She felt that 180 days was much too long and recommended 60 days for removal of the structures and clean up of the site. She did not believe that there was a basis to grant the variance. Commissioner Murakami felt that this was a very unfortunate mistake in judgment on the part of the owner. He said that he could see that the gazebo and deck be modified to confirm to the zoning code. However, as far as the shed structure, the site is at the maximum allowable square footage for the site. Director Walgren said that the shed is no longer a non-conforming structure nor an issue in terms in the maximum allowable square footage. He said that the shed could be picked up and relocated to a less obtrusive location. He said that the excess height can be considered by the Commission should it deny the variance as a means to allow the shed to be relocated. Commissioner Murakami said that as the owner is a realtor she should know that there are certain things that individuals cannot do to properties without first investigating what can be done legally. He said that he would not support the variance. However, there are some things that the applicant can do to correct some of the problems. He felt that the 180 days recommended by staff was a fair amount of time as it will take some time to correct the violations and clean up the site. Commissioner Patrick stated that she could not see any reason to grant the variance and that there are many reasons to deny the variance. She said that she would not grant a variance to the height of the accessory structure(s) based on the neighbors' concerns. She would recommend that Ms. Loh remove the accessory structures and start all over. She agreed that six months was too long given the situation and that she did not feel that there was a need to exacerbate the problem. Therefore, she recommended that 60 days be applied to rectify the situation. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 13, 1999 PAGE - 16 - Commissioner Martlage had two major concerns beyond the setback situation: 1) a tree was damaged to build the gazebo. If the plan had been brought to the Planning Commission, it would have been happy in helping Ms. Loh in helping preserve the health of the tree. She did not believe that the Commission would have approved the location for the gazebo, especially as it encroaches the privacy of the neighbors. 2) The aesthetics bother her as there is a lot of dead space in the deck design. Therefore, this was clearly not designed by someone trying to coordinate the accessory structures with the home. She said that the home is a soft color where the gazebo and deck are white. She said that there are some aesthetic concerns in addition to encroachment into the setbacks. Commissioner Page agreed with everything that has been stated. He did not believe that ignorance of city codes was an excuse. He felt that Mrs. Loh had an opportunity to rectify the situation and has not done so. Therefore, he could not support the variance request. Chairman Pierce agreed with the comments expressed by the Commission and that he too would not support a variance and that he would not allow a 15 structure to be built under any circumstances. He felt that 90 days was a reasonable amount of time to rectify the situation. Commissioner Kaplan recommended that the applicant be given 60 days with a discretion at a staff level. ON A MOTION BY COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN, THE COMMISSION APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. V-98-011, DENYING THE VARIANCE REQUEST AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: 1) AMENDED SECTION 1.4., AMEND THE 180 DAYS TO 60 DAYS OR AS DETERMINED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME AS DETERMINED BY STAFF; AND 2) AMENDING THE RESOLUTION TO STATE THAT ALL CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL IS TO BE REMOVED. DIRECTORS ITEMS Director Walgren reported on the following: - Provided the Commission with a League of California City calendar. He stated that typically, new Commissioners attend one-day workshops. He requested that if there is any interest in attending these workshops, that additional information will be provided. - Presented an update on the Saratoga Elementary School project. He indicated that he sent correspondence on this issue. He said that he has not heard back from the school district. He expects that there will be an informal meeting before the City Council and the Planning Commission. He hopes that they arrange to meet with the Heritage Preservation Commission before the EIR is released. - Saratoga Avenue project - The Commission has seen this project and discussed it at their site visit. He said that this application was heard by the Planning Commission last summer. It was advertised that it was an addition to an existing home by renovating the attic and adding windows. As construction commenced over the holiday, the building is taken down the foundation. He stated that he has been in contact with the property owners who has been having difficulty with the project. The city will be issuing a stop work order on Friday morning. This item will be coming back before the Planning Commission as a variance request. - The home denied by the Commission on Garrett Road was appealed to the City Council. He said that a great effort was made to retain the magnificent oak tree, noting that it was removed without benefit of tree removal permit. He said that this will probably be a Commission item in some form of a memo in terms of PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 13, 1999 PAGE - 17 - how staff will resolve this issue. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Kaplan addressed the following: - Signage at the storage place on the Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road. Staff is to determine if the purple and orange sign was appropriate for the architectural. She requested that staff report its findings on this issue. Director Walgren said that staff has not found anything. He said that the earlier use permits were sparse in terms of the restrictions that run with the property. The use permit did not dictate whether the building could be painted with stripes. He said that the sign is not permitted. He said that staff would investigate the non-conforming sign. - The Commission put a lot of effort to property next to Pier One by Kinkos at Lawrence Expressway and Saratoga Avenue. She asked staff to look at the landscaping as it is now sticks, dead bushes, a lot of weeds and a stained fencing in an area that is an entryway to the City. The Commission worked hard to make it presentable and stated that this condition is not acceptable. She stated that Director Walgren has indicated that this will be rectified. - She congratulated Saratoga as a city as it is in the forefront of air pollution control. She said that there are two newspaper articles congratulating the City for being one of four cities in California that have taken steps to clean up the air. She thanked the Commission, City Council and staff. - She recommended that the Commission meetings be moved to the Community Center as the lighting in the auditorium bothers her. - She noted that the fence ordinance is scheduled to be reviewed next week. She recommended that the Commission revisit this issue to see if it is still worth the effort to have minimum/maximum fencing in the hills. Commissioner Martlage reported the following: concerns have been expressed regarding the new building at the corner Oak Street and Highway 9 (cleaners establishment), noting that a new, large sign has been installed; there is the "vinyl" garage on Saratoga Avenue that seems to be unprecedented attempt; retaining walls is being installed on Quito Road under some oak trees; and three homes adjacent to the Foot Hill Club are using cedar shingles that may not be consistent with approved plans. COMMUNICATIONS Written - City Council Minutes dated December 1, 2, 8 and 16, 1998 - Notices for Planning Commission Meeting of January 27, 1999 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING There being no further business, Chairman Pierce adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m. to Wednesday, January 27, 1999, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 13, 1999 PAGE - 18 - MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk