Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-14-1999 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 1999 Civic Center, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairman Pierce called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. Roll Call: Present: Commissioners Bernald, Kaplan, Martlage, Murakami, Page, and Chairman Pierce Absent: Commissioner Patrick Staff: Director Walgren Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - March 24, 1999 On a motion by Commissioners Bernald/Kaplan, the Commission approved the March 24, 1999 minutes with the following amendments: - Page 3, paragraph 2, line 6, replace the word "reused" with "reissued." - Page 6, Paragraph 4, line 4 amended to read: "She concurred with the cleanup effort, including the removal of the upholstered furniture..." - Page 6, Paragraph 5, line 2 amended to add the following sentence: "...support the design until clarifications were made. The clarifications presented tonight cleared up the issues..." - Page 9, last paragraph, line 10, replace the word "variation" with "variance." - Page 13, Paragraph 2, line 2 amended to read: "...felt that saving tree #16 may be a nuisance for the pool maintenance but noted that the tree was there first... - Page 18, paragraph 4, line 4 amended to read: "...to improvement his presentation as far as the drawings were concerned as they were of a bad quality. The motion carried 6-0 with Commissioner Patrick absent. Oral Communication No comments were offered. Report of Posting Agenda Director Walgren declared that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on April 9, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet Director Walgren indicated that there were no technical corrections to the packet. CONSENT CALENDAR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 14, 1999 PAGE - 2 - 1. DR-98-067 (517-13-012) - BYRNE, 15001 Bohlman Road; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new two-story 5,522 sq. ft. residence with a maximum height of 26 ft. on a vacant 2.4 acre (net) parcel in a Hillside Residential zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 5/26/99 AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT TO ALLOW NEW PROPERTY OWNER TIME TO REVISE PLANS) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONERS PAGE/BERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 1 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSENT. 2. S-99-005 (517-36-009) - HAKONE GARDENS, 21000 Big Basin Way; Request for Sign Permit approval to construct a new 18 sq. ft. non-illuminated monument sign at the intersection of the park’s driveway with Big Basin Way. The site is 16.5 acres and is located within an R-1- 40,000 zoning district. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONERS PAGE/BERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 2 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0-1 WITH CHAIRMAN PIERCE ABSTAINING AND COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. SM-99-001 & F-99-001 (503-75-010) - JEPSEN/GUERRETTE, 21756 Congress Hall Lane; Request for Site Modification permit to construct a pool with associated hillside grading, and Fence permit to construct a fence enclosing 12,938 sq. ft., in a zoning district that limits hillside fencing to no more than 4,000 sq. ft. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that the hillside modification is necessary to give the Planning Commission and the neighboring property owner a chance to review the proposal that would substantially alter a hillside. The grading is necessary to accommodate a yard play field and a swimming pool. The pool is to be located in a slope of approximately 27%, approaching the maximum permitted by slope, noting that no development is allowed in slopes of 30% or greater. Given the unique location of the property and the fact that the pool itself would be on a side of the hill that would not be visible from any off site views and can only be seen partially through a tree line from a single residence that is well beyond the property, he indicated staff's support of the site modification request. Regarding the fencing enclosure request, he informed the Commission that the two findings necessary to approve more than 4,000 square feet of fencing are: 1) the fencing is screened by terrain and/or vegetation; or 2) the fencing is necessary for safety purposes. In this case, staff finds that the first finding can be made. The proposal to fence in 12,000 square feet of the property is less than 10% of the overall site and will be screened by a very dense oak tree canopy line and the hillside terrain. Staff felt that both applications can be supported with the conditions contained in the resolutions which includes a very extensive landscaping perimeter screening plan in addition to the landscaping that was required per the house approval. In response to Commissioner Kaplan's question, Director Walgren stated that the property is approximately 130,000 square feet in size and that of the 13,000 square feet of fencing enclosure, less than 10% of the total site area is proposed to be fenced. He indicated that this is not a finding relative to the code section. Commissioner Bernald asked if the retaining walls would ever exceed five feet in height? Director Walgren informed the Commission that a five foot limitation has been included in the condition of approval. The proposed fence has been designed and shown on the plan not to exceed five feet in height. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 14, 1999 PAGE - 3 - Therefore, the retaining walls would not be allowed to exceed five feet in height. Commissioner Page asked if a geotechnical clearance was necessary for construction on the hillside? Director Walgren clarified that the subdivision initially required a geologic review. The pool construction and associated grading also requires further geotechnical review. He indicated that the geotechnical review has been included as a condition in the resolution of approval. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. Lynn Winterbotham, landscape architect, stated that the site presents a number of challenges given the slope and the existing vegetation. He identified the location of the swimming pool, lawn and terrace areas that were desired for the rear yard. He stated that he tried to site these items along the contour of the site to minimize grading. Regarding the question relating to the retaining wall, he said that they are to be no greater than 3.5 feet in height. The swimming pool was located in an area to minimize its visibility, to take advantage of the western sun, and to access a changing room/bathroom accessible from the lower level of the house. He said that he tried to push the fence below the oak line to minimize its view. The area to be fenced is less than 10% of the site. Therefore, he did not believe that there would be an impact on the natural environment of this area. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she was not convinced that putting the swimming pool on a 27 degree slope makes more sense than siting it on a level area, directly behind the house with no requirement for a retaining wall or the need for a geotechnical report. Mr. Winterbotham said that he studied the flat area referenced by Commissioner Kaplan. He said that there are some things that are very appealing to siting the swimming pool in the area proposed. The desire to include a level lawn and play area caused him to move the pool to the proposed location. He did find that flat area to be suitable. Commissioner Martlage inquired as to the purpose of the fence? She said that given the terrain, she did not know why a fence is required. Mr. Winterbotham said that a cover for the pool is not being proposed. The owner has a dog that they would like to be able to let outside. The fence is also proposed for safety to allow small children to use the play/lawn area. Commissioner Page inquired as to the proximity of the oaks to the fence. Mr. Winterbotham responded that the fence would not be under the canopy of the oak trees but that the fence would be shielded by the oaks. He said that the fence would be located well below the top of the trees. He said that the fence is located approximately 15 feet below the level area. Commissioner Kaplan expressed concern with the materials chosen. She asked if the Commission has required wrought iron fencing in the past? Director Walgren informed the Commission that the more common fencing seen in this type of applications is the open wire, wood frame fencing. He said that both open iron wood frame and open wire fences have been approved. The proposed fencing material has not been approved as much as the other types of fencing material. Commissioner Bernald said that she has never seen wrought iron and redwood materials mixed together. Director Walgren said that the redwood post design would look more like an open wire style fencing which integrates the use of wood. Mr. Winterbothan informed the Commission that he proposed vertical pickets to minimize the opportunity for individuals to scale over the fence. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI/BERNALD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:49 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 14, 1999 PAGE - 4 - P.M. Commissioner Page felt that the site modifications to the pool and play area as proposed is a creative use of the land. He appreciated the fact that the applicant kept the retaining wall to 3.5 feet. He said that the fence was something that concerned him when he looked at the drawings due to the amount of square of footage that it encompasses. As he drives around Saratoga, especially the hillside districts, he is seeing more areas being covered by fences. This means that wildlife would have to go somewhere else or perish. However, with the explanation of where the fence is sited on the topography has helped a lot. He did not believe that too much of the fence would be viewed from the road or from any other home. Therefore, he stated that he could support the application. Commissioner Martlage stated her concurrence with the comments expressed by Commissioner Page. She felt that the site modification is a logical choice. She stated that she was still bothered by the fence. She said that in the past, the Commission has approved fences and that it has regretted it later. She was not sure whether this was the best choice for the open land for the reasons identified by Commissioner Page (i.e., wildlife that comes through the natural migration patterns). She stated that she was less inclined to support this aspect but that she understood the aesthetic concerns and felt that it was a good design. Commissioner Bernald also stated that she had concerns and continues to have concerns about fencing in the hillside areas and altering the migration routes of wildlife. Considering the size of the property, the terrain, and the amount of open space, she stated that she would be supporting the fence request. She stated that she could also support the site modification plans this evening. Commissioner Murakami agreed with Commissioner Bernald. He felt that this was a reasonable request based on the size of the lot and the usable area that the property owner is trying to encompass with the fence. As long as the landscaping is done properly, he could support the application. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she could not support the fencing as she felt that too much fencing is being proposed. In addition to the fencing being requested, the applicant is also proposing to enclose the pool area. Moving the pool to a flat area, one could properly enclose the pool with a fence. She did not believe that the fence material chosen goes along with some of the previous exceptions granted by the Planning Commission. She said that in many areas, the planning commission has required the open wire fencing material so that it is less obtrusive, visually. For the reasons stated, she could not support the request. Chairman Pierce indicated that he could support both requests before the Planning Commission. He felt that the fencing issue is one that will not go away, will continue to be a problem, and that the commission will see it in other cases. He felt that it was much easier to approve the fencing in this case versus other cases that the commission has seen. He felt that the commission will have to deal with this and perhaps the City Council will have to come up with new guidelines. COMMISSIONERS MARTLAGE/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. SM-99-001. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-1 WITH COMMISSIONER KAPLAN VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/BERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. F-99-001. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-2 WITH COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN AND MARTLAGE VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSENT. 4. SD-99-001 (503-20-061) - WANG, 20520 Verde Vista Lane; Request to subdivide a 41,793 sq. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 14, 1999 PAGE - 5 - ft. lot into two lots of 29,057 sq. ft. and 12,736 sq. ft. The property is located in an R-1-12,500 zoning district. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the commission that the lot split meets the general plan, density, lot size, and zoning ordinance requirements for this zoning district. The city arborist reviewed the proposal as the site is heavily wooded with pine trees and coast redwoods and cork bark oaks. There are several trees that are located within the proposed envelopes that have been categorized as either fine to excellent specimens. While the trees would not be approved to be removed as part of the map, it has to be noted that when home applications are developed for the site, several of the trees would have to be removed to accommodate home construction. He stated that conditions in the resolution require that the significant trees be retained on site, noting that it would be impossible to retain all trees on site and still provide two building envelopes for the two parcels. Based on the parcel's conformance with the general plan and zoning standards, staff is recommending approval of the parcel map with the condition that the home applications, no matter what size homes are being proposed, return to the Planning Commission as a regularly noticed public hearing and reviewed by the city arborist to ensure that as many trees can be protected on site as possible. Commissioner Bernald disclosed that she spoke with Eric Morley. She asked if staff was requesting that the Commission make a subjective decision? Director Walgren said that the application is subjective in the sense that the planning commission needs to find that the proposed subdivision will ultimately be compatible with the overall makeup and character of the neighborhood. He indicated that this application is not affected by Measure G. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she also received a phone call from Mr. Morley. Mr. Morley informed her that he sent letters to the neighbors, that he negotiated with the neighbors to the rear (McMahans), offering to install trees to mitigate what the McMahans feel are invasions of their privacy. She stated that she received a notice for her property and that she is outside the statutory 300 feet and well beyond the city's bonus notification area. As such, she does not have to nor will she refute herself on this item. Commissioner Page stated that he was also contacted by Mr. Morley. Mr. Morley informed him that he was working with the McMahans to come up with an agreement on the pine trees. Chairman Pierce stated that he also spoke with Mr. Morley and that his discussion was similar to those mentioned by the other commissioners. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 7:57 p.m. Eric Morley, representing the property owners, requested approval of a two lot subdivision for the ultimate purpose of building two single story homes. He indicated that one home is to be occupied by the Wang family and the other home by their in-laws. He informed the Commission that the Wang family requested that he send a letter to any neighbor who was adjacent to and may view the property. Said letter was sent to 18 neighbors and that he has met with four of the six neighbors that abut the property. He spoke to the Lee family located to the east of the property who raised concern about drainage. He informed Mrs. Lee that drainage has been addressed, that it will be discussed further at the design review stage and that a solution would be presented at that time. The McMahans have raised concerns regarding views, privacy and potential noise associated with the tennis court being proposed. He clarified that the tennis court application and permit is an administrative review and approval. He indicated that the tennis court would require an extensive landscape plan. He has committed to work with staff and the McMahans on specific size, location and species of trees to be planted to ensure that the McMahans retain their privacy. He said PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 14, 1999 PAGE - 6 - that the Wangs have expressed concern with the two story home behind them and its interface with their single story home. He felt that there is mutual work being proposed at the design review process. He stated his concurrence with staff's recommendation. He informed the Commission that Mr. and Mrs. Wang have spent a great deal of time working on this plan and purchased the property for themselves, their families and the proposed uses. He requested Planning Commission approval of the two-lot subdivision. Mary Lee, 20675 Verde Vista Lane, informed the Commission that she was contacted by Mr. Morley. She said that she has more concerns than just the drainage on the lot. As an eleven year resident of Saratoga, she expressed concern that the subdivision is being presented as a quarter acre lot and that it is not consistent with the spirit of the neighborhood. The placement of a quarter acre lot does not consider future living space and expansion possibilities for this particular piece of property which does not fit into the complexion of the neighborhood. She said that there are several trees that exist on the site that have been designated for removal that provide privacy. She said that she has spent a lot of money taking responsibility for drainage on her property. She has discovered that the majority of the water problem is coming from the runoff from this particular piece of property. She requested that the property owners take responsibility for correcting this problem. She also requested that she be provided with a copy of the drainage plan before the work begins. She informed the Commission that the parcel is on septic. She asked how the two additional single family homes would impact the existing sewer system? Jim Lee, 20675 Verde Vista Lane, stated that it was his belief that the quarter acre lot was designed to share amenities with the other family, (i.e., pool and tennis court). He does not believe that this is in keeping with the spirit of the neighborhood. He recommended that the acre lot be subdivided as half acre lots. He informed the Commission that he has a .49 acre parcel. Director Walgren said that both lots would be required to hook up to sanitary sewer. He said that the city encourages property owners to hook up to the sewer system to get properties off of septic systems. Bob McMahan, 13654 Verde Vista Court, informed the commission that he resides behind the subject property. He said that he also spent a lot of time trying to find property before finding this property and that he shares 170 feet of property line with the existing lot. He said that Mr. Morley also spoke with him this afternoon. He felt that it would be in the spirit of the neighborhood to subdivide the property evenly down the middle. He felt that a 30,000 square foot lot and a 12,000 square foot lot have a lot of issues. If divided equally, similar sized structures can be built to blend in with the neighborhood. He felt that the 30,000 square foot lot would allow for a lot of accessory structures to be built on the property, including a tennis court which he does not support. Rebecca McMahan, 13654 Verde Vista Court, also recommended that the parcel be subdivided down the middle. She felt that the large L-shaped lot lends itself to undesirable structures right next to her property such as the tennis court. She also expressed concern that this section of the lot would not be maintained because it is not visible from the owner's home. She said that she is very interested in preserving the tall trees visible from her second story window and the trees behind her lot. She had been searching for a home for three years until she found this dream home due to the existing trees. She read into the record a letter that was sent to the Wangs offering to purchase the portion of the land surrounding the trees. She stated that the arborist has indicated that the Monterey trees may not be in the best condition. If the trees cannot be saved or if they are at the end of their life span, she requested that similar tall trees be planted to restore her dream home. She stated that redwood trees would be an acceptable replacement tree(s). Mr. Morley addressed the drainage plan and stated that the he would take full responsibility for drainage issues. He said that the future homes would connect to the sewer system. He indicated that the four trees located to the rear of the property are proposed to be retained. The two trees behind these trees are PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 14, 1999 PAGE - 7 - proposed to be removed. He said that six trees are in fair to marginal health. If the McMahans prefer, he would propose to retain all four trees. If the McMahans prefer that they be removed and replaced with redwood trees or any other species that meet their specific interest, he has agreed to work closely with the McMahans on exactly what they would like to see in terms of size, height, species and location to make sure that the interface works well. He said that the Wangs are requesting that the subdivision before the commission be approved as opposed to the 50/50 lot split. Commissioner Murakami asked Mr. Morley if the lots were split exactly in half, could the owner still put the tennis court in between two properties? Mr. Morley stated that he did not know whether this would be allowed as you would have a tennis court straddling two property lines. Director Walgren responded that even though the two properties are owned by the same owner, you could not straddle the tennis court between the two properties. Commissioner Martlage asked if Parcel A remains at 29,000 square feet, could it be further subdivided at some point because it would conform to the zoning district? Director Walgren stated that further subdivision would conform in area but that physically, the lot could not meet the width, depth and frontage standards for the remaining L-shape lot that would be created. Mr. Morley informed the Commission that the applicant would agree to a condition that would preclude further subdivision, if necessary. He agreed that given the configuration of the lot split, further subdivision could not occur. He clarified that the accessory structure is controlled by an impervious coverage floor area ratio and that this would be calculated in the design review application. Commissioner Martlage asked if the parcel could legally be divided into three parcels with the third parcel running the length of the back. She also asked if the tennis court could be built if it were on a separate parcel? She said that she wanted to make sure that the property could not be further subdivided at a future date. Director Walgren stated that he did not believe that the parcel would be able to meet the width and depth standards even though it would meet the mathematical area requirements. He indicated that you could not have accessory uses such as a tennis court on a parcel by itself. It would have to be an accessory structure to a residence. Mr. Morley said that the Wangs would be more than willing to do what is necessary to make sure that more than adequate screening is provided. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/BERNALD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:20 P.M. Commissioner Kaplan said that a couple of issues have been raised. She said that she walks this neighborhood frequently. She said that this is not a neighborhood that has large lots, swimming pools or grandiose things. Once the Horticultural Foundation moved out and homes got built, any sense of open space was eliminated. She expressed concern with the configuration of the two lots and knowing that it was to be a two-thirds/one-third lot split. She said that the trees were the most outstanding feature when you walk past the property. She acknowledged that there were very good, exceptional specimen trees located all over the property. It would be her first choice to build a nice home and retain the open space. She did not feel that the lot split being proposed is compatible with the neighborhood. She said that it did not matter who would reside in the homes as it is not known from one year to the next if the property owner would sell the property. She felt that the tennis court in the back would impact six separate properties that are clustered close together and would be an imposition to the neighbors. She stated that PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 14, 1999 PAGE - 8 - she would not support the lot split as presented. If the lot is to be subdivided, she recommended that it be split down the middle to make it a compatible and comparable in size to that of the neighborhood. Commissioner Murakami felt that the neighbors have raised a lot of good points and felt that some of these concerns have been addressed by staff. He felt that the property owners have the right to subdivide their property even if the lots seem irregular. If you look at some of the flag lots that are located to the right of property, there is not a uniform feel to this particular section of the neighborhood. He stated that he understood the neighbors' concern of not seeing an evenly split lot but that he also understood the legal part of this decision. With the lack of easements or covenants precluding any type of split of this nature, he stated that he would approve the two-lot subdivision as presented. Commissioner Bernald felt that this is a very subjective decision that has to be made. She felt that ordinance-wise, this parcel can be split and that all laws support it. However, she felt that Measure G was passed because individuals did not want to see carving out of pieces of areas. She felt that Area B guidelines have stated that this area has to be conforming in terms of density consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. She stated that she was very concerned with the beautiful specimen trees as they are a special part of the neighborhood. She did not believe that splitting the lot down the middle would protect the trees and therefore could not use the trees as an argument one way or the other. She felt that the neighbors' desire to see the parcel split down the middle is the most reasonable request that she has heard. She felt that it can be and should be supported. She expressed concern with carving out a quarter acre and leaving another parcel where the city would have two homes that will exceed 8,000 square feet when combined together. For this reason, she could not support the lot split this evening. Commissioner Martlage concurred with everything that has been stated. She felt that this was an unfortunate situation. She felt that the best case scenario would be to split the lot down the middle and move the homes out of the way of the trees. She noted that legally, the parcel can be subdivided. She agreed that splitting the parcel down the middle is the best use of the land. Commissioner Page stated that he took a mathematical look at the trees that were slated for removal as this was a concern to him based upon the initial pad definition. He calculated that 60% (20 of the 30 trees) of the exceptionally good trees are slated for removal. He expressed concern with what the end result might be and felt that there was room to work with. Another concern was with the frontages. Splitting the parcel in two pieces, would result in having two homes with very short frontages. He understood that the ordinance allows this lot split configuration. However, he felt that the property owner would go through a lot of expense to make two homes fit that may not end up fitting in with the neighborhood. He said that at this time, he could not support the subdivision as presented. Chairman Pierce disagreed with the comments expressed. He felt that the Lees’ lot and the flag lot behind them are similar to the lot being reviewed this evening. He stated that he does not support flag lots. The Commission is faced with the fact that there will be a couple of lots with 90 foot frontages. The way that the subdivision is proposed with the bigger lot encompassing the redwoods is an advantage as it gives the property owners more space to work with. He felt that the redwoods were the trees most valuable and that they should be saved. Regarding the pine trees, he noted that they are in a terrible condition. He felt that the proposed subdivision was the most efficient use of the space if two families are to use a pool and tennis court without duplicating these accessory structures, one that he was supportive of it. He did not believe that splitting the parcel down the middle would accomplish anything more than just making one lot bigger than the other and potentially allowing a bigger house on the other lot. Therefore, he would support the application as presented. When it comes time to review the actual design of the homes, the Commission can take a look at the tennis court or any other structures as part of the design review process. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 14, 1999 PAGE - 9 - Commissioner Kaplan indicated that the Commission would not be able to prevent the installation of a tennis court once the subdivision is approved. Director Walgren informed the Commission that had the applicant come in a month ago prior to submitting an application for a tentative parcel map, the tennis court would have been an administrative approval. Its location would met the city's minimum standards and could have been approved subject to an arborist review and evaluation of the two pine trees that would have to be removed. Now that the city has the tentative parcel map before the Commission, the Commission can place a condition on the map that stipulates that no tennis court shall be approved on Parcel A unless approved by the Planning Commission. Chairman Pierce stated his support of the review of a tennis court by the Planning Commission as part of the design review process. Commissioner Page asked if a condition could be included that indicates that certain trees or a percentage of the exceptional and very good trees have to be retained? Director Walgren informed the Commission that a condition has been included in the resolution that states that the applicant shall prove to the Planning Commission that they are retaining as many of the exceptional and good conditioned trees as possible, subject to design review consideration. Commissioner Page agreed with Chairman Pierce that it should be indicated that the redwood trees are to be retained. Chairman Pierce said that the proposed resolution has been conditioned to require that the applicant make every effort to save the redwood trees. Director Walgren noted that the suggestion of splitting the parcel down the middle and moving the pads towards the back of the parcel would work toward preserving more of the trees up front, including the redwood trees. Commissioner Kaplan felt that ultimately, the lots would fall into two separate families and that they were not going to remain the same. She felt that this would create a conflict. Commissioner Page recommended that this item be continued to a study session. Commissioners Kaplan, Bernald, Martlage and Page supported a lot split down the middle as it would preserve the trees the best. Commissioner Murakami and Chairman Pierce stated their support of the subdivision application as presented. Director Walgren stated that if a motion was made to approve the application as submitted, the motion would fail on a 2-4 vote. A second motion would then be made to approve the map with a condition that the dividing line go directly down the middle of the parcel and that all future homes and accessory uses on the property shall be subject to planning commission review and approval. He informed the Commission that should the Commission continue this item to a study session, the earliest date that it could be scheduled would be May 12, 1999. Commissioner noted that the Commission makeup may be different at that time. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 14, 1999 PAGE - 10 - COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. SD-99-001 WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: DIVISION OF THE LAND IS TO BE A 50/50 LOT SPLIT; ALL FUTURE HOMES AND ACCESSORY USES ON THE PROPERTIES SHALL RETURN AS A DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW/APPROVAL; AND WHEN DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATIONS ARE SUBMITTED, DRAINAGE SHALL BE COLLECTED AND BROUGHT TO THE STREET ON VERDE VISTA TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-2 WITH COMMISSIONER MURAKAMI AND CHAIRMAN PIERCE VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSENT. 5. DR-98-058 & V-98-020 (503-26-015) - HOYT, 14471 Springer Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to remodel and add 422 sq. ft. to the existing first story and add a 695 sq. ft. second story to an existing 1,218 sq. ft. residence. There is an existing detached 371 sq. ft. garage on site. Total proposed floor area is 2,706 sq. ft. The site is a 7,500 sq. ft. (net) parcel located in an R-1-10,000 zoning district. Variance is required to allow an undersized garage, when a two-car garage is required. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report and informed the Commission that in order to maintain the existing non conforming setback, a variance is necessary. Prior to this application be submitted, the applicant received building permits to convert the accessory structure back into a two car garage, not being aware that the city has minimum interior dimension requirements for a garage. Staff finds that the special circumstance is the fact that the building exists, is bounded by an existing pool and patio and bounded to the back by a deck and jacuzzi structure. Staff feels that it would be considered a hardship to break out a significant portion of the building to widen the garage by three fee which would also require modifications to the pool. Regarding the design review application, he noted that the application is a major renovation of a single story portion of a building and includes a second story addition. The architectural style is changing significantly from the current building that exists to a more mission or Mediterranean style building. Staff has reviewed the plan and finds that the necessary findings can be made, for the most part, with regards to the building's height, protection of views and privacy on adjoining properties. It also meets all minimum zoning ordinance standards. Regarding the architectural style, one of the early concerns that staff discussed with the applicant is the vertical appearance of the right side elevation of the building. Working through plan revisions and understanding that the parcel is only 50 feet in width, you are left with only a 30 foot wide envelope to work with, resulting in a fairly vertical elevation along this side of the building. He said that the design can be supported as presented to the Planning Commission, recommending that the roof tile be modified to reflect a shake roof that is prevalent in the Springer Avenue tract to the north of this property in order to achieve a greater architectural compatibility with the established neighborhood. Commissioner Murakami asked why the upper addition is more to the right of the structure? He asked if it was due to the low bearing nature of the structure or was it due to the limits in square footage that limits the size, width and square footage, resulting in a design of this manner? Director Walgren responded that the design of the upper addition to the right hand side most likely was to take advantage of the low bearing wall and for simplicity of design and construction but that it is also relative to the fact that the property owner has a 30-foot wide envelop to work with. If the parcel was 100 feet in width and the building could be spread out, the design would not result in a vertical wall. Commissioner Murakami felt that if the addition was centered, it would still look odd. Commissioner Kaplan referred to the right elevation and noted a wide chimney. She asked if it was a gas or wood burning chimney? If gas burning, she asked why a chimney was needed? She said that one of the chimneys would have to be non wood burning. She did not know why you need a chimney with a spark arrestor was needed. Director Walgren clarified that a wood burning fireplace is proposed in the living PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 14, 1999 PAGE - 11 - room. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she agreed with Commissioner Murakami that the building appears to be skewed to the right and that it is not balanced. She requested clarification as to the flat structure with the small arched window above it. Director Walgren responded that it is a cantilevered room element that comes off of the master bath on the second story and accommodates a sink and two linen closets. This is a means to get a little extra square footage off of the second floor by pushing out beyond the wall line. He said that the chimney does not need to be as big as it is designed and that it can be reduced. Commissioner Page inquired as to the height of the existing structure? Director Walgren responded that the existing structure is very low, approximately 14-15 feet in height. Commissioner Bernald said that at the site visit, the applicant mentioned that she wanted a more Spanish feel to the design. She asked if there was a compromise on a tile material that could be a flatter tile that would be more in keeping with the Spanish or Italian style home that staff would feel meets the applicant's request and yet be compatible with the neighborhood? Director Walgren stated that going to a flat tile, particularly one that simulates a wood shake roof, would alter the architectural style. A flat tile could be installed and not change the architecture at all. It is staff's recommendation to utilize a historical architectural style that was prevalent in Saratoga in the late 1800s and early 1900s. He said that there are a large number of Mediterranean style homes throughout Saratoga, particularly in the Villa Montalvo and the valley areas. He said that the Mary Springer tract was one of the earlier subdivisions within the boundary of Saratoga. It is an area that has a large stock of older, earlier homes, noting that the neighborhood is very homogenous and that redevelopment has been consistent with the existing design. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 8:47 p.m. Dee Bettinger, 766 Garland Drive, Palo Alto, representing the applicants, distributed a letter from Clark Hoyt dated April 13, 1999, apologizing to the Commission for not being able to attend this evening's meeting due to a previous business commitment. She informed the Commission that she is not the project architect but that she had the authority to answer for the applicant. She indicated that Mr. Hoyt agrees to change the fence and move the deck into the side. He also willing to work with colors that would be more compatible as suggested by staff. Mr. Hoyt is requesting that the Commission allow him to use the barrel tile roof as there were several homes in the area that have this similar tile. It is also being requested that the variance be approved as it would be a hardship to move the pool. Commissioner Kaplan asked about the necessity of having a large fireplace for a gas apparatus which does not require a fireplace nor a spark arrestor. She said that she was aware that the City Council agreed with the Planning Commission over the years to attempt to make the homes in the neighborhood relatively compatible. The Commission is very sensitive to neighborhoods such as this one where the city has seen a great deal of remodeling of the old neighborhood craftsman-wood style. She felt that the proposed design is out of keeping with the compatibility of the neighborhood. She said that the garage issue is not a problem but that the style of the house does not reflect the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Bettinger informed the Commission that this is the design that the property owners chose for their home. She said that the home is very limited in terms of square footage to be added due to the size of the lot, setbacks, etc. Commissioner Bernald stated that the fireplace was her major concern. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 14, 1999 PAGE - 12 - Commissioner Page asked how one enters the house with the new design? Ms. Bettinger said that entrance to the home would be through the French door located to the rear of the home. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/BERNALD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:54 P.M. Director Walgren clarified his response to Commissioner Kaplan's earlier question by stating that staff's position is that the overall design, massing and profile of the building is compatible with the neighborhood. It is just a matter of modifying the details and materials to a simulated wood shake roofing and replacing the solid stucco walls with a wood slat-railing detail. These architectural details will bring the building into compatibility with the existing neighborhood. He said that staff was not suggesting a significant redesign. Commissioner Bernald noted that there is some concern with what has been presented to the Commission this evening and whether the Commission can move forward with the design given the fact that the applicant still wants a style that would continue to speak to stucco and to the rounded tile roof. Chairman Piece recommended that the Commission get a sense of how it feels regarding the design. If the Commission does not support the design, the Commission can consider continuing this item to a study session. Commissioner Martlage stated that she liked the design and agreed with staff that the massing and the scale is nice. However, she was bothered that the design would be of a stucco home next door to another stucco home. She expressed concern that the neighborhood would become a stucco village. She agreed that the details and finishes need to be changed. She stated that she liked the chimney because architecturally, it gives the elevation a lot more articulation and a lot more depth and interest. The only element that she did not like is the window. She stated that she liked the design and the asymmetry of the design and felt that it was sensibly done. She stated that she was very concerned with the stucco wall and the porch and that she was glad to see that they are no longer an issue. She recommended that a little more detail and refinement be done to the design. Commissioner Page also felt that it was a good design and that it was appropriate. However, when he drove through the neighborhood and visited the site several times before tonight's meeting, he was concerned with the way the home is located on the hill when he goes from Fourth Street to Springer Avenue. He noted that the home is at an elevation higher than some of the other homes. Adding another eight feet to the height of the home would make it stand out, making it more incompatible with the neighborhood. He suggested that consideration be given to looking at wood or shingles as roofing material instead of the stucco and the Spanish style roof. As an alternative, you could locate the upper right side element to the left hand side of the home. This will give the home a little more depth. However, this may not take away from the problem coming down Springer Avenue towards Fourth. It was his observation going up the hill that the design would be too bulky. He liked the property but he did not believe that the home was appropriate as designed. He felt that modifications to the design would address his concerns. Commissioner Bernald agreed with Commissioner Martlage and felt that it was a delightful design. She felt that the design just needed a little tweaking. She said that when the Commission drove through the neighborhood, the Commission only saw two other barrel tile roofs in the neighborhood, one being far away and the other down the street. She did not believe that when you speak about this nearby neighborhood, that these two homes can be included. She said that she was comfortable with keeping the design as proposed. She found the front entryway charming and stated her support of it. She liked the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 14, 1999 PAGE - 13 - details and pop-outs that occur in the design. She liked the arches and the play in the design. She felt that a roof design can be found that would be compatible with the home. Therefore, she would support a change in roof material and tweaking the colors as there were no architectural design elements that she would want to see changed. She expressed concern with the use of a large spark arrestor. However, she accepted Commissioner Martlage's point that the chimney does add another nice element. She felt that it would be a hardship to ask that anything more be done to the garage. Therefore, she could support the variance. Given the constraints of the lot, she noted that the Commission has granted variances similar to this one in similar neighborhoods before. Therefore, it was her belief that the Commission could grant the variance. Commissioner Murakami concurred with Commissioner Bernald. He stated that he did not have a problem with the basic style of the home and stated that he liked the design. The concern that he had was that of the structural integrity regarding the upper addition. He said that there was a logical explanation as to why the design was laid out this way. He agreed that the red tile roof would stand out too much, especially if a Spanish style roof material is used in this neighborhood. He stated that he could support the variance as it is logical to expect the garage to be in its position, especially in this neighborhood. He stated that he was prepared to approve the application with staff input on the smaller details. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she previously expressed her views regarding the proposed style of design. She felt that the neighborhood requires a more craftsman style design. She did not believe that inclusion of details on a wall would change the basic feel of the home. She stated that she would not support the design on the basis of compatibility with the neighborhood. Regarding the variance request, she felt that the findings can be made to support it. In response to Chairman Pierce's question, Director Walgren felt that the design could be tweaked to use a wood shake or a simulated wood shake roofing, eliminating some of the stucco finished guard rails with a wood slate railing, adjusting the color scheme from peach pastel color to more earthtone colors, consistent with the roofing style to lend it to a craftsman style. Chairman Pierce stated that he liked the design and its layout. He did not believe that a Mediterranean design fits in with the neighborhood. He felt that this is a very unique and wonderful neighborhood. As long as the design can be made compatible, he could support the application. COMMISSIONERS MARTLAGE/BERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-98-058 WITH THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED BY STAFF (i.e., CHANGE IN ROOFING MATERIALS, FINISH, COLORS, TRIMS). THE MOTION CARRIED 5-1 WITH COMMISSIONER KAPLAN VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS MARTLAGE/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. V-98-020. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSENT. 6. DR-98-069 (397-04-112) - BHEDA, 14812 Gypsy Hill Road; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new single story 5,780 sq. ft. residence with a maximum height of 21 ft. on a vacant 56,619 sq. ft. (net) parcel in an R-1-40,000 zoning district. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report and stated that the application is consistent with the conditions of the subdivision. He stated that the building, as designed, meets all minimum zoning requirements in terms of allowable floor area, minimum setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage. Staff also finds the design to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the application. He noted that there is a large healthy coast live oak in the middle of the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 14, 1999 PAGE - 14 - building pad that has been identified as an excellent specimen tree. He identified other specimen trees to be retained, noting that this is the building pad identified as part of the subdivision. He said that it is unfortunate that a coast live oak is to be removed but noted that a condition has been included to require a replacement value of native trees in the amount of $5,664 to compensate for the loss of the oak tree. Commissioner Kaplan asked if consideration was given to site the home in a different location so that the home does not impact the trees? She said that she did not know how the applicant can install a swimming pool in a sloped area at a later date. Director Walgren said that the swimming pool would be reviewed as a future design review application. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 9:13 p.m. Marty Oakley, representing the applicant, stated that he would answer any questions which the Commission may have. Commissioner Kaplan asked if there was a way to site the home to retain the magnificent oak tree(s). Mr. Oakley responded that it was impossible to come up with a reasonable design to protect the oak tree unless a two story home is built. A two story home would have to be designed to fit between the drip line of the existing trees and would result in a "boxed" design. He indicated that the roofing material is to be of clay tile with the use of charcoal and wheat colors. The stucco is to be a dark, sand color. Natural silvercreek stone is proposed to be used and is to be similar in color as the roof material. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI/BERNALD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:17 P.M. Commissioner Bernald felt that the design of the home was compatible with the neighborhood. She stated that she originally shared Commissioner Kaplan's concern about the preservation of the magnificent oak tree. However she understood the constraints associated with the lot. She stated that she would support the application. Commissioner Murakami concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioner Bernald. He felt that the existing tree is valuable. He inquired about the cost to transplant oak trees? Director Walgren estimated that it would cost over $10,000 to transplant the oak tree(s) but that there were no guarantees that the tree(s) would survive transplanting. Commissioner Murakami felt that it was unfortunate that there was no other way to build the home. Therefore, he stated that he would support the application. Commissioner Page concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioner Murakami. He felt that this was a good design and that he could support its approval. Commissioner Martlage stated her support of the project. She stated her appreciation of the fact that the applicant solicited the support of the neighbors. Commissioner Pierce stated that he could also support the application. He noted that the city arborist has stated in the past that even though trees may be transplanted, they may not survive. He said that it was a shame that a magnificent oak tree would be lost. However, he did not believe that there was an alternative. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-98-069. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 14, 1999 PAGE - 15 - THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSENT. DIRECTOR ITEMS - Selection of new Planning Commission Chairman and Vice-Chairman Commissioners Murakami/Page nominated Commissioner Bernald to serve as Planning Commission Chairperson. No other nominations were offered. Commissioner Bernald was elected to serve as Planning Commission Chairperson on a 6-0 vote (Commissioner Patrick absent). Chairman Pierce turned over the gavel to newly-elected Chairperson Bernald. Commissioners Kaplan/Page nominated Commissioner Martlage to serve as Vice-chairperson to the Planning Commission. No other nominations were offered. Commissioner Martlage was elected to serve as Vice-chairperson on a 6-0 vote (Commissioner Patrick absent). - City Council 4/27/99 Adjourned Budget Meeting Director Walgren informed the Commission that a joint meeting will be held by the City Council and the Planning Commission on April 27, 1999 as an adjourned meeting. He said that the main topic of discussion will be the budget. He stated that Chairperson Bernald has been asked to attend the meeting and that the other commissioners are invited to attend the adjourned meeting. - Status of Planning Commission Appointments Director Walgren informed the Commission that the City Council interviewed 9 applicants for Planning Commissioners, including three commissioners who reapplied. He said that the new commissioners will be seated the first meeting in May. - Status of Septic System Abatement Ordinance Director Walgren indicated that a Septic System Abatement Ordinance was prepared, presented and adopted by the City Council. He indicated that the ordinance went to effect last week and that it is to be administered by the Community Development Department. - National APA Conference Director Walgren informed the Commission that he will be attending the National APA Conference during the week of April 26. He will be missing both the City Council and Planning Commission meetings that that week and that Heather Bradley will attend these meetings in his absence. COMMISSION ITEMS - Commissioner Martlage stated that she has been serving on the Bicycle Committee for approximately 1.5 years and felt that this position should be passed on to a different commissioner. She nominated Commissioner Page to serve as the Planning Commission's representative to the Bicycle Committee. It was noted that this action would need to be agendized for appointment to the Bicycle PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 14, 1999 PAGE - 16 - Committee. - Commissioner Kaplan addressed the Kosich property located on Saratoga Avenue off of Lawrence Expressway. She requested a status report on what is happening to the landscaping. She said that she drove past the property yesterday and found that it was almost completely overcome with weeds and the fence still has graffiti on it, noting that no one is taking care of this parcel. Director Walgren responded that when the landscaping was installed at the perimeter of the Kosich property, that the plant species purchased were very substandard and that it is not expected that the landscaping will establish very well. Staff has had the arborist review the landscaping and indicated that a notice was sent to the property owner informing them that the planting would need to be redone before the City accepts the subdivision. Commissioner Kaplan asked what mechanism will be used to ensure that maintenance of the landscaping continues? Director Walgren informed the Commission that future maintenance will be the responsibility of the people who reside within the subdivision. There is an assessment requirement that is recorded against each parcel and that monies are being collected. It is just a matter of contracting with a landscape service to make sure that it is done. He indicated that the homeowners would be responsible for hiring a landscape service. If the City continues to have problems with maintenance, the City would notify the neighbors reminding them of their responsibilities. If this doesn't work, the city would follow up. Commissioner Kaplan said that the City worked very hard with this area as a gateway property to the city. She stated that it was sad to have the property look in an awful state. COMMUNICATIONS Written - City Council Minutes for Special Meetings of March 9 and March 23, 1999, and Regular Meeting of March 17, 1999 - Notices for Planning Commission Meeting of April 28, 1999 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING There being no further business, Chairwoman Bernald adjourned the meeting at 9:34 p.m. to Wednesday, April 28, 1999, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk