Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-10-1999 Planning Commission MinutesCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1999 Civic Center, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairman Pierce called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call: Present: Commissioners Bernald, Kaplan, Martlage, Patrick, and Chairman Pierce Absent: Commissioners Murakami and Page Staff: Director Walgren Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - January 13, 1999 On a motion by Commissioners Patrick/Martlage, the Commission approved the January 27, 1999 minutes with the following amendments: - Page 3, paragraph 2, line 1, replace the word city with Planning Commission. - Page 6, paragraph 2, line 2, replace the word unattractive with attractive. - Page 8, second paragraph under "Commission Items" amended to read: "She has heard reported that on a C-Span program, Richard Moe, president for the Trust for Historic Preservation will be presenting a lecture relating to explained that "Downtowns are back." - Page 8, second paragraph under "Commission Items" amended to read: "Vice-chairwoman Bernald said that the enclosure enclosed area outside of La Fondue has been pulled down during awnings used for inclement climatic weather..." The motion carried 4-0-1 with Chairman Pierce abstaining. Oral Communication No comments were offered. Report of Posting Agenda Director Walgren declared that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 5, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet Director Walgren indicated that there were no technical corrections to the packet. CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. UP-98-017 & V-98-018 (510-24-035) - HOLTON, 19280 Bainter Avenue; Request for Use Permit PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 1999 PAGE - 2 - approval to add 354 sq. ft. to an existing 793 sq. ft. Kownacki guest house, located within the rear yard setback, 6 ft. from the rear property line. The height of the structure would remain at its current 12 ft. A Variance is also requested to maintain the existing -0- ft. setback from the side access easement, as well as expansion of an existing non-conforming use. The site is 57,883 (net) sq. ft. and is located in an R-1- 40,000 zoning district. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. Wanda Kownacki, 19280 Bainter Avenue, Los Gatos, stated that she and her architect, Sandra Paim, would answer any questions which the Commission may have. Commissioner Bernald asked if the tile on the roof is to be removed? Ms. Kownacki responded that the tiles stored behind the guest home were left over from the renovation of the main structure. She said that it is planned to match the existing house with the same type of tile or to explore the use of a metal roof with the same coloring of the main house. Commissioner Kaplan expressed concern that by adding the amount of square footage proposed, the site would be maximized to that allowed by code. She asked if the guest house is currently being used as a rental unit? Ms. Kownacki responded that the guest house is being used only to host visitors. Commissioner Bernald said that in the report prepared by Michael Bench, arborist, he asked about the beautiful oak tree located in the lawn area. It was her belief that Ms. Kownacki would want to preserve the oak tree. Ms. Kownacki stated that she is not only interested in preserving the tree(s) that exist but has since added to the landscaping 10 native California and Mediterranean type trees. She said that it is planned to remove the lawn adjacent to the cottage and retain a small portion of lawn away from the oak tree. She stated that she is working with Land Works, a well known landscaping company who is interested in native California landscaping. She is also working with Chris Hall, a certified arborist, to optimize the conditions for the oak tree. She stated that she would not object to a condition that would preclude excavation and drainage at the collar of the oak tree. However, she said that her arborist does not believe that this would be necessary if all the irrigation around the tree is removed and replaced with a drip irrigation system. She recommended that Mr. Hall and Mr. Bench be allowed to work together to develop a plan to protect the oak tree. Commissioner Bernald strongly recommended that the soil that may have impacted the roots of the oak tree be removed. She stated that the work that has been done to the main house is lovely, that the windows are beautiful and that the door is attractive. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:42 P.M. Commissioner Patrick stated that she did not object to what is being proposed. Commissioner Martlage also stated that she has no objections to the proposed design and further stated that she liked the material of the guest home and use of the bricks. Commissioner Bernald concurred with the comments expressed and stated that she could support the request. Commissioner Kaplan felt that the findings as set forth in the resolution for the variance can be made to approve the request. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 1999 PAGE - 3 - COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. V-98-018. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI AND PAGE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/MARTLAGE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. UP-98-017 WITH THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION THAT STIPULATES THAT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT, THE TURF SHALL BE REMOVED OR OTHER MEANS DISCUSSED AND ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ARBORIST (i.e., ROOT COLLAR EXCAVATION AND DRAINAGE WORK). THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI AND PAGE ABSENT. 2. DR-98-054 (503-27-018) - PENUEN, 14380 Elva Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to add 755 sq. ft. on the first floor and a second floor of 768 sq. ft. to an existing 1,219 sq. ft. one-story residence. The maximum height of the finished structure will be 21 feet. The site is approximately 7,500 sq. ft. and is located within an R-1-10,000 zoning district. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 7:46 p.m. Ervin Haws, project designer, stated that calling the home a two story raises a flag and preferred to call the design a story and a half since the lot slopes downward from the street to the backyard to such a degree that if the bottom floor is placed on the grade, the home would be half a flight down, placing the second story a half flight up. He said that in looking at the drawings, very little of the addition would be visible from the street. He tried to be sensitive to the neighbor's privacy, placing windows toward the rear of the home, facing the long backyard. He stated his concurrence with staff's recommendation. Commissioner Kaplan stated that in looking at the drawings, they are minimal and that they do not give a sense of feel of the design for the addition. She inquired about the small window proposed? Mr. Haws said that the small window is located in a toilet compartment to provide light and that it is not an operable window. He said that he did not design a large window facing the neighbors for privacy reasons. He said that he tried to duplicate the existing materials on the existing part of the home with the same window treatment, trim and color. Susan Hannibal, 14375 Paul Avenue, informed the Commission that she shares a backyard fence with this property owner. She said that she was not concerned with the front elevations but with what the house would look like in the back. She said that she has a problem looking at a two dimensional drawing and that she did not know what the second story addition would do to her view. Her view today is the top of the home/roof and the hills which is natural landscaping. She expressed concern that with a two story addition, she will see a large home that will obstruct her view. She said that in talking with the applicants and the designer, there is some question as to how much the roof will be raised above the current roof line. She asked how much the home is to be raised above the roofline? She said that it seems that 18 feet is standard, noting that the height of the home is proposed at 21 feet. Her second concern is that of privacy. She said that even though there are two story homes in the neighborhood, there are no windows that face directly into her backyard. She said that this design has three windows that look directly into her backyard and her home. Her third concern would be what the changes proposed would do to her property value. She requested that a height pole be utilized so that she could see what the impacts would be to her views and privacy. She also requested that landscaping be installed so that she looks at landscaping and not just a "boxed" home. She also requested that something be done with the windows such as utilization of sanded or glass blocked windows. She said that she was willing to work with the applicant and their project designer to come up with solutions that are amicable and fair to both families. Commissioner Kaplan said that if someone in Ms. Hannibal's situation had sent a letter expressing concern, the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 1999 PAGE - 4 - Commission would have investigated the concerns. Ms. Hannibal stated that if she had the opportunity to review the plans earlier, she would have notified the commission of her concerns. Chairman Pierce said that it appears that the height difference in the roofline would be four feet. Director Walgren concurred that the difference in roof height is four or five feet. He said that it is important to note that the mitigation factors are: 1) the addition is set back approximately 50 feet versus the minimum setback requirement; and 2) if there is to be a second story addition to this property, 21 feet is as low as it can be designed (typically, a 25 to 27 foot height is appropriate for this size of home). Director Walgren informed the Commission that it cannot take into consideration property values but that it can take into account protection of view sheds and impacts on privacy. Commissioner Kaplan asked how high are the bedroom dormer windows? Mr. Haws responded that the dormer windows are table high and that you would see 50 feet of backyard plus the distance of the fence from the neighbor's yard, noting that trees are planted in the rear yard. He said that the property owners are conscientious of their privacy as the neighbors are. Michael Penuen, applicant, stated that he has done everything possible to minimize the structure's height. He said that a 50 foot setback is proposed from the back fence, noting that Ms. Hannibal's house is sited to the front of the lot, providing another 35 foot setback (approximately 90-100 feet between homes). He said that he is proposing to add trees, noting that Ms. Hannibal had a beautiful large tree that had to be removed a year or two ago because it was split by a bad storm. Since that time, she has planted another tree in a new location and he has planted fruit trees. It was his belief that in a year or two, the landscaping will be lush and would mitigate Ms. Hannibal's concerns. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/BERNALD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:00 P.M. Commissioner Martlage noted that the lots in the neighborhood are not very wide and that it was a logical choice to go up. She felt that the applicant was sensitive in the design by keeping the height at 21 feet and not the 26 feet allowed. She felt that the design was in keeping with the neighborhood. Therefore, she could support the request. Commissioner Patrick concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioner Martlage. She suggested that the neighbor also plant trees. She did not see that the home would be much higher than what already exists to restrict views. Therefore, she could support the request. Commissioner Bernald agreed with the comments expressed. She further stated that she liked seeing remodels like this that are designed off the back of the house. This home also has the added benefit of not only integrating with the existing roof line but having the slope to minimize the height and that at 21 feet it is quite a feat, one to be commended. Therefore, she could support the application. Commissioner Kaplan and Chairman Pierce agreed with comments stated. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/MARTLAGE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-98-054. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI AND PAGE ABSENT. 3. DR-98-071 (393-40-022) - BOISSERANC/PICETTI, 13650 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road; Request for Design Review approval to construct three new single family homes. Lot 1 is 12,513 sq. ft. in area with a 3,707 sq. ft. residence proposed; Lot 2 is 19,075 sq. ft. with a 4,235 sq. ft. residence proposed; and Lot 3 is 12,526 sq. ft. with a 3,707 sq. ft. residence proposed. All homes will be 18 feet in height. The properties PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 1999 PAGE - 5 - are located within an R-1-12,500 zoning district. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report. He stated that staff finds that the plans are consistent with the original subdivision approval, do not exceed 18 feet in height, meet all zoning standards and that the homes meet the design criteria in terms of mass and scale. One issue to be considered is the tower elements of the mirrored floor plan of lots 1 and 4 being different from the architecture of the existing neighborhoods beyond Franklin Avenue to the east (i.e., barrel mission tiles and the tall rear element to lot 3). He stated that the concerns were mitigated by the fact that there are mission tile roof homes within the old neighborhood and that there is a mix of flat composition wood shake and mission style roofs in the new, six lot subdivision immediately to the east. He stated that the tower elements are repeated in some of the new homes to the east. From a public view standpoint, they would not be viewed from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Regarding the rear elevation of lot 3, it was found that the way the home was oriented and partially recessed from the left elevation, it should not be visible from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Based on these site factors and location factors, staff would recommend approval of the three homes subject to the conditions contained in the resolution of approval, including a condition that the lots be landscaped prior to final inspection. Commissioner Patrick asked if the roof height is the same as the other six homes? Director Walgren responded that they were. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 8:05 p.m. Mike Picetti, owner/builder of the homes, felt that the homes were designed with a nice floor plan and elevation. In response to Commissioner Patrick's question, he stated that he tried to design the homes similar to the six existing new homes. Commissioner Patrick said that the homes look remarkably different from the existing new homes. She felt that the drawings make the homes appear to be taller and more grandiose where the existing homes appear to be simpler and less imposing. She asked if this perception was due to the drawings? Mr. Picetti said that the drawings may give that perception. He stated that three of the existing plans have a similar plate height with a grandiose entry. He stated that he would agree to change the roof to a flat tile roof, if the Commission so directed. Commissioner Bernald referred to the second story element of lots 1 and 4. She said that the windows in the drawings appear to be much larger than the ones that exist in the homes that have already been built. Mr. Picetti said that the windows are approximately a foot larger in both width and height. Commissioner Kaplan acknowledged that these are low 18 foot homes. She said that the two neighborhoods would be considered as one even though there are two different builders. It was her belief that individuals driving through the neighborhood would view the area as separate, distinct neighborhoods. She said that the City Council has indicated that they would like to see compatibility but that it was unfortunate that they did not indicate what the homes were to be compatible to. She felt that the homes should be compatible to the homes on Franklin Avenue. She stated that the existing homes have more of a horizontal feel to them. These homes are not big homes but nevertheless give a taller appearance. She expressed concern that two full sets of fireplaces with arrestors are proposed when only one wood burning fireplace is proposed. She asked if the colors are to be uniform? Mr. Picetti said that the wood fireplace located in the guest room could be removed. He said that the colors of the homes are to be earthtone/taupe colors and that the appearance would be different but not dramatic. Commissioner Kaplan stated that what was troubling the Commission is the use of the vertical columns in the front entryway as they give a second story appearance. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 1999 PAGE - 6 - Mr. Picetti said that the drawings and scale can be deceiving. He felt that the design would blend in nicely. He noted that the element is setback further and that it is not located at the setback line. The entry wall is recessed further away from the street, giving the appearance of a loggia. Commissioner Patrick noted that the porch areas are at six feet at its deepest and does not give the appearance of a loggia. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the project designer usually places garages around to the side of the homes. She said that existing homes have the garage design and that you do not look into the garages. Commissioner Martlage asked how the square footage compares to the square footage of the other homes on Franklin Avenue? Mr. Picetti responded that the square footages are all at approximately 3,000 square feet. He said that lot 2 is a larger lot and has an additional 300 or 400 square feet. Commissioner Martlage noted that one element that the other homes use is a row of horizontal windows above the door with stucco above. Mr. Picetti said that he could consider shortening the window. He said that in the 45 degree angled walls, he could lower the window height to that of the window above the entryway for lots 1 and 4. Marty Oakley, project designer, said that he tried to create three distinct designs but yet have the homes blend in with the existing six homes and compliment the remodeled home located on lot 3. Regarding Plan A on lots 1 and 4, he said that a towering element is not proposed but that it was a plate that was raised 15 feet, continuing the pitch of the roof of the lowest plate to the highest plate. He said that the entry element is lower than the two rooms on either side of the design allowing the wall to go up nine feet to the highest point. He said that the homes are proposed at 18 feet in height, similar to the other six homes. When initially designed, he tried to achieve a side entry garage on lots 1 and 4. However, the lots were squared and he stated that it was difficult to get a 22 foot deep garage and enter the side because you need to maintain 28 feet from the property line which makes the home very narrow. Thus, the design for a front garage. The homes were designed to fit the shapes of the envelopes as best he could. In regards to the fireplace for plan A, he said that these homes were designed before the ordinance was adopted but that he would be willing to eliminate one of the wood burning fireplaces either in the family room or the living room and replace it with a gas-only fireplace, eliminating one of the chimneys. He stated that he understood that it was hard to visualize the design as these are not three dimensional drawings. He said that these are architecturally new designs for Saratoga but that they have been approved in two areas in the past (i.e., Kerwin Ranch and Kosich property at Saratoga and Lawrence). Commissioner Kaplan said that she did not like the entryways of the homes that Mr. Oakley identified as architectural examples because they were too tall. She asked if the windows could be down sized a little? Mr. Oakley responded that it would be possible to scale down size of the windows, but that in doing so, you would compromise the design by making it shorter and throwing the element out of proportion. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/MARTLAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:25 P.M. Commissioner Bernald noted that there is one application for the design of the three homes. She said that she could support two of the designs but not the third design. Director Walgren informed the Commission that approval of the designs could be separated if the Commission could not support a particular home design. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the landscape plan was incorporated into the plans? Director Walgren said that it is a condition of approval that a landscape plan is to be developed prior to the issuance of a building permit. If the Commission wants to review a landscape plan, it could be brought back to the Commission prior to project PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 1999 PAGE - 7 - approval. Commissioner Kaplan acknowledged that these are small homes. She stated that the Commission already knows what has been built and felt that these homes look different. She was hoping that the designs of the existing homes would have been carried over to the design of these homes. She did not believe that the design was quite right for the neighborhood. Commissioner Bernald said that it was her belief that the interior of the homes were beautiful and that the design would provide a lot of light. She said that she could see the design of Lots 1 and 4 being compatible to the homes nearest them that have been built on Franklin Avenue. She stated that she was having problem with the design of Lot 2 as she did not like the verticality of the entryway. She recommended a design that is more in keeping with the older neighborhood of Franklin Avenue. She said that she could support Lots 1 and 4 at this time but that she could not support the design of Lot 2. Commissioner Martlage agreed that the concern is the verticality of the entryway. She did not believe that the design would be compromised if the large window was eliminated and that it would not result in the loss of a lot of light. She felt that it would be a shame not to consider making these homes compatible to the existing six homes. She stated that she could not support the proposal until the design is such that it is compatible with the existing six homes. She recommended that an effort be made to design the homes with a horizontal feel by centering the doorway laterally versus vertically. Commissioner Patrick said that the designs of the homes appear to be similar so that she could not differentiate between the three designs and that she did not like the entryway element of the homes. She said that the existing six homes had their entryways set into a courtyard setting such that the walls enclosing the courtyard become an element of the house which sets it back further to make it more intimate. It seems that the homes, in their design, do not try to look beyond the fact that they are 6,000 square foot homes. She did not like the fact that these are not courtyard entryways to give them the depth to offset the verticality look. She did not believe that the design incorporates the rest of the neighborhood because of the vertical look of the entryway. She agreed that the homes appear to be compatible to that of the Kerwin Ranch homes which she did not believe was appropriate for this neighborhood. Also, the rear elevation window of Lot 2 with the high window was inappropriate because it would not work. Therefore, she could not support the request as designed. Chairman Pierce agreed that the homes were not designed to be identical to the existing six homes but that he felt that they were designed similar enough. He liked the raised element by the front door as it is not a massive structure, noting that these are medium sized homes. He felt that the design allowed more light and that this was a good feature. He stated that he would like to see the homes built as designed. Director Walgren noted that there does not appear to be a consensus to approve the plans as submitted. He recommended that the Commission consider a minor compromise in design such as bringing the entry element down on Lot 2 so that the eave line of the entry element is below the eave line of the main roofline. This would bring down the mass and scale of the design and yet maintain the integrity of the design. The other issue is the elimination of the upper level windows of the two opposing tower elements for Lots 1 and 4. He said that if the applicant is willing to make these design changes, this would be an alternative to a continuance. Chairman Pierce recommended that the public hearing be reopened to ask the applicant if they are willing to make the design changes or whether they wish to continue this item to a study session. Commissioner Kaplan did not believe that it would be necessary to continue this item to a study session if the applicant is willing to make the design changes to address the Commission's concern. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 1999 PAGE - 8 - Commissioner Bernald noted that the rear window element of Lot 2 has not been addressed. COMMISSIONER BERNALD/MARTLAGE MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0-1 WITH COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSTAINING AND COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI AND PAGE ABSENT. Mr. Oakley agreed to make the changes as recommended by staff. He said that sheet 7, lot 2, suggests lowering the plate line of the existing front porch so that it aligns with the gutter of the roof behind it. Director Walgren clarified that the eave line is to be brought down to match the other eave line to reduce the verticality of the design. Commissioner Martlage recommended that the windows of Plan A be made more horizontal and that they DID not necessarily have to be reduced. Mr. Oakley said that the windows can be made less tall. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/MARTLAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:40 P.M. Commissioner Patrick expressed concern that there is no a safety fence around the existing foundation of the house that was removed. She considered this an unattractive nuisance. She expressed concern with the possibility of someone getting injured. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/MARTLAGE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-98-071 AS AMENDED PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-1 WITH COMMISSIONER PATRICK VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI AND PAGE ABSENT. 4. V-98-014.1 (379-25-041) - AHMADIANI, 14031 Saratoga Avenue; Request for Variance approval to allow an existing single-story residence to be replaced with a new two-story structure to be built in the same location four feet from the property line where six feet is the required setback and to allow the second floor to be built four feet from the property line where eleven feet is the required setback. The new house totals 1,897 sq. ft. with a 400 sq. ft. detached garage. This proposal was previously approved as a second- story addition to the attic of the existing residence, but the structure has since been demolished. Therefore, an application for a new Variance to maintain the non-conforming setbacks of the previously existing structure must be considered by the Planning Commission. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report. He recommended Commission consideration of a new home construction four feet from the left property line where six and eleven feet are required. Regardless of the history, staff supports the variance as it is not unusual from other variance requests with similar lot constraints. Staff finds that the lot constraints form the special circumstances to support the variance. He said that the new home will be built to the same specifications and details of the originally approved addition to the existing home. He said that the Heritage Preservation Commission has reviewed the revised proposal as the project is located on a heritage lane. Although concern was expressed with the change in project description, the Heritage Preservation Commission supported the request as long as the home is built exactly per the details of the original construction. He said that staff is holding the applicant to this requirement as part of variance approval. Commissioner Bernald asked if pictures were taken of the home that existed that can be used a base line? Director Walgren responded that pictures were taken of the original home and that staff is relying on the original plan which will be used as construction plans. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 1999 PAGE - 9 - Bob Schwenke, project designer, stated that it was found that the existing structure was extremely poorly built. When the walls were opened up, they were found to have been poorly constructed. He said that the exterior siding was removed because of the termite problem inherit to the exterior walls, primarily to the front walls and the right walls of the structure. The only wall that was salvageable was the south wall. He stated that the original proposal/application was to remodel and add onto the structure and to match the existing building. He is proposing to correct the structural failure within the structure. He indicated that a letter from Don James verifies the condition of the home. Commissioner Patrick asked Mr. Schwenke if he was present before the demolition took place to verify the condition of the home? She also asked if he was aware of the fact that he had to contact staff to obtain permission/permit to demolish the structure? Mr. Schwenke responded that he saw the damage caused by termites to the front of the house and the right hand side of the home. He stated that he concurred with the contractor regarding the demolition of the structure. He said that his concern was to maintain the integrity of the design by pulling off the siding. He stated that he was not aware that permits were needed to demolish the home. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that the Commission was astounded when it found out that the home was demolished without benefit of permit. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/BERNALD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:51 P.M. Commissioner Bernald stated that she was shocked by the fact that the project designer could come before the city without acknowledging fault of the action taken. She said that she would agree to move forward as long as the home is built according to the previously approved plans. She said that she was having a hard time with the way this has been presented to the Commission. Commissioner Kaplan said that she generally does not like variance coming before the Commission after the fact. She stated that the Commission is not vindictive or out to punish anyone but felt that the contractor knew that they should contact the city for permits to demolish a structure. She further stated that the Commission does not like the attitude that has been presented this evening. She said that she does not wish to punish the applicant as the home would be built as previously approved. She felt that the city should be given the courtesy of being notified in the future. Commissioner Patrick stated that she heard the comments relating to structural integrity but what she also heard is the lack of professional integrity. She said that the homeowner has stated that the contractor performed the demolition without her knowledge. But when you have a designer who stands before the Commission who states that the demolition had to take place and that he went ahead with the demolition, she did not believe that the city could rely on this individual's integrity to build the home according to approved plans. She said that someone should be punished because this action should not go unpunished. However, she did not want to punish the homeowner. As the house will be built as it was before, it would be difficult to deny it at this point. She wished that there was a way to have someone pay for the mistake as a deterrent to others playing ignorance. Commissioner Bernald asked if the City has ever asked that a project go forward with someone else given the history of this application? Director Walgren responded that there has not been a situation similar to this but that the city has received requests to change architects because the property owners did not believe that certain standards were being met. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the Commission could recommend on site monitoring to occur at the applicants expense? Director Walgren said that a reporting program from the property owner's builder could be required to be PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 1999 PAGE - 10 - submitted to the city on a regular basis to ensure that the materials and details are constructed per the original plans. Commissioner Patrick asked if a bond can be posted to ensure that construction is per the original plans? Chairman Pierce said that if the home is not built per the original plans, the city can require that construction be torn down and redone. Commissioner Kaplan recommended that a regular monitoring program be submitted to the Heritage Preservation Commission. Director Walgren informed the Commission that the home would not be finaled if it is found that the home was not built per the original plans. Chairman Pierce expressed concern with what happened in this case. He stated that the applicant should be happy that the neighbors did not appear before the commission to object to the application as he would have a problem in granting the variance. He said that he would agree to accept the recommendation of construction supervision as far as some assurance of getting a building that meets the original design and materials. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/MARTLAGE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. V-98-014.1 WITH THE CONDITION THAT A MONITORING PROGRAM IS TO BE PRESENTED TO THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI AND PAGE ABSENT. DIRECTOR ITEMS Director Walgren mentioned that staff has the League of California Cities for the month of March to be held in Monterey. It was his belief that Commissioner Page will be attending. He said that there is room for one to three more Commissioners to attend. He requested that he be notified before the next meeting if any other Commissioner wishes to attend this conference. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Kaplan reported that the cat hospital is to getting a new front. Commissioner Bernald said that on Thursday, January 28, 1999 at 3:35 p.m. she was downtown across the street from the Blue Rock Shoot when an acrid scent made itself known where she was and her eyes began to water. It was the Blue Rock Shoot roasting coffee against what the Commission asked them to do. She requested that the Commission call up the use permit. Director Walgren said that there needs to be a majority of the Commission willing to move to call up the use permit. He informed the Commission that two letters have been sent to the business owners advising them not to roast coffee during the daytime business hours. It was further noted that the Commission has the authority to call up the use permit if this issue is not resolved. He said that staff will research the process of reconsideration of the use permit. He said that the original use permit did not address coffee roasting. If the use permit is called up, a condition would be added to require no roasting during certain times and if violated, the use permit could become void in the future. He stated that this item would be public noticed similar to a regular application for a conditional use permit. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN MOVED TO CALL UP THE USE PERMIT FOR THE BLUE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 1999 PAGE - 11 - SHOOT. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI AND PAGE ABSENT. Commissioner Bernald stated that it was brought to her attention that some bushes have washed down or have fallen onto the sidewalk on Quito Road at the corner at Pollard. She said that it has been brought to her attention that the bushes are so far down in the sidewalk that you have to walk off the sidewalk onto Quito Road, a dangerous situation. COMMUNICATIONS Written - City Council Minutes dated January 20, 1999 - Notices for Planning Commission Meeting of February 24, 1999 - League of California Cities Conference Schedule ADJOURNMENT TO STUDY SESSION There being no further business, Chairman Pierce adjourned the meeting at 9:07 p.m. Wednesday, February 24, 1999, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk