Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-24-1999 Planning Commission MinutesCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 1999 Civic Center, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairman Pierce called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Roll Call: Present: Commissioners Bernald, Kaplan, Martlage, Murakami, Page, Patrick and Chairman Pierce Absent: None Staff: Director Walgren, Assistant Planner Ratcliffe Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - March 10, 1999 On a motion by Commissioners Patrick/Bernald, the Commission approved the March 10, 1999 minutes with the following amendments: - Page 7, paragraph 7, line 9, delete the word not. - Page 7, last paragraph, line one amended to read: "Commissioner Bernald said that the City has experienced parking problems near retail outlets shops . . . " - Page 8, paragraph 3, first sentence amended to read: "Commissioner Page stated that he was sitting on the fence on this issue . . . He felt that an empty store gives an empty negative connotation . . . " - Page 8, line 2, replace the word given with giving. The motion carried 6-0-1 with Commissioner Kaplan abstaining. Oral Communication No comments were offered. Report of Posting Agenda Director Walgren declared that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on March 19, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet Director Walgren indicated that there were no technical corrections to the packet. CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. UP-99-003 (517-09-015) - FIRST CITY MORTGAGE, 14440 Big Basin Way, #9; Request PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 24, 1999 PAGE - 2 - for Use Permit approval to allow a professional office located at street level and fronting on Big Basin Way. The site is located within a CH-1 (Commercial Historic) zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 3/10/99 FOR REVOTE). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner Kaplan stated that she was absent at the original hearing when this item was considered by the Commission. However, she has reviewed all the material and watched the video and was therefore prepared to vote on this item. Director Walgren presented the staff report and indicated that this item was continued from the Planning Commission’s March 10, 1999 meeting. Staff felt that the location was appropriate for this type of use based on the analysis contained in the original staff report. Staff was in support of the proposal. The Planning Commission took testimony and debated on the item. The vote on this item ultimately resulted in a tie vote (3-3) to approve the use permit, a failed motion. The application was automatically continued to tonight's meeting for a revote upon having a full Commission. He noted that the applicant has accumulated correspondence from various groups in the Village, including the Chamber of Commerce, and other business owners as well as correspondence from the property management company and the business representatives themselves. In addition, the following letters were received that did not make it in time to be included the packet: the property management company (cited difficulties in leasing of space to a purely retail use); Bill Cooper, owner of Bella Saratoga Restaurant (supporting the use to remain at its current location); and Mr. and Mrs. Allen, residents on Oak Street (stated their support of a retail mortgage use in the Village). He informed the Commission that the applicant has requested that the Planning Commission reopen the public hearing this evening to further receive testimony. Chairman Pierce noted for the record that the Commission was also in receipt of a substantial number of documents in its packet, including letters, which the Commission has had the opportunity to read. He stated the Commission's appreciation of receiving this information in advance of the meeting. Commissioner Bernald asked if the applicant indicated whether there was new information that was not contained in the Commission's packet? Director Walgren responded that it was his belief that the applicant feels that there is new information in the material submitted that they would like to present this evening that they were not able to present at the first hearing. Chairman Pierce asked if there was a motion to reopen the public hearing? No motion to reopen the public hearing was made. Commissioner Kaplan noted for the record that the Commission read the information submitted to it. Commissioner Patrick noted that this body was the Planning Commission and not the City Council, which was inaccuracy that was stated throughout the correspondence. She stated that she read through the additional information submitted to the Commission. Director Walgren clarified that the procedure this evening would be such that one of the three Commissioners on the affirmative side of the last motion would move to approve the use permit. Commissioner Page stated that he thought long and hard on this item and that he re-looked at the request as though he did not know anything about it (new application). He further stated that he read through all of the information submitted, including viewing the video of the meeting. He stated his continued support of PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 24, 1999 PAGE - 3 - the use. He said that in his review of the General Plan, one of the goals contained in the Land Use Element is the encouragement of economic viability of Saratoga's existing commercial areas and their accessibility by residents. He felt that having filled spaces with traffic is absolutely core to this issue. He stated that he also reviewed the Land Use and Zoning codes and found that in Chapter 2, items 4 and 5 of the Village Plan talks about professional financing prior to the revision of the Village Plan. It talks about the heart of the Village being retail with the exception of professional financial uses. It was noted that the professional financial uses at street level, while being desirable uses for the community, can interrupt the pedestrian flow that is one of the Village's attractions. He felt that the intent of the new plan was to discourage or limit any interruption of pedestrian flow. The Plan goes on to state that almost all buildings in the heart of the Village directly abut sidewalks, noting that the only break in the uninterrupted flow of the commercial building frontage was the large parking lot directly abutting Big Basin Way. He felt that this was a preexisting, non-conforming condition. The regulations allow the consideration of a conditional use permit in certain situations. Until the shopping center is torn down and built directly on the frontage of Big Basin Way, he felt that the city could take whatever action is appropriate. The new Village Plan talks about the fact that before they can offer anything the only thing that could not be regulated was the number of the professional and financial buildings or office-type businesses within the Village. He did not believe that the Commission would be setting a precedent should the use permit be approved. He felt that the Commission can review and evaluate the use within the shopping center as a preexisting, non-conforming use. The Commission can evaluate each similar request to determine a balance between retail and office space uses. He stated his support of the use based on everything that he has read and the documents that have been provided to the Commission. Commissioner Martlage stated that to ask First City Mortgage to move out at this point would cause a hardship that they did not anticipate. She felt that First City Mortgage went into this agreement in good faith. Although she agrees that the City does not want commercial establishments on Big Basin, she felt that in all fairness to First City Mortgage, that the Commission should respect the lease until it expires and that it is made clear to the management company that the Commission would not recommend that the lease be reissued as the area is zoned commercial. She stated that she did not want the applicant to suffer at the hands of the management company. Commissioner Page suggested that the Commission require that the applicant install a window display that would encourage foot traffic to or around the location and not interrupt pedestrian flow. This would create a better avenue to approve the use. Commissioner Bernald stated that she supports businesses in a vital downtown. She said that the Village Plan, after great citizen input, was adopted for a good reason. She stated that she values the retail nature of Big Basin Way and felt that it was important to continue to send a message that the city needs a retail/commercial mix that is spelled out in Ordinance Section 15-19.050. She stated that she could not support the use permit this evening. Chairman Pierce said that in reading the documents contained in the Commission's packet, a suggestion was made that the Commission felt that First City Mortgage had done something wrong. He said that the Commissioners did not believe that First City Mortgage did anything wrong. He said that it was a matter of what the city's mandate is. He felt that the mandate was to improve retail businesses in Saratoga. He felt that the community wants a stronger retail base in Saratoga to make it a vibrant downtown community. He encouraged First City Mortgage to appeal the decision to the City Council should their request be denied this evening and let the City Council make a decision regarding this issue as it is an important issue. If there is a problem filling space in the Village, does the city want to bend the rules a little and allow less retail type of establishments and more business establishments? He said that he did not want to make this decision as this decision needs to be made by the City Council as it is in their purview and not in the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 24, 1999 PAGE - 4 - Commission's purview. He felt that the Commission had to follow the law. Therefore, he would be opposing the use permit request. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/MARTLAGE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. UP-99-003. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-3 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: KAPLAN, MARTLAGE, PAGE, PATRICK; NOES: BERNALD, MURAKAMI, PIERCE. Chairman Pierce noted that a speaker card was submitted to address item 1. However, as there was no public hearing on the matter, no one was allowed to address the Commission, including the applicant. 2. DR-98-009 (389-28-007 - SAGHEZCHI, 13762 Serra Oaks Court; Request for Design Review approval to convert an existing 462 sq. ft. garage to living area and add a new garage and a 453 sq. ft. second story to an existing 2,990 sq. ft. residence. The property is 14,450 sq. ft. in an R-1- 12,500 zoning district (CONTINUED TO 3/10/99 AT APPLICANT'S REQUEST) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report and stated that this request is also a continued public hearing. He said that at the last Commission meeting, concerns were raised primarily around the design of the building. The Commission felt that the second story was too much of a box imposed on top of the existing home. As a result, the end product would look like a box, imposed on top of an existing home. The Commission directed the applicant to work to try to center the addition better onto the existing home and balance it in a manner that would truly make it look like a two-story home, integrated with the existing home. A concern was also expressed by the Commission regarding the amount of driveway surface and felt that the expanse of driveway area and turnaround could be reduced. The Commission directed the applicant to reduce the amount of paved surface and to provide a greater degree of landscaping at the front of the property to help it integrate better to the cul-de-sac. He said that staff has reviewed the revised plans and found that they are in compliance with all minimum zoning ordinance standards (i.e., building height, setback, lot coverage). He noted that the driveway area has been reduced and the addition has been centered and better integrated with the existing home. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the revised plans subject to the conditions contained in the resolution. He said that one item to be addressed is the balcony element off the front elevation of the master bedroom as it does not match or integrate with anything that exists on the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Murakami noted that the Commission's objection was the fact that the design was centered over the garage, and not its boxy appearance. Commissioner Patrick stated that she had a difficult time following the revised plans. She asked if two balconies are proposed? Director Walgren clarified that one balcony is proposed in the front elevation. Commissioner Page referred to sheet A-3, the south elevation that depicts a peaked roof. He noted that the other picture of the roof depicts the roof as the same height. He requested clarification. Director Walgren responded that the middle elevation shows the horizontal span that is seen on the west elevation with a note that proposes a building above it. He said that the peak jets up and is the main expanse of the master bedroom addition. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. Max Peyvan, project architect, stated that he followed the Commission's comments from the last hearing. He said that he tried to centralize the second floor addition to tie it to the existing building and make it more harmonious and compatible with the existing building. He said that the exterior color and material would match the existing structure. He noted that additional landscaping has been introduced. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 24, 1999 PAGE - 5 - Commissioner Page said that sheet A-2 shows a bay window on the south side of the second floor. He asked where it could be seen on the south elevation? Mr. Peyvan said that the bay window is proposed to be located in the middle of the first floor. Commissioner Martlage clarified that in viewing the plans, a bay window on the second floor is not proposed. Commissioner Patrick asked if the applicant has a problem with the elimination of the design detail of the balcony located in the front? Mr. Peyvan requested that the balcony be retained because it is a nice view from the balcony towards the hills. He said that the balcony is not facing a neighbor's backyard nor infringing on anyone's privacy and it is facing the street. If required to be removed, he would install a dormer window, continuing the hip roof setback to the edge of the building facade. Commissioner Murakami stated that he liked the improvements made. He asked if some of the drawings were drawn freehand? Mr. Peyvan responded that some of the drawings were drawn freehand as it is a technique used in his presentations (a more artistic presentation compared to more advance technology of an auto cad system). Commissioner Kaplan stated that when the Commission made its site visit, it was apparent that the property had been neglected as there was a car half buried. She asked if the site was to be cleaned up or whether the Commission could make it a condition of approval to have the property owner remove the "junk" out of the yard? Director Walgren stated that the city can require cleanup of the site to a certain degree. If the car is not currently registered, it can be required that the car be removed from the property. Commissioner Bernald also expressed concern with the condition of the site. She said that it was her belief that at the last hearing, someone indicated that the property was an abandoned site. Dr. Saghezchi, property owner, stated that the car being referred to by the Commission is a classic car. He stated that he is planning to sell the car and that it would be removed from the site once sold. Commissioner Kaplan stated that the car contains a lot of debris and dirt. She requested that the area be cleaned up. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/MARTLAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:03 P.M. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she has no problem with the balcony as she felt that the end result of the process will prove some of the critics wrong. She felt that architects can go back, at the Commission's request, and design a nicer project for the applicant and the neighbors. She felt that the end result was much more becoming and that it does not look like someone dropped a second story on top of the first story with no connection to the house. She stated that she had a difficult time with the artistic drawings as it was not one that the Commission was accustomed to. She would support the request and recommended that a condition be added that would stipulate that the debris on the property is to be removed. Commissioner Murakami said that the changes made by the architect were an improvement. He felt that if you look at the freehand drawings more closely, you get a clearer picture of what the architect was trying to depict. He stated that he did not have a problem with the balcony up front as he did not see an invasion of privacy associated with it. He felt that this was a definite improvement over the previous submittal and therefore, he could approve it. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 24, 1999 PAGE - 6 - Commissioner Bernald agreed that the redesign was an improvement over the previous plans. She was glad to see that the second story was now centered. However, she finds the quality of the plans make it difficult to determine the extent of the remodel. She felt that there were a lot of narrow elements being presented and that the overall design and massing is poorly designed compared with other homes in the neighborhood. She indicated that she resides in a neighborhood similar to this one and that if she was a neighbor, she would be present this evening speaking in opposition to the design as she did not believe that it was compatible with the neighborhood. Therefore, she indicated that she could not support the application. Commissioner Patrick felt that the redesign was compatible with the neighborhood at this point. She liked the idea of the landscape strip in the driveway. She stated that a major concern of hers was the massive driveway. She also expressed concern with the storage of the vehicle with flat tires, etc., siting in the rear yard. She felt that the massing in the middle was much better, more appropriate and compatible with the neighborhood. She did not believe that the balcony in the front would be used often. Therefore, she did not believe that this element would create a problem with the neighbors. She stated her support of the redesign. Commissioner Martlage said that the redesign is an improvement. She said that the diagrams presented were difficult to read and felt that the perspective was off. She stated that she would have appreciated traditional, to scale drawings in addition to these conceptual drawings, as she found the perspective distracting. She concurred with the cleanup effort, including the removal of the upholstered furniture located on the front porch. Given the improvements, she stated that she could support the application. Commissioner Page stated that he had a hard time studying the drawing and that he was not prepared to support the design until clarifications were made. The clarifications presented tonight cleared up the issues. He felt that the redesign provides more balance, eliminating the tower look. He agreed that the landscape strip is a good addition. Therefore, he could support the application. Chairman Pierce also stated his support of the project. He said that he had some reservations about the balcony located in the front. However, he agreed that it adds an architectural element that is acceptable. Therefore, he stated his support of the project. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-98-009. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-1 WITH COMMISSIONER BERNALD VOTING NO. 3. UP-99-001 (389-15-014) - MALONE, 18761 McFarland Avenue; Request for Use Permit approval to construct a new 528 sq. ft. detached garage three feet from the side and rear property lines. The applicant also proposes to convert an existing, attached 264 sq. ft. garage to living area. The site is 10,000 sq. ft. and is located within an R-1-10,000 zoning district. The maximum height of the new garage will be 12 feet. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report. He indicated that the staff report contained a letter from an adjacent neighbor behind the property expressing concern that the setback rules were being waived in this case. He clarified that the application is not a request to encroach into setbacks, noting that accessory structures such as detached garages, guest homes or artist studios are allowed to be located in rear yard setbacks subject to a conditional use permit. He said that staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit, finding that it would bring the property into conformance with the city's two car garage parking requirements. Commissioner Kaplan asked if an explanation was given for pushing the garage so far back from the house PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 24, 1999 PAGE - 7 - as to be almost useless as a garage? Director Walgren responded that it was his guess that the reason the applicant chose to locate the garage to the rear is to maximize the amount of useable rear yard area versus having the garage located in the middle of the rear yard. Commissioner Page noted that there were no trees on the property, thus no arborist report. However, the property contained a large eucalyptus tree located directly behind the proposed garage. He asked if the tree would be impacted with the construction of the garage? He recommended that a condition be included that the tree be protected to ensure that the tree is not impacted. Director Walgren stated that the tree could be impacted to a degree. He said that as long as the building was not going into the canopy of the tree, there should not be an impact to it. He said that staff would agree to review any impacts to the tree. Commissioner Patrick inquired as to the required front setback for a garage to be built closer to the street? Director Walgren responded that there would not be enough room to locate the garage in the front without a request for a variance to encroach into the twenty-five foot minimum setback requirements. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 8:14 p.m. Robert Malone, applicant, stated that he wants to utilize as much of the backyard as possible. Therefore, he did not want to site the garage in the middle of the backyard but to locate it in the back corner to allow him use of his lot. He stated that he shares the concerns expressed by Ms. Baker about privacy and the character of the neighborhood. He said that he wanted to keep the house consistent with the cottage-style design and that he did not want to site the garage in the front. He did not believe that the garage was sited too far back on the property. Commissioner Bernald asked if Mr. Malone gave any consideration to removing the existing driveway that will go up to the area that is to become the study so that he can provide additional greenery in this area? Mr. Malone responded that he did given consideration to removing the driveway but that he has not solidified what he wants to do. He said that he would like to either remove all of the driveway that goes up to the new study area and have the driveway curved around to the back. (remove part if not all of the driveway). He agreed to install greenery in front of the study so that it would not look like a converted garage. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:17 P.M. Commissioner Bernald understood that Ms. Baker was not present this evening. She indicated that the Commission drove by Ms. Baker's home and found that she did a beautiful job in the remodel of her home. She said that she could support the project as it is the least intrusive option that gives the property owner the best use of the property. She felt that it was better than having a second story home and felt that it was much in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Therefore, she could support the request. Commissioner Murakami concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioner Bernald. He stated that he liked the old-style garage to the rear because it takes the cars off the street and off the driveway. He also stated his support of the use permit request. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she has a problem with the location of the garage because it requires a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 24, 1999 PAGE - 8 - greater expanse of driveway. If the existing drive is not removed, she stated that she would not support the approval of the use permit. She asked what type of landscape screening is proposed along the long driveway area as this would be a use that would be new to the adjacent neighbor? She recommended the removal of the existing driveway to reduce the amount of hardscape in the front of the house. In response to Commissioner Kaplan's concern, Director Walgren stated that a condition could be added to stipulate that a planter area is to be incorporated into the plans along the right property line of the site up to the area where the driveway narrows to eleven feet. Removal of the existing driveway could also be added as a condition of approval. Commissioner Kaplan stated that the request would be reasonable if these two conditions were incorporated into the resolution of approval. Commissioner Page agreed with the comments expressed by Commissioner Bernald. He stated that he could support the project with the condition that the existing driveway be removed as the project would fit in and that it is compatible with everything seen in the neighborhood. Commissioners Martlage concurred with the comments expressed. Commissioner Patrick also concurred with the comments expressed. She said that she has given thought to siting the garage in alternative locations and that she has determined that it would be difficult to site the garage anywhere else. She stated that she could support the application subject to the removal of excess pavement. She recommended that consideration be given to the use of turf to break up some of the driveway. Commissioner Pierce stated that he could also support the use permit. COMMISSIONERS MARTLAGE/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-99-001 WITH THE INSTALLATION OF A THREE-FOOT GREEN PLANTING AREA TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE REMOVAL OF THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). 4. DR-98-065 & V-98-021 (517-20-017) - MOYLES, 20201 Hill Avenue; Request for Design Review to remodel and add 2,382 sq. ft. to an existing non-conforming three-story 4,270 sq. ft. residence. A 198 sq. ft. pool house is also proposed. Variance approval is requested to expand an existing third-story element of the main residence and to exceed the 26 ft. height limit. Existing height of structure is approximately 34 ft. and will remain unchanged. The site is 1.95 acres and is located in an R-1-40,000 zoning district. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Ratcliffe presented the staff report. She informed the Commission that the original home was constructed in the 1920s with an addition occurring in the 1940s. Therefore, the application was referred to the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) and that it was reviewed by said Commission on March 9, 1999. She indicated that the HPC placed the residence on the Heritage Resource Inventory. HPC commented that the present proposal was sensitively designed, that it was compatible with the unique architectural style of the original residents and that they supported the application. Planner Ratcliffe said that there were several ordinance protected trees on site, noting that the arborist also reviewed the application. She informed the Commission that the staff report did not contain an explanation of existing trees that were referenced in the resolution of approval. She stated that staff was concerned about the driveway and its impact to tree #21, a large deodar cedar located on the eastern corner of the lot. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 24, 1999 PAGE - 9 - The original driveway construction was closer to this tree as well to two trees on the adjacent lot located to the east. The applicant redesigned the turn around so that it does not affect tree #21 and the cedar tree located on the adjacent lot. Staff is also concerned with trees #2, #3 and #4 located on the west side as a path is proposed underneath these trees. She indicated that the arborist has stated that trees #3 and #4 are infected by the turpentine beetle. Tree #4 was stated to be a hazardous tree and that it would need to be removed. She indicated that after the site visit, the applicant informed staff that they would not propose the pathway along this side of the structure and that they intend to retain trees #2 and #3. She said that the paragraph missing from the staff report addresses trees #16, #17, #18 and #24. Tree #16, a coast redwood, is located adjacent to the decking of the pool. She said that at the site visit and the reviewing of grading plans, it is apparent that tree #16 is not located within the decking of the pool but that it is located on the slope going up to the proposed driveway. Trees #17 and #18, located by the hammerhead, will be lost due to driveway construction, noting that the arborist has indicated that they are infested by the turpentine beetle and should be removed in any event. Tree #24, a palm, will also be lost to driveway construction. She indicated that the arborist believes that the remaining 30 trees on site can be protected and maintained if all the recommended tree protection measures are diligently implemented. She stated that the arborist's recommendations have been incorporated in the conditions of approval. Regarding the trees proposed for removal, Planner Ratcliffe stated that staff had incorporated a condition of approval that replacement value trees be planted. She recommended that this condition be amended in view of the fact that trees #2 and #3 are to remain. This would result in the replacement trees having a value of $13,656 with a deposit of $9,673 for tree protection. Planner Ratcliffe addressed the architectural design. She said that staff finds that the design of both the main residence and the pool house is sensitive to the existing residence and maintains the architectural theme. She felt that the design is compatible in bulk and height with the neighborhood and is sensitive to the surrounding environment. She addressed the variance request. She said that the addition calls for new construction exceeding 26 feet of the maximum height limit, noting that the existing structure is 34 feet at its highest point. Any addition exceeding 26 feet requires variance approval. The majority of the addition is 1,757 square feet and is located on the first and second floor of the residence, below the 26-foot height limit. The remaining 625 square feet of the addition to the main residence is in addition to the non- conforming third story and requires variance approval to incorporate the addition. Staff had concern with the portion of the proposed addition that would require a variance as it is a three-story structure. Staff struggled with the desire to maintain the existing architectural integrity of a historically significant house adhering to the zoning ordinance and yet allow the reasonable development of the property which is double the size of properties in the area. After careful consideration, staff feels that it can make the findings to support the variance in that the existing historically significant, non-conforming structure constitutes a special circumstance. The approval of this proposal and the floor area involved would prohibit future subdivision of the property and would also assure that the structural integrity of the home would remain. Staff recommended Commission approval with the change of the replacement value of the trees and the tree protection bond. Commissioner Kaplan expressed concern regarding the subdivision issue. She asked if at a future date the pool and pool house were leveled, would the remaining property support this size dwelling? She noted that the Commission discussed the fireplaces with the architect at the site visit, noting that a wood burning fireplace was not a concern. Commissioner Patrick asked if there was any way that tree #16 could be saved? She asked if grading is necessary for the driveway that requires the removal of tree #16? Planner Ratcliffe responded that with the grading proposed, tree #16 would not survive. She felt that it may be possible to reduce the size of the driveway approach, pulling it back from tree #16, using a retaining wall instead of grading along the tree to protect it. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 24, 1999 PAGE - 10 - Planner Ratcliffe said that even if the pool house was removed, this would result in 6,652 square feet of allowable floor area. In order to create two lots of at least 40,000 square feet, the allowable floor area on the lot where the house is currently located would be at a maximum of 6,120 square feet. This would be less than what is being proposed, even without the pool house. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 8:36 p.m. Virginia Fanelli, 16 Linden Avenue, Los Gatos, requested approval of the variance and design review for the proposed addition. She informed the Commission that the applicant bought the large lot to meet the future needs of a growing family. She said that the applicants gave careful consideration to two different alternatives. The first alternative was to remove the existing, unique home and build a new home with a floor plan that would meet the needs of the family in a cost affective manner. The second alternative was to expand the existing home. The first alternative would have resulted in a much more efficient use of the floor space and the upper lot space, leaving the applicant with the potential of subdividing the lot in the future. Expanding the existing home with its many preset structural and design elements meant much less efficient use of the floor space in order to incorporate all of the elements that the property owners wish and yet maintain its historic design with no further subdivision possible. The applicants have agreed to retain the existing home, preserving it, making the needed repairs and expanding it without the potential for subdividing the lot. The home was built in the 1920s and sited high on the site, resulting in a three-story element to the rear. The 1940s addition continued the original three story design element. Both the existing home and the previous addition were done before the City of Saratoga was incorporated and that it met the county standards in place at the time. She said that the proposal before the Commission removes the architecturally inconsistent addition that was built in the 1940s and creates an addition which carries the original design throughout the structure. The existing historically significant non-conforming structure constitutes a special circumstance in that the applicant could not reasonably add onto the structure and maintain architectural integrity without a variance. Ms. Fanelli informed the Commission that the neighbors who attended the neighborhood meetings and those contacted by Mr. Moyles were supportive to the proposed addition as they saw that it protected their privacy and maintained the significant landscaping on site. She stated her agreement with staff's findings for both of the applications with the exception of the requirement to replace the trees that will be removed during construction. She said that the landscape plans will be redrawn to remove the pathways so that trees #2 and #3 will be preserved. Trees #4, #17 and #18 have been found to be infested with beetles and are in declining health. Even if there was to be no construction, these trees would be lost eventually. The only healthy trees to be removed during construction are trees #16 and #24. Tree #24 is a palm and is not native to this area nor does it complement this style of home. Tree #16 is a redwood tree and is located adjacent to the pool area. Even though it is impacted by grading, the applicants feel that it has an adverse impact of sunlight and the upkeep of the pool and patio area. Mr. Coate addressed 28 significant trees on the site in his report. She noted that there are numerous orchard and small ornamental trees on site. She informed the Commission that the applicants do not wish to replace the five trees that will be removed during the construction process due to the large number of trees already located on site. Additional trees are not needed for privacy and would further reduce the already limited, unshaded area of the property. She requested the elimination of the condition that asks for replacement trees for the five trees that are to be removed as the existing 28+ trees are efficient/sufficient for the site. Commissioner Page asked if construction access would cause the removal of some or all of the orchard trees? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 24, 1999 PAGE - 11 - Sergio Ramirez, project architect, stated that Mr. Coate provided direction regarding the location of fencing in order to protect the major trees. He indicated that Mr. Coate was not concerned with the walnut trees of the orchards because most are diseased, old and have not been taken care for many trees. Therefore, some of the orchard trees are proposed for removal. He said that the property owners would be using the bottom portion of the property to access the construction area and to stock pile materials. He said that he would be very careful to follow Mr. Coate’s advice, including the installation of a fence. Commissioner Patrick stated that she was not convinced that tree #16 has to be removed for the pool. She felt that there was enough space in the orchard area that was not covered by trees where the pool could be sited. Mr. Ramirez informed the Commission that tree #16 is not located in the pool area but that it is located on the slope. He said that redwood trees typically have drippings that stain. In addition to this, redwood trees tend to drop leaves in the winter that would get into pool systems and plug them up. Therefore, it is not a practical tree to have near a pool. Commissioner Kaplan expressed concern with the excess building proposed on the third level. She said that there is a lot of space being placed on the upper level (four bedrooms proposed on the upper level). Mr. Ramirez informed the Commission that no modifications are proposed to the front of the home and that the three existing bedrooms are to remain. He clarified that bedroom 3 is located in the front. He identified the areas to be added, noting that terraces are being added (14' x 23' in size). He said that being old, the home has some characteristics of older homes. He said that the home has a narrow staircase that is critical for the structural part of the home. He expressed concern that the three-foot narrow staircase may create some problem due to a fire. A reason to include the decks is that it offers exits that are easily accessible by the fire department and would present an element of safety. He said that he tried to balance the elevations by having the decks located over a screen porch that is to be preserved. Commissioner Bernald stated that she would like to see tree #16 preserved and recommended that credit be given for the Monterey Pines that are going to die. She asked if there was a credit compromise that could be reached regarding these two issues. Mr. Ramirez agreed that a compromise could be reached regarding Commissioner Bernald's recommended compromise. Ms. Fanelli recommended that a condition be added that stipulates that tree #16 is to be retained and that no replacement trees would be required for the diseased Monterey Pine trees. Should the applicants not agree to this condition, they have the opportunity to appeal this condition. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:51 P.M. Planner Ratcliffe read into the record a letter received from Wendell and Gertrude Hammond, 20200 Hill Avenue, stating their support of the request. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she did not see a condition included in the resolution that would stipulate no parking under the trees. She requested that this become a standard condition to be boiler-plated and included in future resolutions. She said that she was not happy with the vast expansion of the upstairs. She did not believe that a 20' x 14' terrace was needed for safety. She felt that there were other ways to get out of a home during an emergency and that there are several items that are provided for safety that would not require this much space. She stated that she likes old spaces and the use of screen porches. However, when PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 24, 1999 PAGE - 12 - she looks at the renderings, she felt that the design was vast and huge, finding it to be too much home and no longer a nice little 1920s house. What is being proposed is a great big modern home with some old fashion dressing. She recommended that newly planted oak trees be installed to replace the old diseased trees. She expressed concern that at a future date, this large home would be on a smaller lot with the possibility of a future subdivision. She further stated that she did not like the third story element. Commissioner Murakami said that upon first viewing the drawings of this proposal, he was also skeptical. He felt that the architect did a good job in balancing the design proportionally. He said that he did not like the three story effect. However, he understood staff' analysis of the non-conforming structure. The lot size is a factor as it is a large two-acre parcel. As long as there is no possibility of future subdivision, he felt that the structure itself would be allowable in this situation. He noted that the Historic Preservation Commission has approved the addition onto the original structure and that they feel that the design of the home has been kept in tack as far as the original structure is concerned. Regarding the trees, he understood the Commission's point of view regarding saving tree #16. He would support replacement trees on the lower portion of the acreage. As long as there is a consensus of the Commission of what can be done relating to retaining/replacement of trees, he could support the request. Planner Ratcliffe clarified that trees #4, #17, #18 and #24 are diseased and that tree #16 is the only healthy tree proposed to be removed. Commissioner Bernald recommended that tree #16 be retained. She felt that it was important enough to retain tree #16 that she would recommend that the applicant be given a break. She stated her appreciation that the character of the home would be kept and felt that the addition retains the character of the home. She also appreciated the fact that the lot was kept in tack and the relocation of the new driveway in order to retain the trees in this area. She felt that the design was innovative, beautiful and that she was pleased to see that the historical structure is to be maintained. She felt that the design is balanced and that it would be an asset to the neighborhood and to Saratoga. Commissioner Patrick acknowledged that this is an existing three story home. However, she noted that the front is not a three-story home. The front is a modest home and she did not believe that the addition changes this fact. The front of the house gives the perception of a low profile home and that due to the grading and the way it is situated on the lot, it is not an interfaced type house. She felt that the terrace on the side is a well-thought out plan. She felt that to state that the terrace is proposed for safety purposes is stretching the point somewhat. However, she felt that the terraces are nicely designed and that it would not be a bad use of an existing structure. She felt that the rear addition only improves the rear area. She recommended that tree #16 be retained as it is a beautiful tree and that it would be a loss if removed. She would support Commissioner Kaplan's suggestion that the Bonnie Brae side has some oak trees planted to help buffer some of the three story element from this side. She said that replacement value for the diseased trees is not a major issue to her if tree #16 is to remain and that additional oaks are planted. Commissioner Martlage stated her concurrence with the comments expressed by the Commission. She felt that saving tree #16 may be a nuisance for the pool maintenance but noted that the tree was there first. She felt that the design was sensitive to the existing structure. She felt that the design was well planned and that she would like the home even more when it is completed. She appreciated the fact that the scale, mass, the design has been sensitively approached. Commissioner Page also concurred with the comments expressed. As the style of the house was not changing, he did not believe that there would be an impact to the neighborhood in terms of compatibility. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 24, 1999 PAGE - 13 - He appreciated the fact that the private open space to the rear is to remain. He recommended that additional trees be planted because it would buffer the look of the three story element. He appreciated the fact that the applicant has accommodated the arborist's recommendations. Anything that can be done to save tree #16 would be supported. Chairman Pierce stated that he liked the design/its layout and felt that it would be a nice improvement. In approving a larger design, the city would preclude the development of the lower property which is advantageous to all of the neighbors and would provide a buffer of the three story elevation. He did not know how the city could require tree placement that the arborist recommends be removed because they are diseased trees. He stated that he would be opposed to the diseased tree replacement. He stated that he would agree to the preservation of tree #16 and encouraged the applicant to plant a few oak trees on the lower portion of the property. Commissioner Bernald stated that a tree friend of Commissioner Kaplan has stated that smaller native trees do better upon being transplanted. She did not believe that in suggesting that a couple of oaks be planted, that the applicant would be putting out a tremendous amount of money. She felt that this suggestion would satisfy some of the concerns of the commission. Commissioner Kaplan said that she is not recommending replacement of trees size for size but that the applicant should be required to provide some replacement trees. Director Walgren stated that the arborist's recommendation is just that, a recommendation. He felt that it was valid to consider the health of the trees and the number of existing healthy trees on site that would be retained. He also felt that it was a relevant point to consider the value of some of the trees relative to the context. He felt that it would be a reasonable compromise to require a few small container native oak trees at the base of the property as a small fraction of the $20,000 original replacement cost. Chairman Pierce noted that the commission previously approved a 6,500 square foot home with a 3,000 square foot basement across the street, noting that there are big homes in the neighborhood. He stated his support of the project. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-98-065 WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: RETENTION OF REDWOOD TREE #16; PLANTING OF A COUPLE OF SMALL BOXED OAKS AT THE LOWER PORTION OF THE SITE PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND NOT TO REQUIRE THE TREE REPLACEMENT VALUE, RESULTING IN A CHANGE IN THE REPLACEMENT VALUE AND BOND; THERE IS TO BE NO PARKING/STORAGE OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL UNDER ANY OF THE EXISTING TREES; AND THE PATHWAY CURRENTLY PROPOSED UNDER TREES #2, #3 AND #4 IS TO BE REMOVED. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE V-98-021. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). 5. DR-98-024 (517-22-093) - LEXMAR DEVELOPMENT, 15180 Piedmont Road; Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 3,147 sq. ft. two-story residence and construct a 4,704 sq. ft. two story residence with a maximum building height of 26 ft. from natural grade on a 1.07 acre site. The site is located in an R-1-40,000 zoning district. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 24, 1999 PAGE - 14 - Planner Ratcliffe presented the staff report. She informed the Commission that an issue is the narrowness of the driveway, being 18 feet wide in some areas. The Fire department requires a 14-foot wide driveway with one foot shoulder on each side. She informed the Commission that the Fire department has agreed to live with a 14-foot wide driveway without the shoulders, resulting in the redesign of the driveway to impact as few ordinance trees as possible. She indicated that extensive tree protection measures have been incorporated in the resolution of approval, including the city arborist's review and approval of construction grading and retention of the existing driveway. The new driveway is to be constructed over the existing driveway to minimize impacts associated with tearing up of the old driveway. A requirement of the project is that a project arborist is retained to supervise all tree protective measures and any work that pertains to trees at risk. She said that the residence itself does not present any impacts to the trees as it is proposed to be built on the existing building pad. She identified the condition of the trees and addressed the arborist's recommendation relating to tree protection measures for the various trees on site, identifying which trees are to be removed/preserved. She clarified that the arborist mentions fencing off of a dirt access road to discourage storage of equipment and noted that this area is not located on the subject property. Staff feels that such fencing is not required or needed. The arborist also makes mention of the possible demolition of the pump house. She said that this structure is not a part of the project and is not proposed to be demolished or altered in any way. Based on the physical constraints of the parcel and in conjunction with the fire department requirements, staff felt that the proposed driveway configuration, with the changes noted, meets the fire department requirements while preserving to the extent possible the existing trees and allowing access so that the site can be developed. The total value for the trees is $11,816. Staff has conditioned the approval on the replacement value trees being provided. The total value of the retained trees that may be impacted is $66,832 and that a protection tree bond is included as a condition of approval. Planner Ratcliffe informed the Commission that staff received a letter from the adjacent neighbors to the west, Mr. and Mrs. Negin, regarding the proposed driveway entrance. She stated that the existing driveway extends onto the adjoining parcels both on the west and east side. While there is an existing easement/right of way on the east side, there is no such easement/right of way located on the west on Mr. Negin's property. Staff conditioned the approval of the project on the applicant obtaining an easement allowing ingress/egress or realigning the driveway entrance to the east which would allow access via the existing easement. On March 17, 1999, staff received correspondence from Dr. Lampros, adjacent neighbor to the east, raising several questions and concerns. She felt that several of these questions and concerns have been addressed subsequently in the staff report and in the conditions of approval. In looking at Dr. Lampros' letter, he notes that it is not known whether there is a right of way on the eastern side of the property. She said that staff has reviewed a title report that refers to an egress/ingress right of way, used by the existing driveway. Despite concerns that staff has with the driveway, staff feels that it has tried to make a compromise to allow fire department access to the project. Staff finds that the proposed residence is designed to conform to each of the policies set forth in the city's residential design handbook, satisfies the findings required in city code and satisfies all other zoning requirements. Therefore, staff recommends Commission approval of the application. In response to Commissioner Murakami's question, Planner Ratcliffe responded that a significant amount of time was spent on the driveway issue. Commissioner Bernald inquired about the pump house and asked if there is a dirt way that goes to the pump house that does go over this particular property that is the subject of tonight's application? Planner Ratcliffe responded that the right of way goes right by the pump house. It was her belief that it is used by the Water District. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 24, 1999 PAGE - 15 - Planner Ratcliffe informed the Commission that Dr. Lampros objected to some of the arborist's recommendations regarding tree #4 and the trees around the pump house. Dr. Lampros expressed that he did not want any fences blocking the right of way or anything on his property. Director Walgren informed the Commission that the right of way is a reciprocal right of way. and that the pump house is located on the adjoining property. However, the applicant's site plan seems to indicate that it is on its own separate parcel. He said that a fence or a gate could be installed at the edge of the curb on the driveway that would prevent construction vehicles for this project from going back any further that would not obstruct Dr. Lampros' access to his property. Commissioner Page noted that staff recommends that the driveway adjacent to trees #9 and #10 remain at its present location. He asked how long replacement values are kept in place for trees that are lost or damaged due to construction? Planner Ratcliffe responded that prior to final inspection, the arborist inspects the site and evaluates how much of the roots, if any, have been damaged. If damaged has occurred, the property owner will have to forfeit a certain amount of the deposit. Commissioner Kaplan asked if any thought has been given at a staff level and discussed with the applicant of taking this application to a study session to discuss all of the issues that have not been resolved? Director Walgren said that staff has already spent a lot of time on the project, including the location of the driveway. He said that the driveway has to be installed to access the house and that it has to be a minimum of 14 feet to meet the fire district’s minimum requirements. The constraints of the driveway are grading limitations, tree protection policies, and protection of the neighbors’ properties. He felt that this was the best compromise with the addition of the final measures identified by Planner Ratcliffe. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 9:35 p.m. Sam Maliniak, project architect, said that this is the third redesign of the project and that he tried to maintain the existing footprint to achieve a house that works well. In doing so, he found that the existing structure was seven feet into the current setback requirements. It was at this point that it was decided to move the house back, impacting tree #16. He redesigned the house to keep it away 10 feet from the tree per the arborist report. He stated that all the other trees will remain intact with the only problem area being the driveway. He said that he is familiar with mitigation measures that he can incorporate into the design to try and protect the trees at a higher level. Commissioner Kaplan asked Mr. Maliniak if he has given any thought to making the "look" somewhat less Mediterranean on the hill in the middle of trees. Mr. Maliniak responded that the property owner requested that he design a Mediterranean-style house. Commissioner Murakami stated that he could not make out the west and east elevations and that he needs to see something more in detail. He said that it was difficult to get a good idea of what the design will look like with the renderings presented. Mr. Maliniak clarified that the west elevation is a two-story blank wall, noting that it is broken up with two bathrooms where they pop out with a cantilevered window located at the front. Commissioner Page asked if there were plans to underground the utilities? Mr. Maliniak responded that a utility easement runs across the parcel to the west. He said that it is a requirement of PG&E to underground the lines from the pole down. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 24, 1999 PAGE - 16 - Dr. Harley Negin, 15172 Peach Hill Road, property owner to the west, expressed concern with the attempt to preserve the important trees up the driveway. He indicated that the proposed road moves upon his property and that he wanted to make sure that the proper easements are obtained before the project moves forward. He also expressed concern with the easement for the PG&E lines that comes across through the back of his property. He said that this would require taking the lines and plowing up the ground. He said that the exact location of the easement has never been well defined and that it may impact trees which have not been discussed to date. He requested that the Commission waive the requirement of undergrounding the power lines. He said that the lines are not seen from the outside and that the only individuals who can see them would be from his home as this is a wooded area. Also, of concern is the clean hole to the sewer line that runs along the edge of the drive. He did not want to have the sewer line ripped up, trenched and moved further west into his property. This would imperil trees #1-#4. He requested a stipulation that the sewer drain will not be moved. Commissioner Martlage asked if the Commission can address the PG&E lines? Director Walgren stated that the code requires that the overhead utility lines be undergrounded. He said that the staff report addressed the concern of the Negins whose property it crosses. He said that the city has flexibility to waive the requirement of undergrounding the utilities if is desired by the property owner, noting that it would not be a detriment to the community because it is not a power line that can be seen from any public view and that it is hidden by many trees on the property. Commissioner Bernald asked if Dr. Negin was going to grant the easement that is needed? Mr. Negin said that the easement would need to be discussed with the developer, noting that this subject has not been addressed to date. George Lampros, 15168 Piedmont Road, neighbor to the east, expressed concern with the trenching for utilities discussed above. He said that the city arborist has determined that trenching on the lower driveway will severely impact trees #1-#4. He informed the Commission that trees #1-#3 are located on Dr. Negin's property and tree #4 is located on his property (a 42-inch tree). The arborist has considered these trees as specimen trees. He expressed concern that the option of trenching down the driveway for utilities has been raised this evening and that this concern has not been addressed in the conditions of approval. He pointed out that the site already has utilities. It also has a sewer easement from his property that goes up to the house. Also, it has utilities (gas line, power supply and phone lines) coming off of Dr. Negin's property that comes off Piedmont Road to this property. He expressed concern with the trenching of utilities and requested that the utility situation be maintained as they exist to protect the trees. He felt that this was a fair option because it does the least amount of damage to the environment and yet satisfies everyone's needs in this situation. Mr. Maliniak stated that it was his believe that PG&E requires underground service from the property line to the residence. He did not believe that undergrounding is required from the street. If there are poles in the easement, it would drop at the property line. Therefore, he did not believe that undergrounding would impact any trees on the adjacent properties. He said that there are no plans to do any trenching in the driveway. Chairman Pierce asked if the Commission could stipulate that if trenching is required, that it return to the Commission? He acknowledged that these are beautiful trees and that every effort should be made to save the trees. Planner Ratcliffe informed the Commission that staff can condition any undergrounding of utilities or trenching to be reviewed by the Community Development Director and the City arborist to the extent possible to mitigate any impacts on the trees. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 24, 1999 PAGE - 17 - Director Walgren stated that staff will make every effort to save the trees. However, if a utility company is requiring that the utility be upgraded, the city does not have a lot of discretion to tell them that they cannot do that. Staff can oversee where the utilities can go and how it is to be constructed. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the pump house is its own piece of property? Mr. Maliniak responded that the civil engineer prepared the survey and indicated that the pump house is listed as being on parcel 2 and that it is not on this property. Dr. Lampros informed the Commission that the property line goes past tree #1 and east of tree #7 and joins in the middle of the dirt road. The property then jogs around the pump house, noting that the pump house is on the applicant's property. He said that the only access to the pump house is through his property and that there is no vehicular access to said pump house. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/BERNALD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:55 P.M. Commissioner Page stated that he likes what he has seen. He agreed that a tremendous amount of work has been done with the driveway. He felt that all precautions have been taken to protect the trees at the base of the driveway. He acknowledged that tree #9 is a tremendous tree and that it should be saved. He recommended that whatever steps can be taken to preserve and protect tree #9 should be taken. He said that the driveway took away from the design of the home from his perspective. He stated that he likes the design, however, he was not pleased with the materials as he did not believe that a stucco house in this environment is compatible. He said that he did not see a lot of stucco homes in the area but that he saw more wood material incorporated in the area. He recommended that the design incorporate wood type environment. Commissioner Martlage said that when she looks at the existing structure, anything is an improvement. She felt that the new design is compatible with some of the homes on Piedmont as there are some stucco homes in this area. She would like to see something done that would be sensitive to the environment but that she did not believe that it was completely incompatible with the neighborhood. She agreed that because of the focus on the driveway, the Commission has not really looked at the house design as closely as at is usually does. She supports staff's efforts in preserving as many of the trees as possible. Commissioners Patrick and Bernald concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioners Page and Martlage. Commissioner Murakami concurred with the comments expressed by his fellow Commissioners but stated that he was disappointed with the way that the design was drawn up as it is confusing on certain elevations and that the contours could not be made out. He said that if he was the applicant, he would try to improve his presentation as far as the drawings were concerned as they were of a bad quality. He said that he would like to see some of the items that Commissioner Page mentioned as he would not want to see this house built all in stucco. He said that he does not get a good feel for the design in looking at the drawings. He said that he would go along with staff's recommendation regarding the driveway at this time. Commissioner Kaplan concurred with the comments expressed. She said that she did not want to vote on the house as designed as it does not sit well on the site. She recommended that this item return to the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 24, 1999 PAGE - 18 - Chairman Pierce felt that everything that can be done has been done for the driveway. He acknowledged that it is a difficult situation as there are constraints associated with the fire access. He said that he likes the design of the home. He agreed that it would be nice to have a more "woodsy" feel up there. However, he noted that there are other stucco homes in the neighborhood. He may not like the use of stucco but that the property owner has a right to have a stucco home if they want. Therefore, he would support the project as presented. COMMISSIONERS MARTLAGE/BERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR-98-024 WITH THE STIPULATIONS AS OUTLINED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0-1 WITH COMMISSIONER KAPLAN ABSTAINING. DIRECTOR ITEMS - City Council/Planning Commission/Heritage Preservation Commission Joint Meeting - Saratoga Elementary and Redwood Middle School Updates Director Walgren indicated that more than a dozen letters were received expressing concerns with of the retention of two large eucalyptus trees at the Saratoga Elementary School site. The letters were sent to the school board and copied to the City Council, Planning Commission, Public Safety Commission and Heritage Preservation Commission. This was a consorted effort to show support for the retention of the trees. Director Walgren distributed an e-mail memo received from Marcia Farris who requested that the memo be distributed to the City Council and Planning Commission. The memo expressed concerns about protection of the Brookwood neighborhood where she resides in relationship to a couple of home additions that are being processed. He said that the first paragraph of the memo urges the planning department staff to perform site visits for every addition that reaches city offices. The letter further states that she understands that the Planning Commission routinely conducts site visits, but that she understands that staff does not. He clarified that staff performs site visits on all administrative or public hearing applications that are submitted through the Community Development Department. The Planning Commission only conducts site visits on those projects scheduled for a public hearing. - March 25th California League of Cities Conference Director Walgren indicated that Commissioners Page and Martlage and he will be attending this conference. COMMISSION ITEMS - Request for modifications to approved plans for DR-98-019; SHAH, 21409 TOLLGATE ROAD Director Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that the applicant is requesting to modify two conditions of approval: 1) use of materials on the building (reduce the amount of stone veneer on the building vs. the plans approved in 1995); and 2) reduce the amount of landscaping initially required at time of project approval. He said that the parcel is a visible hillside lot. When the application was first reviewed in 1995, the stone veneer and the landscaping were both factors that seemed to better integrate and ground the building onto the site. Based on these facts, staff recommends that the project be PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 24, 1999 PAGE - 19 - built as initially approved in 1995. Mr. Shah, property owner, stated that he purchased the lot last year with approved plans. He requested that he be allowed to reduce the amount of stone veneer to 20%-30%. It was his belief that if veneer is installed in certain areas, it would highlight the house and make it look better. If everything is in stone veneer, it would look very prominent, busy and flat. He also requested modifications to the landscape plans for the north side of the house. He said that this area is bedrock and that it is very hard to install trees in this area. Also, this area is very windy. He expressed concern that a hazard exists such that the trees might fall onto the house. He stated that he would like to maximize the back, flat area with the installation of a swimming pool and play area. He said that he would like to preserve the front area as proposed and that he would agree to install additional trees if required to compensate the requested modifications (i.e., elimination of the north and west/back side landscaping). Director Walgren stated that the greatest screening benefit would be to the south and east elevations. Requiring the same quantities of trees to be located on the south and east elevation would suffice if it is truly impossible to plant the trees on the backside of the property. He said that the same number of trees could be accommodated on the site somewhere in the general proximity to the approved plans. Commissioner Patrick stated that it was her recollection that the Commission required a lot of the stone veneer to avoid a stucco-look. She would not agree to change this requirement as a lot of discussion went into the design and the requirement of the use of stone veneer. Commissioner Murakami said that if a natural wood-type surface would be used, he would support the reduction in the amount of stone veneer. As wood material is not proposed, he would not support reducing the amount of stone veneer and would not support the use of stucco. Director Walgren agreed with Commissioner Patrick's statement in that when this application first went through the design review process, it went through one or two hearings and plan revisions to get to a stage that the Planning Commission was comfortable with because the site is very visible. He noted that the current property owner did not go through the design review process. Commissioner Kaplan recommended that staff give the applicant guidance of where the trees can be planted but that the Commission should not change the design review (stone veneer) requirement at this time. IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION TO CONCUR WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Kaplan inquired about the public storage monument sign. Director Walgren reported that a monument sign was approved at this location (not internally illuminated). Commissioner Kaplan requested that staff investigate this issue as she did not believe that it was appropriate to have the sign internally illuminated. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the city has any control of how the frontage of Saratoga High School athletic field on Herriman is to be used? She noted that parking was removed from the street and that the bike lane has been moved right up to the curb. Apparently there are to be signs to state "no parking." She PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 24, 1999 PAGE - 20 - noted that cars are driving over the curb and parking in between the trees. She felt that the value of the trees would be impacted. Director Walgren noted that this is a public right of way. Unless the cars are obstructing a sidewalk, there is nothing specific that states that you cannot park on a dirt shoulder of a public right of way. Chairman Pierce recommended that a letter be written to the school board expressing concern for the safety of the trees with cars being parked underneath them. Commissioner Kaplan asked when the City Council would be interviewing Planning Commissioners? She also asked when the new Commissioners would be seated? Director Walgren responded that the new planning commissioners are intended to be seated at the first meeting in May and that the City Council will conduct its interviews beginning April 7. As there were a large number of commission applicants this year, the City Council will have to conduct interviews in two meetings. He indicated that the election of a new chair will occur at the Commission's next meeting. Commissioner Bernald noted that a representative from the Good Government Group was present this evening and that she hoped that when the representative reports back that she will note that a project that came one night came back this evening and that a better design occurred. The applicant indicated that there was a meeting of the minds and that individuals were pleased with the outcome as it resulted in something that was more beneficial to the community. At one of the previous commission meetings, an architect came before the commission who was not pleased that he was asked to redesign the plans. When he came before the Commission two weeks ago, he practically thanked the commission for the opportunity to redesign. He said that both he and his clients were pleased with the efforts that came as a result of the Commission's request for a redesign. She addressed the letter that appeared in the newspaper. She felt that it would benefit the Good Government Group if the individuals who are concerned continue to follow through with the items because it has been stated that it appears that the Commission is subjective about projects. She recommended that the Good Government Group follow the conclusions. She felt that there are positive/beneficial results for the city of Saratoga. The representative present from the Good Government Group stated that she was pleased with the fact that the design comments presented were positive ones. She said that the Good Government Group understands that criticisms are not action but subjective statements given and that it may be a perception of a judgmental nature more than what the votes indicate. Commissioner Bernald inquired about the pine tree that was removed on Saratoga Avenue. Director Walgren said that a valid permit was issued for the removal of the tree. Commissioner Bernald asked if a hearing date has been scheduled for Blue Rock Shoot use permit. She noted that coffee beans were roasted in the middle of the day on March 17, 1999. Director Walgren informed the Commission that the use permit is scheduled for a hearing on the second Commission meeting in April. Commissioner Page thanked Vice-chairman Bernald for her comments at the City Council meeting and felt that she did a phenomenal job of expressing team work and cooperation of this specific commission. He also thanked Chairman Pierce for his response in the Saratoga News. Written - City Council Minutes dated March 3, 1999 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 24, 1999 PAGE - 21 - ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING There being no further business, Chairman Pierce adjourned the meeting at 10:20 p.m. to Wednesday, April 14, 1999, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk