The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-12-1999 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 1999 Civic Center, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairwoman Bernald called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Jackman, Kurasch, Page, Patrick, Waltonsmith and Chairwoman Bernald Absent: Commissioner Roupe Staff: Director Walgren Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - April 28, 1999 On a motion by Commissioners Patrick/Page, the Commission approved the April 28, 1999 minutes with the following amendments: - Page 3, paragraph 2, line 1 amended to read: "Lisa Trexler, speaking for Mary Bogdanovich . . . " - Page 11, paragraph 3, last sentence amended to read: "...She clarified that the property line which the house is siting sitting too close to . . . " - Page 13, paragraph 1, line 13, amended to read: "...being aware of them, maximizing what can be done on the lot, Llater to complain that the home was sited in the wrong area . . . " - Page 24, paragraph 3, replace Commission with Commissioner Kaplan. The motion carried 3-0-3 with Commissioners Jackman, Kurasch, and Waltonsmith abstaining and Commissioner Roupe absent. Oral Communication Denise Levy, 12915 Regan Lane, stated that she just learned about the use permit approved for Starbucks and that she did not recall being notified that the use permit was to be discussed. She said that several area residents have been asking what else is going into the shopping center and when area residents are going to be notified of any other proposed uses? She inquired as to the parking and driving on neighborhood streets with Starbucks as she is almost getting hit on a daily basis pulling out of her driveway? Chairwoman Bernald referred Ms. Levy to staff as the shopping center issue is not an item that is scheduled before the Commission this evening. Director Walgren indicated that to date, the only tenants proposed by the property manager are PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 2 - the two anchor tenants (Safeway and Longs) and now Starbucks. He stated that there has been some discussion regarding locating a real estate office in the independent building on pad B, noting that the use has not yet been approved. This use would not go through a public hearing because it is not a use that would require a conditional use permit. Other than the uses identified, Director Walgren stated that staff is not aware of any other proposed future tenants. Chris Hawks, 20390 Blauer Drive, adjacent resident to the Argonaut Shopping Center, stated that he was present at the last meeting when Starbucks was considered by the Planning Commission. He said that due to the format of the way things are addressed, the residents watched as a decision was made on Starbucks. Area residents are concerned that they have no voice and that they were not able to respond to comments made during the discussion after the public hearing was closed. He said that residents do not believe that Starbucks is the end of what is happening. It is believed that with the signal given by the Planning Commission at its last meeting and the direction given by staff to the developer, it is clear to area residents that whatever the owner wants they will get approved, no matter what it does to the neighbors. He felt that the approval of the outdoor sitting from the hours of 5:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. is incompatible with the enjoyment of area residents' property. He felt that the outdoor seating is an area that is zoned neighborhood commercial which should mean commercial zoning that is compatible with the neighbor that it is next to. He did not believe that this issue was addressed by any of the Commissioners. He stated that the neighbors feel insulted by the lack of consideration given to their concerns. He did not believe that the uses permitted in the neighborhood commercial zoning district have been addressed to the neighbors' satisfaction. He stated that the residents are still fundamentally outraged by what happened to the neighborhood and informed the Commission that any additional permits to be requested for this end of the center for additional fast foods will be opposed by the neighbors. Report of Posting Agenda Director Walgren declared that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 7, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet Director Walgren informed the Commission that Public Hearing Item #6 for Duncan, 20211 La Paloma Avenue, was initially continued from the Commission's April 28, 1999 meeting to tonight's meeting. The applicants have requested a further continuance to May 26, 1999 as they are working, at the request of the neighbors, to revise the plans so that the side yard setback encroachment is no longer necessary, thereby withdrawing the variance request. He recommended that this item be placed on the Consent Calendar to be voted on with the other two items on the Consent Calendar. Chairwoman Bernald noted that there is a director's item at the end of the agenda for application DR-97-043, 18590 Avon Lane. She informed the public that it is not the Planning Commission's custom to open public hearings for the items listed on the Director's Item. She informed the public that the Commission will be recognizing staff's memorandum and be responding to it and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 3 - that the Commission will not be taking any public testimony on that item this evening. CONSENT CALENDAR COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO PLACE AGENDA ITEM 6 ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSENT). 1. DR-99-022 (503-09-022) - SVOBODA, 22040 Mount Eden Road; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 1,432 sq. ft. detached “barn” with a maximum building height of 12 ft. The existing residence is 5,878 sq. ft. Total buildings on site proposed would be 7,310 sq. ft. The parcel is 5.02 acres and is located in a Hillside Residential district. (APPLICATION WITHDRAWN). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. DR-98-034 (397-03-074) - GAUDREAU, 14510 Sobey Road; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 5,450 sq. ft. two-story residence with a maximum height of 26 ft. An existing 565 sq. ft. guest house is proposed to remain. Total buildings on site proposed would be 6,015 sq. ft. The parcel is 1.29 acres and is located in an R-1- 40,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 5/26/99 AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. DR-99-007, UP-99-007 & V-99-002 (397-24-007) - DUNCAN, 20211 La Paloma Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to allow the remodeling/construction of a new 2,396 sq. ft., single-story residence and a detached garage of 601 sq. ft. Use Permit approval is requested to allow the detached garage to be located within a rear yard. Variance approval is necessary to allow an exterior wall to remain only 2 feet, 6 inches from a side property line where a 6 foot side yard setback is required. (CONTINUED FROM 4/28/99 AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT; CONTINUED TO 5/26/99 AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 1, 2 AND 6 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSENT). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. V-98-001.1 (503-26-028) - BAGNAS, 14005 Wildwood Way; Request for modification to an approved Variance for side and rear setbacks. The property is 3,572 sq. ft. and is located in an R-1-10,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 4/28/99 FOR A RE- VOTE AFTER MOTION FOR APPROVAL FAILED ON VOTE OF 3-3). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report and indicted that at the April 28, 1999 meeting, the motion to approve failed on a 3-3 vote. As such, the item is automatically continued to the next available meeting for a re-vote. He stated that a second tie vote this evening would be a denial of PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 4 - the variance request, resulting in the building to be demolished and reconstructed in the approved location. He said that staff is recommending approval of the modified variance request because the findings still apply. He stated that this parcel is a severely substandard parcel and the approved house is a reasonable use of the property, thus the basis of staff's original recommendation for the project. Staff also believes that the city bares some responsibility for this situation, acknowledging that the property owners bare the fullest extent of responsibility for verifying that the building is being built properly. However, there was a situation where the city's building inspector allowed the property owner to work at their own risk which led to the situation at this point. He did not believe that it was reasonable practice to allow a project to get this far along before stopping it and noting the discrepancies. He felt that if the application had been submitted in this configuration initially, the city could have made the same findings to approve the variance up front. Chairwoman Bernald asked if staff was stating that there were homes in this area that have setbacks less than five feet or whether these setbacks were common in some of the older neighborhoods? Director Walgren noted that the Duncan application scheduled to be considered this evening is an existing home built around the same era as the original homes in this subdivision which are two feet from the property line. This could be attributed to the fact that there were minimal or no setback requirements when the homes were first developed prior to the city incorporating. The City is dealing with lots that are, in some cases, 30 feet wide and in this case 40 feet wide in a zoning district where a new lot created would have to meet the minimum 85 foot standard. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. Marilyn Bagnas, applicant, requested Planning Commission approval of a variance to the required rear setback. She noted a correction to the staff report dated April 28, 1999. The staff report states that prior to a foundation permit, the applicant was required to submit a letter by a licensed engineer or land surveyor to certify the setbacks. She stated that the statement was false because she was not required to submit a letter from a land surveyor to certify the setbacks prior to a foundation permit. She referred to the building permit submitted as an exhibit that indicates that she was approved to pour foundation pending verification of setbacks and elevations. The report goes on to state that the building department contacted the applicant to inform them that the letter sent was not sufficient since it was not from a licensed engineer or land surveyor and that if the applicants proceeded, it would be at their own risk. She felt that this statement was erroneous and a misrepresentation of the truth. She said that no one told her that if she continued the project, it would be at her own risk from the beginning. She noted that she was approved until the second inspection on February 10, 1999. This inspection included the mechanical, underfloor, plumbing and electrical. At this point in time, the framing of the building was completed. It was at the February 10 date that she was told for the first time that a license surveyor's report was necessary. She agreed that there was confusion at the beginning when staff indicated that a letter needed to be presented. A letter to her meant a letter. The use of the word "surveyor" never came up until February 10, 1999. She said that it was emotional wrenching that the Commission had erroneous information that could not be corrected because the public hearing was closed. She asked why she was not told at the very beginning to stop the project if a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 5 - land surveyor's report was a requirement? She acknowledged Director Walgren's statement that the building inspector made a mistake and not through a negligence on her part. She requested that the Commission consider the situation where she is at this time as it has presented her with a hardship. She requested that the variance modification be approved. Through the suggestion of the neighbors in the area, she circulated a petition in support of the variance request. She stated that her immediate neighbors signed the petition and submitted the petition as an exhibit. Emmanuel Bagnas, applicant, informed the Commission that the copy of the building permit submitted did not have the back side of the permit that indicates that the foundation was found to be acceptable pending verification of setbacks and elevation. He said that there was no mention that a surveyor's report was needed at that time. Commissioner Patrick asked if Mrs. Bagnas sought out the owner of the vacant parcel adjacent to her lot? Mrs. Bagnas responded that she did and that the property owner was present this evening. Everet Killian, 14395 Wildwood Way, adjacent property owner at the top of the hill, stated that he discussed this variance with several of the neighbors and indicated that none of the neighbors had a problem with the variance that he is aware of. He said that his house is setback less than four feet from his property line and that the neighbor across the street has a house sitting on the property line with the gutters hanging over the property line. He felt that the requested setbacks provide a lot of room compared to other building setbacks. Also, the house will be an asset to the Wildwood Way community. He said that he was looking forward to having the Bagnases as neighbors and requested that the Commission not take away their dreams. Norman Payne, licensed land surveyor, stated that he certified the foundation and elevation for the owners across the street. He verified that the home next to this one is on the property line. He said that once the Bagnases were notified on February 10, 1999 that they needed to retain the services of a licensed land surveyor, they tried to solicit two other surveyors to perform the work. It was indicated that their schedules were full and that they could not make it out to the site. He said that on March 27, 1999, he performed the survey and that on April 5, 1999, he sent a letter to the city with his findings. He recommended that the city look at its ordinance to include provisions for the building official to require that the property corners be set prior to the issuance of a building permit so that the inspectors can see the property lines and determine setbacks in order to prevent problems in the future. He said that this particular subdivision has lots created that are very small, and this is an unrecorded subdivision, and that every lot in the subdivision was transferred by title deed. Commissioner Waltonsmith stated that she understood Mr. Payne's comment that many homes do not need a licensed surveyor but that many homes are in the middle of a lot bigger piece of property. She asked Mr. Payne that if this had been his property, would he have secured the services of a land surveyor immediately? Mr. Payne responded that with his background and experience, he would have secured the services of a surveyor when he bought the property before the close of escrow. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 6 - Claudette Ford, 14378 Springer Avenue, owner of the two adjoining vacant lots next to the Bagnases, stated her support of the side yard setback variance. She informed the Commission that she spoke with planning staff on Monday because she was concerned with the application. She was told by planning staff that the fence would be on the property line. Therefore, her setback would be the required six foot setback and that she would not be penalized. In response to Commissioner Patrick' question, she stated that she would not be seeking a setback variance on her lot because of the lot's irregular setbacks, should it be approved. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSENT) Commissioner Page said that it was not the policy of the Planning Commission to endorse the creation of a home with a substandard lot and provide for a situation where a variance is created. However, due to the honest mistake made in this case and because of the extenuating circumstances of what he considers to be less than crystal clear communications, it was his belief that the Commission should approve the variance as stated, including a minimal penalty. As the applicant accepts full responsibility for the measurements and the fact that they came out incorrect, he felt that there should be some penalty involved. He stated that he could support the approval of the variance with the minimal penalty that the Commission has in the resolution before us. Commissioner Waltonsmith expressed concern with the variance. To use a fence post to determine property lines rather than having a surveyor find the property lines bothered her. She realizes that this is a small lot and that the applicants made an honest mistake. However, ignorance of the law does not mean that a property owner can come forward and request a variance. She said that the existing buildings that do not meet current codes were built before the adoption of city codes. She felt that the Commission needs to talk about buildings that must be built to code. She stated that she could not support the variance request. Commissioner Kurasch felt that both parties (applicant and the city) have taken responsibility. She agreed that this was an honest mistake. However, from ignorance or inexperience, the idea of the difference from a stop work order or proceed at your own risk should be made very clear. From the city's standpoint, they have made a correction and the sequence of these events will be prevented in the future. However, she felt that the situation was minor in the perspective of the entire variance. The first variance related to the size of the lot, noting that this variance is a very minor discrepancy. However, if this was a different circumstance such as a 10-foot mistake or another mistake, there would be a different opinion. She stated her support of staff's recommendation to approve the variance. Commissioner Jackman stated her concurrence with Commissioner Page's comments in that this has been an unfortunate set of circumstances that got the issue to this stage. She said that at the site visit, it was noted that the property is a small, substandard lot. She did not believe that the applicants had a lot of choices and space to work with. She said that one of her major concerns was that of the adjacent vacant property, noting that the property owner was present and addressed the Commission regarding her support of the variance. She felt that the home would PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 7 - be a good addition to the neighborhood and stated that she would vote in support of the variance. Commissioner Patrick stated that she originally voted against the design. She voted against the request for the variance at the last meeting partly because she was concerned about the vacant lot. She said that the Commission oftentimes has individuals come in and state that the city granted the neighbors a variance and that they are being penalized because they want to build. She agreed that there was not a lot of room to maneuver on these lots. However, she felt that the applicants bought the property knowing this fact. She said that the Commission does not grant exceptions just because the property is a small lot and that it was known that it was a small lot when it was purchased. She stated that she was not convinced about the applicants' arguments about the letters, noting that a letter was written February 4, five days after the pouring of the foundation stating that they would accept all responsibility and accept the risk of what happens thereafter. She stated that she was not convinced that the applicants did not know at this point that there was a potential problem. She said that she also knows that this is an area in the city that lot line problems are endemic. She said that everyone that she knows in this area has to hire a surveyor to get their lot lines figured out and to have the lots surveyed properly so that they know where their homes are being placed. Also, the applicants are building a big investment and did not believe that individuals do this on a whim. She said that the applicants were in attendance at the Commission's meeting last summer when the design was approved. She stated that the applicants were aware of how much agonizing discussion went into where the home was to be sited. However, as Ms. Forbes has indicated that she will accept the responsibility for her vacant lot and not seek a variance because of where the home is being placed, she would be willing to accept staff's recommendation. Chairwoman Bernald stated her agreement with Commissioner Patrick until she spoke about Mrs. Forbes. She said that there were no guarantees in ownership in the city. She said that she was not saying that Ms. Forbes will sell the parcel. However, she felt that the Planning Commission needs to look to the future and see what is going to occur in the city and what the Commission wants for the city, including views. She agreed that this is a lovely neighborhood full of lovely neighbors who try to help each other out. Unfortunately, when applicants take a job without the help of a professional contractor or surveyor, the applicants assume responsibility for their actions. Unfortunately, the applicants did not take all the precautions that they should have. She felt that the city needs to abide by the setbacks. For this reason, she stated that she would uphold her previous vote and vote against the project. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. V-98- 001.1. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-2 WITH COMMISSIONER WALTONSMITH AND CHAIRWOMAN BERNALD VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSENT. Director Walgren stated that staff has immediately implemented procedures and that staff will require that verification of pad elevations and setbacks be in the inspectors hand, in writing from a licensed, qualified professional before the first inspection takes place. He said that staff discussed the situation at length with the building inspector about this particular situation. He noted that a $2,500 fine will need to be paid and has been incorporated in the resolution of approval. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 8 - 4. DR-99-004 (503-26-007) - JAFARI, 20860 4th Street; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 3,177 sq. ft., two-story residence with a 1,468 sq. ft. basement. The maximum height of the residence will be 21 feet, 4 inches. (CONTINUED FROM 4/28/99 AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that this item was originally scheduled for an April 28, 1999 public hearing and included a variance request for the second story portion of the building which did not meet entirely the setback requirement for the second story. Upon receiving the staff report and noting that staff was not in support of a variance, the applicants agreed to continue the item in order to redesign the project and to bring the height down, thereby reducing the side yard setback requirement and slightly insetting the upstairs walls to meet the setbacks. He informed the Commission that the application before it this evening does not require a variance and that the application meets all minimum zoning ordinance requirements. Staff finds that the design is architecturally compatible with the older homes in the area. He informed the Commission that the few remaining issues on this application are: 1) removal of approximately five trees on site. He said that three trees are located within the building envelop which is the only reasonable place to site the home on the property. These trees include a fan palm, a cyprus or cedar tree that is in mediocre condition, and a young coast live oak that is in very good condition. The arborist supports the removal of two of the trees but is recommending that the live oak be transplanted elsewhere on the site and be retained. The arborist also noted that there are three trees in the back that should be removed but do not need to be removed as a result of this application (i.e., pine and cedar trees). The drawback of removing the trees is that they provide a healthy level of screening between this property and the adjoining property. A benefit, however, is if the trees are removed at this point, the city can require that they be replaced with minimum 24-inch or 36-inch box replacement trees whereas if the trees decline and die on their own in the next year(s), the city will not have the opportunity to require this type of replanting. 2) Another issue is a letter from the adjoining property owner directly to the east of the property, noting their concerns with the variance request and the window orientation of the upstairs window looking onto their property. Staff had an opportunity to look at the window orientation more closely at the site visit yesterday afternoon. It was noted that the two back windows are proposed to be obscured and that it was his belief that if the forward facing windows (i.e., bathroom window) are also obscured or made translucent via the use of cut glass and perhaps some combination of the lower panel of obscured glass in the bedroom window allowing clear glass above, the privacy impacts can be mitigated. He recommended approval of the project with these conditions. As the resolution is currently written, it does allow the removal of the trees on the back property line and their replacement with large, fast-growing evergreen trees. Commissioner Waltonsmith asked staff what requirements are put into place to make sure that the trees grow versus taking care of the existing trees? Director Walgren responded that trees are required to be properly installed and that irrigation be provided. By the time someone goes through the expense of buying trees, installing the trees and irrigation system, staff finds that the trees are being maintained. He said that there is no leverage two to three years down the road to require the trees to be maintained versus having the existing trees maintain themselves. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 9 - Commissioner Page said that Michael Bench recommended the transplant of tree #1 in the winter. He asked if it was too late to transplant the tree? Commissioner Kurasch stated that in order to transplant the tree in the winter, you would want to take advantage of a slower growing season, noting that there is greater stress in the summer or the hotter season. The requirement for water and keeping the tree alive will be much greater in the summer months. She said that she would defer this question to the arborist but that if it was recommended to transplant the tree in the winter, there has to be a good reason. She requested that staff address the findings for compatibility and to also address the privacy issue with the next door neighbors. Director Walgren said that staff made its findings relative to architectural compatibility based on the fact that a craftsman style design was used which utilized wood siding and that this architectural style/design is seen in the neighborhood homes. The home uses horizontal wood siding, colors and materials to match existing homes. The remainder of the findings has to do with protecting views. Staff did not find that the building unnecessarily or excessively obstructs views. With regard to the neighbor's concern that privacy is protected, the staff planner thought that the issue was resolved with the adjoining neighbor. He felt that the concern can be resolved with the use of cut glass and/or obscured glass to prevent the forward facing, habitable rooms from looking into the applicant's habitable rooms. Solar accessibility - the second story has been set back from the first floor so that you do not have a sheer vertical wall right at the setback line to obstruct the availability of sunlight. Protection of natural features - he noted that this is not a hillside parcel. The finding relates to the trees on site. If there were three healthy oak trees located in the building envelop, it would have been a more difficult proposal. In this case, there are two marginal trees and one young healthy coast live oak that appears can be retained in the landscape. Based on this analysis, staff felt that the findings can be made to approve the application. Chairwoman Bernald indicated that she received a speaker slip from Chuck Bommarito who wanted to speak on the Duncan project. It was her belief that the request to address the commission came in after it was announced that the application had been continued. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 8:35 p.m. Diane Jafari, applicant, informed the Commission that she purchased the parcel in August 1998 with the idea of building a new home on this parcel as her mother-in-law lives in the neighborhood. She said that she has been working closely with staff and followed their recommendation. She felt that the two story home is compatible with the neighborhood. She felt that the architect was careful to keep the mass in check. She said that the home was designed large enough for her family's need but that it was not overpowering. She stated that she would like to retain as many trees as possible. It was her understanding that the trees in the back were diseased and that this was a good time to take care of this. It was not that she was trying to get rid of the trees for any reason as she wants her privacy and that she wanted her neighbors to have their privacy. She noted that a few trees are being retained that were not mentioned. Regarding the small oak located in the building envelop, she said that she would do whatever is necessary. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 10 - Commissioner Waltonsmith requested that Ms. Jafari address the circular staircase and the skylight at the top and how the heat is to be mitigated? Ms. Jafari stated that there is a house up the street that has a spiral staircase and that she was impressed with it. She decided to incorporate a spiral staircase. She also saw another spiral staircase design used in another neighborhood, off of Saratoga-Los Gatos that had the same design on the outside. As far as the heating goes, her architect did not indicate that there was going to be any particular problems. She indicated that there will be skylights throughout the house. Commissioner Waltonsmith referred to trees #10 and #11 and noted that it was indicted that their health was rated a number 2. She did not believe that the trees were diseased but that they are not great specimen trees. She stated that she was not supportive of cutting down trees. Mrs. Jafari said that the arborist indicated that the two trees to the rear of the property are in bad shape and that one of the trees is falling over the fence, growing sideways. She stated that she would prefer not to cut down trees but that the only reason she is cutting down trees is because they are located within the footprint of the home. Director Walgren informed the Commission that page 12 of the staff report has a more descriptive narrative summary of trees #9, #10 and #11. He said that tree #9 is the only tree that the arborist outright states is hazardous and should be removed. The arborist states that trees #10 and #11 have structural problems but are not as critical to be removed as tree #9. He informed the Commission that Ken Schultz spoke with him earlier in the meeting and indicated that he had to leave. Mr. Schultz stated his support of the removal of the trees as long as they are replaced with reasonably sized, fast-growing evergreen trees. He informed the Commission that he is the property owner opposite these trees. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Commissioner Jackman stated that the Planning Commission conducted a site visit yesterday. She felt that the primary concern was bedroom number two that was looking over the adjacent neighbor. There was discussion regarding screening the view with trees and the use of opaque- type glass to mitigate the concern of views. With these improvements, she said that she would support the project. Commissioner Patrick stated that she was not opposed to the request. She noted that a large house is proposed and that it was amazing how large a house you can design on a small lot. She felt that it was a good time to remove the marginal trees and install good, healthy trees in their place. Commissioner Page stated his support of the request and that his support would be enhanced if the Commission included a condition that would require the applicant to work with staff on the appropriate configuration of the windows. He said that he was not sure if the use of a half opaqued or obscured glass would work. He stated that he would like to include the removal of PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 11 - the marginal and poor specimen trees located in the back and that they be replaced with fast growing native or evergreen trees. Commissioner Kurasch stated that she has some reservations regarding this project. She appreciated staff's perspective and that she also tried to put this application into perspective. She said that she understood the compatibility issue. However, the issue for her in terms of compatibility is the style, size, height, and bulk of the building. She said that she is having a difficult time in seeing the compatibility of this house on a narrow lot where it imposes on the neighbor's privacy. She said that at the site visit, a neighbor indicated that the home would be over looking their backyard. It was her perception that this would be quite an imposition. She indicated that she revisited the neighborhood yesterday and counted the number of two story homes not to count the number of two story homes in the neighborhood but to study the compatibility of the entire neighborhood. She said that she found six, two-story homes in a two to three block area. She found that a lot of the new homes were also one-story with the style of this home. She felt that the style of this home was nice and well delineated. However, she has a problem with the size and the height of a two-story home in a very narrow lot. She noted that the upper level floors only offers a 10-foot setback and that there is not much that can be done to escape this with such a narrow area. This is a part of the problem she was having in supporting the request. She felt that there may be other alternatives such as shifting the pad or modifying the design to lessen the problem of privacy. She offered the following modifications to the resolution of approval: Condition 3a to state: "The Arborist Report shall be incorporated, as a separate plan to the construction plan set, landscape plan set, and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans are to be applied." This modification is being made because the approval involves the transplanting of one of the oaks which is a good tree on the lot. This would address making the arborist report available to the landscape individuals and provide one more level of protection. She also recommended that condition 10 be modified to read: "...Replacement trees as recommended by the arborist shall be planted prior to a final inspection prior to release of bond." This modification will satisfy some questions relating to the maintenance of the trees after they are planted. She noted that it has been stated that tree #8, the Monterey Pine, is in fine condition. This tree may decline in health as so indicated by arborist. No one knows how long it will take before the bark beetle does further damage to the tree. She felt that it should be up to the applicant whether they want to remove this tree as it seems to be one of the better trees in the back area. Regarding tree #3 located next to the neighbor who is concerned with privacy is the one that bothers her. It was her belief that this is the tree that had pad roots cut by another construction process. This tree may have a problem with safety and root structure in the future. She said that she would not be opposed to moving this tree, noting that its removal is recommended by the arborist. Director Walgren clarified that tree #8 is proposed for removal. He stated that Commissioner Kurasch's recommended modifications can be incorporated into the resolution of approval. He provided a background of the subdivision and stated that this is an area that the city is seeing extensive redevelopment. There have been approximately 6-8 new homes approved within this area over the past four to five years. These have been two story homes because of the nature of the narrow parcels. In general, these two story homes have been well supported by area PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 12 - residents. He said that these concerns were raised with the applicant early own and that they managed to design the building a few inches over 21 feet which for a two story building is very low. He noted that the typical height for a two-story home is 26-30 feet tall, with a 26-foot height limit in Saratoga. Commissioner Waltonsmith stated that she liked the design of the home and that it appears that the applicant worked with planning staff to build a home within the confines of the narrow lot. She expressed concern with the trees on site that provides privacy. She was not urging the applicant to retain the trees if everyone is saying that new trees will do better. However, she stated that she personally did not like cutting down trees unless they have to be. She agreed that tree #3, the Monterey Cyprus, looks like it is most at risk. She stated that she would approve the design of the home and the request before the Commission. Chairwoman Bernald stated that she could approve the design request. She felt that the applicant did a wonderful job designing a house that will be a tremendous addition to the neighborhood. She recommended that the applicant work with staff regarding the windows. She felt that this was a good opportunity to have the tilting tree in the back and the tree that is diseased with the beetle replaced. She said that she has been in a neighborhood that had a beetle infestation move from one tree to another. She felt that it would be better to remove the trees and replace them with healthy trees to have a nice balanced looking back yard with a nice landscape look to it. Director Walgren offered the following condition should the Commission wish to have some of the trees removed: "Replacement of trees to be a minimum of 24" boxed, fast growing evergreen screening trees. These trees are to be incorporated into a landscape plan prior to submittal of plan check. The arborist report is to be attached. The construction as well as any drawings are to be attached. The release of the bond is to be tied to the final of the project, the installation of trees and the transplanting of the trees." He offered the following recommendation relating to the windows: "The applicant to work with staff regarding the windows to ensure privacy." COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/BERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR- 99-004, INCORPORATING THE MODIFICATIONS AS IDENTIFIED BY DIRECTOR WALGREN. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSENT. 5. F-98-005 & V-99-004 (503-75-020) - HENRY, 21801 Congress Springs Lane; Request for Fence permit approval to enclose more than 4,000 square feet of a rear yard. Variance approval is also requested to allow a 6 foot tall fence to be located within the front yard setback. The site is 3.3 acres and is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 4/28/99 IN ORDER TO BE RE-NOTICED TO INCLUDE VARIANCE REQUEST). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report and informed the Commission that findings can be made to approve the fence exception request based on the fact that the fence is not visible off site. However, it is visible from the private Congress Springs Lane but that it is not visible from the greater public views from any public roads or public vistas. Regarding the variance request, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 13 - staff did not find that there were special or extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property that does not apply to other properties in Saratoga. Therefore, staff was unable to make the findings to support the variance request. He recommended approval of the fence enclosure request and but did not recommend approval of the variance request. He recommended that the owners either set the fence 30 feet back from Congress Springs Lane or lower its height to no more than three feet. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing. Jim Henry, applicant, addressed the comment that the project commenced prior to filing an application. He said that he relied on bad advice of neighbors and friends of which he regrets and apologized to the Commission. At the time that the project was brought to the attention of the city by one of the neighbors on an adjacent parcel, he immediately stopped all work and indicated that no further work has taken place. He said that modifications were made to the fence line in order to respond to concerns of one neighbor on the adjacent parcel as well as to respond to the scenic easement on the top of the hillside property. Regarding the fence setback, he understands that there is a 35-foot front setback requirement from the street. He noted that the property is located on a private road with four residences on the street. He informed the Commission that his is the first home on the street and that this side of his lot is the first visible section of the hillside. He views his lot as a side yard and not the front yard of the property. He said that the front yard of his property is landscaped and that the side yard of the property has no other practical or aesthetic use that he can find after consultation with the landscape architect. The area in question is the toe of an old, inactive slide. He stated that he plans to install three tor four rows of grapes along the street side for aesthetic reasons so that the drive-up appeal is significantly enhanced, otherwise, the view would be the toe of a slide. A row of tall oleanders has been planted ten feet in front of the fence of a height that will cover and provide a nice landscaping of the fence which further decreases its visibility. The fence allows for some use, both aesthetically and erosion control of the property. He informed the Commission that he has discussed the plans with every adjacent neighbor, including the one that had the original comment on the property. He said that these neighbors are in support of the plans. He requested that the Commission consider the variance for the setback as well as approval staff's recommendation on the fence. Commissioner Waltonsmith asked Mr. Henry if he was going to install a vineyard or two to three rows of grapevines? She also asked how Mr. Henry would take care of the deer problem as deer can go over a six-foot fence? Mr. Henry clarified that the landscape plan calls for two distinct plantings of vines. As he did not have the landscape plans in front of him, he could not recite the number of rows or plants. However, he indicated that it is a substantial number of plants. It was his belief that four rows of grape vines would fit which would equate to 150 plants. Regarding the deer, he hoped that they would be slowed down by fence and the landscape planting in front of the fence. Commissioner Kurasch noted that in Mr. Henry's application, it was stated that a fence would protect the vineyard. She asked what is the fence suppose to protect? Mr. Henry responded that PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 14 - the request for fencing was to protect the vineyard primarily from deer. He did realize that deer can jump a six-foot fence but that he hopes that the fence would slow the deer down and allow the vines to take root and survive. He noted that the property suffers from an onslaught of wild life as he is the last outpost between this area and Santa Cruz. Therefore, the fence is important to protect the plantings, including the landscaping inside the fenced area. Commissioner Jackman noted that it is proposed to enclose 31,000 square feet of area. It was mentioned that there would be the installation of four rows of grapes. She asked why the rest of the area is being enclosed? Mr. Henry said that there is to additional plantings of vines, more than four rows, behind the house in the upper hillside lot which is also a part of the enclosed area. He noted that this is the larger enclosed fenced area and that the entire property is on a hillside. He said it has been advised not to plant to the left side of the home because it is the toe of a slide. He said that he is not enclosing the top area because the fence would be visible from Pierce Road and the neighbors behind him. Anthony Davis, 21770 Congress Hill Lane, adjacent neighbor who complained when the fence went up, stated that he did not object to the installation of a fence. However, he has two concerns: 1) He would like to ensure that the fence is located on Mr. Henry's property and not on his property; and 2) requested that a requirement be added that would stipulate planting of ivy along the fence to mitigate the view of the long expanse of fencing. Regarding the six-foot fence, he said that as long as oleanders are planted, there should be no problem. He also observed that there are other houses in the development that have five-six foot fences at the front of the properties. Mr. Henry stated that the revision to the plans includes the scenic easement located at the top of the property, substantially reducing the amount of enclosed area. He brought the fence down to within 35-50 feet of the upper property line. He felt that he would be far ahead of the request to make sure that the fence is within the property line as it is substantially within the property line as revised. This means that the existing fence line needs to be removed and brought into compliance with the easement. Regarding the second comment, he understood the request to plant ivy to screen the fence from an aesthetic stand point to have some planting of vines along the upper fence. He said that he would be willing to comply with this request. He indicated that he did not have a formal survey conducted of the property. He felt that there were enough obvious indicators of where the lot line is. He felt that the fence at the upper area and both sides are substantially within those boundaries. Regarding the side, a fence exists that marks the boundary of the neighbor's house to the left. On the other side, the lot drops off a sharp hillside and that there is no issue with the adjacent property owner located to the right of his property. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Commissioner Patrick stated that she detests big fences similar to this one and that she did not believe that big fences like this one are a good idea in general. She said that the Commission receives a lot of request for fencing of in hillside areas. However, she felt that the findings can be made in this case as the fence will not be visible from public streets or anyplace that she could PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 15 - locate. She stated that she was not willing to change the three-foot fence to a six-foot fence. She stated that she would support staff's recommendation. Commissioner Jackman stated that she would support staff's recommendation. She stated that she was still concerned with the amount of fencing proposed and with deer migration. Commissioner Page concurred with staff's recommendation. He said that the Commission has approved large expanses of fences and that they have been hidden by the topography, noting that this is not the case here. However, due to the private road and the fact that there are no other areas that would view the fence, he could approve the fence. He said that he would not support the six-foot fence height variance in the front setbacks. Commissioner Kurasch stated that she could not make the findings to support the request. She did not believe that this was an invisible fence as there is no topography or landscaping that is obscuring or buffering the fence. When you see the line of the fence, it stops at a certain point and will come down dividing the property and crossing in front of the hill that is seen. She felt that there will be a crisscross of fencing over the entire property, noting that this is a hillside residential zoning district. She felt that the standard is higher in this zoning district. The idea of protecting the vineyard is great and that she respects it. However, she noted that this is an area for migrating wildlife. She felt that fencing would only allow smaller animals to access the area. She felt that the area was being divided up more and more with fencing. She felt that the city needs its contiguous hillside areas, noting that a scenic easement exists on site. She did not agree with the statement that this is not a visible area from a public road. She said that she can see this lot every time she drives to Sandborn Park. When the fence is finished and the lot is subdivided, it will be a very jarring visual impact. Therefore, she stated that she could not support the application. Commissioner Waltonsmith stated that she was having trouble with this application. She concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioner Kurasch. She recommended that the fence be pulled back so that there is some form of pathway. She stated that she also lives on a hillside lot and that she also experiences a tremendous deer problem. She said that individuals have obtained variances to enclose huge amounts of land, pushing the herds of deer onto smaller and smaller areas, one being her parcel. She stated that she could not support the request as she does not like enclosing large pieces of land with fences. She felt that the fence would be seen. She said that she measured the fence and that it was greater than six feet, noting that deer go over six foot high fences. She would hate to approve the six-foot fence only for the applicant to find out that it did not address his concern of keeping the deer out of the vineyard. Therefore, she could not support the request. Chairwoman Bernald stated that she supports the installation of some fencing. She recommended that the three foot fence start 10-20 feet to the side of the house and than go straight up. Director Walgren noted that it would appear that there would be a 3-3 vote on this item, resulting PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 16 - in a failed motion. Scheduling this item for the next commission meeting would still result in having the same six commissioners in attendance, resulting in another 3-3 vote. He recommended that a modified, alternative motion be considered to approve the enclosure request per the form described by Chairwoman Bernald. Commissioner Jackman stated that she has had second thoughts on how she will be voting on this issue. It was her belief that enclosing the area would be objectionable and felt that it would be too large an area to enclose. Therefore, she would be voting against the applicant's request. Commissioner Kurasch stated that another reason that she is not supporting the application is due to the fact that the applicant is requesting to enclose an area that is eight times the exception and that the request is at odds with the General Plan open space for view and wildlife corridors. She felt that this was a unique area and that it is getting more and more divided up. She felt there was a legal aspect here called “investment backed expectations.” She felt that every homeowner who bought into the area had the expectation from the legal limits that they would also be limited in their fencing and their expectation of changing. If the Commission approves one application, it may be an unfair expectation for others and would financially penalize them. Therefore, she opposed the request. Director Walgren informed the Commission that a typical lot size for the area is a two-acre minimum but that this goes up quickly based on the average slope of the property. Therefore, the normal lot size is 2-5 acres. He said that the 3.3 acre is the minimum size for this parcel. Commissioner Jackman stated that she read the zoning text relating to hillside residential areas before tonight's meeting. She said that one of the primary goals of the initiative that was worked by quite a few people several years ago was to conserve the city's natural rural character by controlling density. She also assumed that the intent was to keep hillside areas in their natural state as much as possible. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/BERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. F-98- 005 AS MODIFIED BY CHAIRWOMAN BERNALD, ELIMINATING THE ENCLOSURE OF THE JOGGED OUT AREA (ENCLOSED AREA WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 20,000 SQUARE FEET INSTEAD OF 30,000 SQUARE FEET), INCLUDING THE PLANTING OF VINES ALONG THE FENCE TO HELP SOFTEN THE FENCE. THE MOTION CARRIED 4- 2 WITH COMMISSIONERS KURASCH AND WALTONSMITH VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/BERNALD MOVED TO DENY RESOLUTION NO. V-99-004. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSENT. 7. SD-99-005 (510-01-023) - RAMSDELL, 15081 Pepper Lane; Request for Tentative Map approval to create two lots of 36,919 sq. ft. and 25,813 sq. ft. The site is approximately 1.4 acres and is located within an R-1-20,000 zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 17 - Director Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that the proposed lot split, as presented, meets all general and specific plan criteria for this particular part of Saratoga and it also meets all minimum zoning ordinance standards. The existing residence is proposed to be retained at this time. He indicated that the structure is not listed on the city's Heritage Resource Inventory but noting the age of the structure, staff had it reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC). The HPC has reviewed the map and has endorsed and has not raised any objections to it. The review before the Commission is only the lot split. When the house plan is developed for the vacant parcel, if the application is approved, it would be subject to current zoning ordinance procedural requirements. If a two-story home is proposed, it will come before the Commission. In instances where it is a single story structure not more than 18 feet in height, it may be processed as an administrative design review application but that neighbors would still be notified. He recommended approval of the application with the conditions contained in the tentative map resolution. Commissioner Waltonsmith noted that a new fence exists on the property, noting that the tentative map indicates that the fence is to be relocated following demolition of the existing house. She noted that in staff's presentation, it has been indicated that there is no plan to relocate the fence. Director Walgren said that when the city arborist reviewed this proposal, it was assumed that it included demolition of the existing residence but that this is not the proposal. The suggestions in the Arborist's report responded to the project as though the existing home was to be demolished and that there would be heavy equipment used on the adjoining property. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 9:35 p.m. Greg Howell, 125 Glenridge Avenue, Los Gatos, informed the Commission that he was speaking on his behalf as well as his partner Tim McNeil. He said that he worked closely with staff to design a lot split that met all of the city's requirements. When he proposed the lot split, he spoke to staff regarding a two-story home versus a single story home. He was advised that if a single family home was designed, he would not have to go through the planning process again. There was some question as to whether this would happen or not. He said that he is far along with the design of the single story home and is close to being finished. If he has to come back before the Commission, he said that he may return with a two-story home. He said that the purpose for designing a single story home was to avoid returning to the Commission. Director Walgren stated that staff was not suggesting that the procedures be changed. He clarified that if an application is filed for a single story home under 18 feet in height and meets all of the zoning requirements, there is an administrative noticing process that would occur. The application would not come before the Commission as it would not be a full public hearing. However, it is a process that would take 10 days to two weeks to review at a staff level. Mr. Howell informed the Commission that the existing home is to remain. However, he is actively trying to sell it and that there are no plans to do any work to the home. A new PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 18 - homeowner may propose to demolish the home. Should he expand the home, he said that he would not propose to demolish it and that he would work with the existing structure. Maureen Lightbody, 15060 Park Drive, informed the Commission that her property is the second property from the Ramsdell property. She stated that she has lived in her home that was built in 1920s and that was of a similar design to that of the Ramsdell home for the past eleven years. She has been trying to restore the home as well as the property. She noted that a neighbor across the street lives in one of the original homes and that they too have been restoring the home. She said that Park Drive has a special character and that it is very rural. She felt that Park Drive has the special character that she likes to think of as Saratoga. She expressed concern that when Mrs. Ramsdell died, the property would be put up for sale. Within a short time of the sale of the Ramsdell property, the orchard next to her home was demolished. When the neighbors spoke to a gentleman on the Ramsdell property, they were told that a permit was obtained to remove the orchard trees and that the property had been subdivided. She noted that she received a public hearing notice that the property was to be subdivided. She said that a fence has been installed to divide the property. She informed the Commission that the neighbors are very disappointed with the actions taken by the new property owners. The neighbors are asking how did this happen. She stated that she would not like to see the demolition of the Ramsdell home or a new home built without public notification. She stated that she would want to see a home constructed that is in keeping with the neighborhood. She said that the neighbors want to be helpful and work as closely with the property owner. She requested that the Commission be aware and concerned with what is happening to the neighborhood. Director Walgren clarified that if any of the trees were larger than 10 inches in diameter, they would have required tree removal permits. He said that this is the first that he has heard that there was an orchard on site. He said that the site did contain a hollowed out native tree trunk that had evidence of decay and damage which could have had a tree removal permit issued. Don Lightbody, 15060 Park Drive, commented on the process that has occurred to date on getting this property to the point of subdivision. He expressed concern that the property owner is a developer and not a resident and that they are more interested in getting the property ready to resale at any speed and at any cost, jumping the gun on some issues such as the installation of a fence prior to attaining subdivision approval. He asked if a permit was secured to install the fence and whether a permit was issued? He felt that the installation of a fence was suspect and that he was concerned about the quality of the home that will be built. He said that comment by the applicant that he wants to start construction of a new home as quickly as possible concerns him. He was not sure that the process has been followed especially in considering the concerns of the neighbors. He wanted to make sure that the property is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and that it is of a style and flavor that currently exist. He expressed concern with the process in getting this application approved and done without anyone knowing about it. Sandy Baker, 15069 Park Drive, stated that a measure was approved a few years back in order to control the density in Saratoga. She informed the Commission that this is a beautiful entrance into old Saratoga. She said that she had no idea that the Mrs. Ramsdell home would be quickly subdivided and that the character of the neighborhood would change. She stated that she felt it PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 19 - offensive that anyone would subdivide the parcel especially to make money. She also found it offense and upsetting that someone would bull doze the orchard. She also took offense to the fact that her street will now become more dense. She stated her opposition to the lot split as it would upset the poetry of the land that is slowly going away. She did not see a need to change the existing 1 acre parcel as it has already been changed. Commissioner Patrick inquired as to the size of Mrs. Baker's lot? Mrs. Baker responded that her lot is an existing half acre that she improved upon. Commissioner Waltonsmith recommended that Mrs. Backer provide staff with the pictures depicting the orchard that was removed. Commissioner Jackman informed Mrs. Backer that when she addressed density, she was referring to the hillside preservation act of hillside residential which is quite different from the zoning of this neighborhood. However, she understood Mrs. Backer's concerns. Mr. Howell stated that this is an emotional piece of property and that this is why he was drawn to it. It does not surprise him that there are neighbors that object to this request and stated that he understands and sympathizes with the neighbors' concerns. He said that he would like to work with the neighbors and address their concerns as he has a good reputation for working with neighbors. He said that he secured permits for everything done to the site. A licensed arborist recognized by the City of Saratoga was used to do all of the work. The fence was installed because he was going to sell the house conditioned upon the lot split being approved. The fence was not installed to rush this application through, but that it was designed to show people the proposed property line, subject to a lot split being approved this evening. He took the risk that if this application was not approved, he would tear down the fence at his cost. He assured the Commission that the Ramsdell home would not be torn down if he retains the lot as it is a beautiful old home, one that should be preserved. He said that he has asked his architect to coordinate the proposed new home with the existing old home as far as roof lines and designing a single story home. Regarding the growth on the property, he said that both neighbors immediately adjoining the property asked him if he would remove more of the growth. He did so at their request. Commissioner Kurasch asked if Mr. Howell gave any consideration to restoring the 1926 home? She also asked if it was Mr. Howell's intention to live in the proposed new home or was it his intent to sell the lot? Mr. Howell responded that it was his intent to sell the lot but as a builder, you never know when you may be moving into one of your projects. He said that he intends to sell the existing home. He is working with a builder who has the intention of working with the existing home, noting that an agreement has not been formalized. Commissioner Waltonsmith asked if the fence was built to code? Mr. Howell responded that he did everything within the rules that Saratoga placed upon him. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 20 - Director Walgren in formed the Commission that the fence was not installed when the city initially received the application. However, the fence had been installed when the Commission conducted its site visit on Tuesday. He said that the fence meets the zoning ordinance requirements in terms of height and that it was designed not to exceed three feet in the front setback. The fence does not require a building permit, noting that the fence was built at the property owner's risk because the subdivision is an application that needs to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission before it becomes official. On the other hand, if the application is denied, there is nothing in the zoning ordinance that states that a fence could not be installed through the middle of the property. Therefore, the fence is not in violation of any codes. He noted that the action before the Commission is the subdivision and not the fence. COMMISSIONERS JACKMAN/KURASCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Commissioner Page stated that there had been some discussion regarding Measure G related to this property. He said that he was not here when Measure G passed. It was his understanding that Measure G does not apply to this application because the code for the ordinance around this property is R1-20,000. Director Walgren stated that Measure G was a hillside preservation initiative that was passed in the mid to late 1980s, prior to the city having a specific zoning ordinance for the hillside districts and that the initiative was a reaction to subdivisions like the Parker Ranch subdivision. The action resulted in the Hillside Specific Plan and the Hillside Residential Zoning Ordinance. It has specific criteria such as limiting fencing to no more than 4,000 square feet and limiting grading to no more than a certain number of cubic yards. He said that these regulations only apply to hillside residential districts. He stated that he was hoping that the applicant would respond to the question relating to the removal of the trees. He said that the applicant's statement was that he just removed brush from the property. He recommended that the applicant be asked what trees were removed when they cleared the property. BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSION AGREED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. Chairwoman Bernald reopened the public hearing at 9:56 p.m. Mr. Howell informed the Commission that the arborist report was made before the trees were removed and that the trees would be listed in the city's arborist report. He said that the orchard trees were removed on a Saturday and the police showed up. He indicated that the police checked the permits and allowed him to continue. He further indicated that an arborist was used that is listed on the city's arborist list and that he would not take down any trees that would jeopardize his future with the City of Saratoga, nor would he. Director Walgren clarified that the city arborist's report shows the native trees that are currently retained on site and not the ones that have been removed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 21 - ON A MOTION BY COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/WALTONSMITH, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Waltonsmith expressed concern with the trees and their severe pruning. She wanted to know what happened to the trees that were removed. She stated that she was pleased to see that the home on parcel A is to be saved at this time and that she hoped that it would be restored. She felt that the lot split is acceptable and that she hoped that the remaining trees are carefully considered in terms of the home design. Therefore, she would support the request. Commissioner Kurasch stated that she did not know the history of the lot until tonight's presentation. She looked at this as an allowable subdivision, not really knowing anything else. She said that she could see that this is a very beautiful estate, one that had an orchard and a grace of the past which she still sees. She hoped that there is sincere effort to either restore, save, move the home, or some way acknowledge that the house has a value to the community. Having the fence installed, disappoints her. However, she could understand that the fence could provide clarity and has some logic as far as the placement of the lot line. With the loss of trees, she recommended that some conditions be worded strongly in terms of tree protection. She recommended the following modification to the recommended conditions of approval: Condition 5 to read: "Prior to Final Map approval and driveway demolition, tree protection measures are to be in place prior to any construction or grading permit issued..." Condition 7 amended to include language that would show the proposed location of the underground utilities and that they are to be reviewed/approved by the city arborist. Condition 14 to include landscape plans for any new home design to be reviewed by the city arborist and that all applicable recommendations relating to tree protection are to be incorporated. She noted that the site contains 36 ordinance size protected trees, many of them in exceptional health. She would like to note that protection does not end when the demolition ends or when the house is constructed. Therefore, she stated that she would like to have the city arborist review the landscape plans and have his recommendations of appropriate measures around the trees be incorporated. She did not believe that it would be of use to save the trees if they are going to die from irrigation, inappropriate planting or implementation. Director Walgren informed the Commission that the arborist would review the underground utilities when the house plans are submitted. He informed the Commission that the city's requirements would be that when a new house application submitted, the improvement plans as well as utility locations would have to be reviewed by the City arborist a second time. He said that Commissioner Kurasch's recommended modifications can be reemphasized in the resolution. Commissioner Kurasch clarified that she is requesting that at the final map or the subdivision level that her recommended items are included as conditions and that the protection measures would run with the approval granted this evening. Commissioner Page said that the zoning of the lot is such that the subdivision is acceptable to the City of Saratoga and the ordinances that the city has to live by. Therefore, he said that he could support the application. He strongly encouraged Mr. Howell and Mr. McNeil to work with the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 22 - neighbors and that the applicants not hold a threat of a two-story home over anyone. He said that the processes are in place because it was found that over time, they work. He recommended that they keep this neighborhood beautiful. Commissioner Patrick concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioner Page. Commissioner Jackman stated that she felt sorry for the neighbors. She said that she would like to see all the orchards stay in Saratoga. However, this parcel is zoned an R1-20,000. She felt that it should be expected that when an elderly person dies and leaves a very large lot that it will probably be subdivided. She would support proceeding with the division of the lot per the recommended conditions contained in the resolution, eliminating the driveway that goes out to the park and Pepper Lane. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioner Page. She said that she would like to see that every measure is taken to protect the Ramsdell home as it currently exists and that the home that is to be built is compatible with the 1920s period architecture. She felt that it was important that the neighborhood is changed as little as possible. She said that she would hate to see the Ramsdell home demolished for the sake of putting in a much larger, newer home. Director Walgren stated that Chairwoman Bernald's comments can be emphasized as a condition of the tentative map resolution that the architecture needs to be compatible with the 1920 homes, including a strong recommendation of maintaining the character of the Ramsdell home. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/KURASCH MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. SD-99- 005 INCORPORATING COMMISSIONER KURASCH'S MODIFIED CONDITIONS, INCLUDING A CONDITION OF COMPATIBILITY AND CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING HOME AS EXPRESSED BY CHAIRWOMAN BERNALD. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSENT. 8. SD-98-008 & DR-98-052 (397-13-057) - NAGPAL, 19101 Via Tesoro Court; Request for Tentative Subdivision Map approval to create two parcels from one existing 2.46 acre parcel. The site is located in an R-1-40,000 zoning district. The existing residence, which is on the Heritage Resources Inventory, is proposed to remain. Applicant also requests Design Review approval for a single-family, two-story, 5,301 sq. ft. residence, with a maximum building height of 25 ft., 10 in. on the proposed 48,921 sq. ft. parcel. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report and stated that this application is more detailed than the planning commission would normally receive on a tentative parcel. He informed the Commission that staff recommended and encouraged the applicant to develop house plans to give the Planning Commission additional information to work with as this is an unusual and slightly difficult map request. He said that the tentative map, although the lot is irregular in configuration, does meet all general and specific plan criteria for this general plan designated area. It also meets all minimum zoning ordinance requirements and complies with the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 23 - requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. What makes this application unusual is the fact that it has a very significant, historic adobe brick building presiding in the middle of the property and is listed in the city's historic registry. As a result of the significance of the property, the property owners have designed the subdivision to go around the existing home, allowing the lot split to occur and retain the historic home. This results in an unusual lot configuration. He informed the Commission that it first heard this proposal in 1995 and included a variance request. The Commission had a problem supporting the tentative map as a result of the variance and the configuration of the map at that time. The previous application resulted in an S-shape property line, putting the proposed new residence in the rear yard lawn area of the existing historic adobe building. The Planning Commission, at that time, had a difficult time visualizing a second home in the rear yard of the existing residence. The applicant has since reworked the map to move the proposed home outside the rear yard area up above the embankment where the existing driveway loops through the property. Director Walgren informed the Commission that following the advertising of this application, the adjoining property owners expressed concern with the proximity of the residence to their property as well as the fact that a vehicular driveway is proposed and are concern with head lamp glare with cars pulling in and backing out of the driveway. He said that the adjacent residents have submitted a letter that has been distributed to the Planning Commission. It was his belief that the author of the letter, Mr. Ratner, was present this evening who is prepared to read his points into the record. He noted that there are physical constraints associated with the lot. There may be an opportunity to take the garage element and shift it to the other side of the residence to address concerns. This would result in a significant redesign of the home but that this would be a potential alternative. He wanted to make it clear that shifting the home in its entirety to the north results in the same application reviewed previously and denied by the Planning Commission. He informed the Commission that there was one other issue that it needed to be made aware of. There is an old pedestrian equestrian easement that wraps around the property on its frontage that was recorded as part of the overall subdivision. He said that either the pathway was never improved or that over the years, residences have encroached their yard improvements into the pathway. He said that the pathway does not exist in this development. He said that the Parks and Recreation Commission has reviewed this proposal and stated that they would like to see the pathway improved to an eight-foot pedestrian corridor which would require the construction of a very tall retaining wall in some areas. This would violate the city's retaining wall height limit and would require the removal of four or five healthy native oak trees. A compromise suggestion is to install a pedestrian pathway to the extent feasible without having to remove any of the ordinance protected oak trees or to do any significant grading or retaining wall construction. He said that this is the way the condition is drafted in the resolution. Chairwoman Bernald asked if there was an issue with moving the garage or any of the oak trees on site? Director Walgren stated that it was noted at the site visit yesterday that the building wraps around the valley, evergreen oak and that it does encroach somewhat into the tree's dripline, resulting in an impact to the tree. He stated that the arborist has noted that if the building can be built entirely on pier and grade, these impacts would be mitigated. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 24 - Commissioner Kurasch stated that she did not see on the first page analysis the height limit allowed. Director Walgren indicated that the height limit allowed is 26 feet and that the home is proposed just a few inches under 26 feet. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 10:15 p.m. Virginia Fanelli, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. She said that serious consideration was given to the issues which the planning commission and the neighbors raised in 1959. The issues were preservation of the existing historic home, maintenance of the open atmosphere around the home, preservation of the trees and landscaping, and a new home design of the style and the size compatible with the existing neighborhood. She said that it has always been the intention if the Nagpals to retain the existing home, if possible, as they too appreciate its history and its style. In response to the 1995 issues, she said that the first step was to create a lot which contained the existing house and which was in conformity with all city's codes. This application eliminates the need for any variances now or in the future when it is necessary to repair the historic structure. The second issue was to preserve the atmosphere surrounding the home and to have the largest setback possible between the existing home and any home proposed. For this reason, the new lot is proposed to face onto Via Tesoro which allows for a 50-foot rear yard setback plus the 20 feet side yard of the existing home. This leaves 70 feet in between the two homes/structures in which no other residential structure can be built in the future. This not only preserves most of the lawn area but also preserves the pool area and a portion of the existing trellis. The proposed lot configuration also makes it possible to build a new home without removing any of the existing vegetation or mature trees. She said that all of the trees along Chester Avenue will be saved and all of the vegetation and trees along the driveway will be preserved. Most important, the heavy vegetation located on the rise will remain in order to give the ambiance to the existing home. Lastly, the new home needed to be of a size and design to complement the existing home and the surrounding neighborhood. She said that in June 1998, when very preliminary plans had been put together, the neighbors were invited to join her and the Nagpals to review the proposals and to provide input. It was the Nagpals desire to address all the neighbors' concerns prior to making any final plans or to submit an application. She met with the neighbors who responded to the letter. As a result, several significant changes were made to the plans. When the plans were completed, a home was placed and situated on the lot to save all of the trees and to eliminate any need for grading, using the existing mature landscaping to screen both the existing home and the neighbors' homes from the proposed new home. She felt that the style of the home compliments the existing home and those of the neighborhood in size and design. The same material, colors, and roof tile will be used in the new home. As far as size and massing goes, this is a 5,300 square foot home, including 421 square feet enclosed patio and approximately 560 square feet of garage. Approximately 75% of the home is one story. The use of the hexagonal design has given great articulation to the architecture. With the use of varied roof lines and the architectural articulations, it eliminates any massive look of the building. Mrs. Fanelli stated that following the revisions based on the neighborhood input, the application was submitted in October 1998. Since then, the plans have been reviewed by numerous PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 25 - individuals, agency and staff, including the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). The HPC voted unanimously in favor of the plans. She informed the Commission that recently, Mr. and Mrs. Nagpal again sent a letter to the neighbors inviting them to join in the review of the plans. There were no objections to any of the plans or the subdivision from any of the neighbors who agreed to meet with the applicants. The only objection received thus far has been from Mr. and Mrs. Ratner who reside next door. Contrary to the statement in their letter, they too were sent letters both in June and in April. Unfortunately, they did not respond to either of the letters. She said that the Ratners’ greatest issue seems to be their privacy. She said that Mr. and Mrs. Nagpal took into consideration the placement of the home. It was important to them to make sure that the home did not impact the Ratners more than it needed to. The great constraint was all of the other elements of the site that needed to be recognized. She felt that the best thing that can be done to recognize the problem that the Ratners might face is to design a home that would have the least impact to them. There are no windows on the side of the home on the first level except for the nook which is located 105 feet away from the Ratners’ home. She indicated that the windows are used to provide light. The only other windows located on this side of the home are the windows located in the master bedroom, noting that most of the windows, except for the upper portion, are blocked from the Ratners by the roof pitch. The Ratners' second story that faces this lot have only one small window in the upstairs. She noted that between the two homes, there is mature landscaping which completely blocks the first floor view. Mr. and Mrs. Nagpal have stated that they are willing to work with the Ratners to ensure that sufficient landscaping is installed and maintained along the driveway. The other issues that the Ratners raise if the driveway and its use. She said that the driveway is currently being used by the existing home. As a condition of approval, the driveway will be terminated and will only be used for the new home. Therefore, no more than one home will be using the driveway. In their letter, the Ratners states that they have built a stately home and that they do not want the value diminished by this application. She agreed that the Ratners have a stately home which stretches 20 foot setback on one side to 20 feet on the other side. At 7,897 square feet, she said that it was the largest home in the neighborhood where the average size home is 5,600 square feet. She felt that the intensity used by the Ratners is greater by far than what is proposed by the Nagpals. Harry Ratner, 19103 Via Tesoro Court, admitted to receiving a letter in June 1998 and losing it. He said that he called the planning department on a monthly basis to find out what was going on and that no one seemed to know anything. He said that he does not have a problem with the lot split but that he has a problem with a residence being sited 20 feet away from his home. The house faces his living quarters where he spends a substantial amount time. He said that his bedroom and his grandchild's bedroom, the swimming area and the lounging area in the backyard will have the privacy impacted. He noted that this is a 2.5 acre parcel. He asked why the home has to be placed right next to his home. He noted that there is no parking on Via Tesoro in the front of the home and that parking of cars would impact his privacy. He wanted the Nagpals to know that he would prefer that they move the home away from him and that the parking be reconfigured. He said that he would appeal the application if it is approved as submitted. Mark Fredkin, 99 Almaden Boulevard, San Jose, representing Mr. Ratner, stated that he was aware of the tradeoffs and conflicts associated with the review of land use applications having sat PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 26 - as a Planning Commissioner in a neighboring community. He said that the design review findings that the Commission has to make relates to the issue of height, elevation and the placement of the property so that it does not adversely impact the adjacent home. He did not believe that the Commission can make these finding in the present context. He said that he contacted Mrs. Fanelli in order to try and meet to discuss this application. He said that with the various schedule, they could not meet. He said that he intends to meet with Mrs. Fanelli, if given the opportunity. He said that a tradeoff has been created in order to provide value to the Nagpals, noting that a design was created that impacts the Ratners. If you look at the driveway configuration and you look at the front of the home, the front of the house faces the Ratners, where people will walk into the house. He noted that the front door is on the 20-foot setback, impacting the Ratners. He said that no one is suggestion that a lot split should not occur. What is being suggested is that this lot split be done in a way that would allow economic benefits to the individuals looking to split the lot that there be equal consideration to the economic impact or consideration to the Ratners whose property is going to be impacted. He requested a continuance of the design review application so that he can work closely with the Nagpals, Mrs. Fanelli and their architect to work on something that may be mutually acceptable that would address alternatives to the location of the garage and siting the home away from the bedroom wing of the Ratners' residence. Mrs. Fanelli stated that she too was sorry that the Ratners did not respond in June as it would have saved a lot of time and effort in design. She said that the Nagpals intend to live in the new home as it will be a home designed to meet their family needs and so that their older parents can live down stairs in a separate bedroom area. This home is not being proposed to create value for a sale. She noted that the actual entrance to the house is 43 feet from the Ratners. She realizes that the driveway is located along the Ratners’ sideyard, 20 feet from their house. However, it is not any different from the driveway currently being used by the Nagpals. She noted that most of the homes on the street are setback 20 feet from the side yard. Had the Ratners come to them earlier, it would have been easier to design the house. To move the garage now would result in the total redesign of the house, which would be expensive and time consuming. To move it further to the north is possible but would diminish what is trying to be done, leaving the ambiance and the landscaping to protect the existing home. Commissioner Kurasch asked if any thought was given to reconfiguring the driveway? Mrs. Fanelli responded that this is the third house design that has been prepared since June 1998 and since meeting with some of the neighbors. She said that redesign would be possible, however, she felt that there were trade-offs, noting that the footprint of the house will be kept small. It is not a home with a large number of rooms and therefore would not be occupied by a large number of individuals. She felt that it was a tastefully designed home. If the Commission directs the redesign of the home, a redesign will be submitted. However, it was her belief that the home meets all the criteria of the design review and the subdivision ordinance. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Commissioner Patrick stated that she would not support the application. She said that the city PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 27 - does not require a meet and confer between neighbors and the applicants. Therefore, this is an issue for her. She said that she would not support the lot split because the lot split could end up requiring a certain design which she did not believe would be a good idea. She agreed that the driveway needs to be modified. She felt that moving the new house as far as possible from the historic house to maximize its value would be of a benefit to the property owner. However, this cannot be done at the expense of the neighbors. She felt that the Ratners deserve a less intrusive alternative design. She felt that a study session would be appropriate in order to review different alternatives to what she knows is a difficult site. Commissioner Page agreed that the driveway is an impact. He felt that the position of the home is probably caused by the split of the lot and that the home/driveway impact the Ratners' privacy. He did not believe that the size of the Ratners' home is an issue and that it should not be discussed. In looking at the lot, he did not know how it could be split and not site a home where the home is proposed. He felt that additional work was needed. He supported a study session with the applicant coming back with a design that everyone can agree upon to ease the impact on the privacy issue. Commissioner Kurasch agreed with the comments expressed by Commissioners Patrick and Page as they address her main concerns (i.e., the driveway). She felt that moving the entrance of the home may mitigate the Ratners’ concern. As designed and sited, the project would not work because of the impacts that it will impose on the Ratners. Commissioner Waltonsmith stated that she could not support the design of the house as presented. She wanted to make sure that this comes to a timely end for the applicant. She said that she understands that it is disturbing to have to go back to the drawing board. She said that she did not like the front of the house facing the side yard of another home. She agreed that the driveway has been in the area a long time but swinging it around and having more cement to accommodate a three-car garage would impact the tree. She stated that she was concerned about the tree being impacted with a cement pad. She wanted to make sure that when the design returns to the Commission that there is some way for the applicants to get some sense that the Commission is agreeing to the design. Regarding the pedestrian path and the horse path, she stated that she was very concerned with its downsizing. She would like to make sure that the horse path remains. She said that it was sad that Saratoga has few hiking paths and therefore, she did not want to lose these paths. She said that the home was nicely designed but that it was positioned oddly. Therefore, she could not support it. Commissioner Jackman supported going to a study session. She stated that she liked the design of the house. She understood that Mrs. Fanelli has given the Commission reasons why the home cannot be moved. She wondered if the architects and the individuals involved could study other alternatives (i.e., moving the home toward Chester Avenue) to see if they would lessen the impacts to the Ratners without destroying the environment. Chairwoman Bernald felt that there was a problem with moving the home toward Chester Avenue because there is quite a slope that drops from this point and begins to interfere with the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 28 - yard. She stated that she agreed with everything that has been said. She said that the Commission needs to go a step further. She felt that the Commission needs to take a futuristic look at this application and say that the Nagpals bought the one home. She noted that the existing house did not meet the needs of the Nagpals and that they are now building another home. She said that there may be changes requested in the future if this house does not meet their needs and that the city would be left with two homes, one that should be protected forever because it is an extraordinary special jewel in Saratoga's crown. Secondly, the home that is being requested at this time is a slap in the face to the existing neighborhood. Therefore, she could not support the application. She said that she understood that the applicant has been through a lot and that she appreciates this fact. However, she could not make the findings that would allow putting this size house oriented toward the Ratners' home when all the other homes are oriented toward the street. There is a problem with the garage/driveway being so close to an existing neighborhood home. Also, there was language in place in 1959 that states that the city should preserve the atmosphere and openness around existing homes. She did not believe that this subdivision would protect this language. She said that she would not be supporting either the subdivision or the design review applications. She clarified that the way the house is sited, it makes the house run the length of the Ratners' property. She does not see how the house could be moved farther down on the lot because there is a tremendous drop off. This would then begin to infringe upon the back yard of the historic home. It also cuts into the trellis which provides a tremendous atmospheric ambiance. For these reasons, she was having trouble with the whole plan as presented this evening. Director Walgren stated that should the application be continued, he suggested a study session between the applicants and the neighbors. He felt that the Planning Commission has given clear direction as to what they would want to see in terms of improvement to the project. He felt that the applicants can work with the neighbors to make plan revisions, not to debate whether the plan revisions are necessary or not. These plan revisions can be brought back to the Commission at a later hearing, concluding the matter in that way. He clarified that it was the direction of the Commission to move the home to the north, protecting the rear yard of the existing historic home and to protect the oak tree (i.e., redesigning the entire home and taking the garage and flipping it to another side, orienting the front of the home toward the cul de sac). Commissioner Patrick clarified that she was not supporting either application. She said that she would not vote for the lot split because she felt that design was inappropriate and that she is not inclined to give site approval at this time. She said that she would not oppose a continuance if so requested. Commissioner Page felt that the applicants have been through a long process. However, if they are willing to extend the process a little longer in order to return with something that the Commission and the neighborhood would feel more compatible with, he would agree to a continuance. Commissioner Bernald stated that she was ready to go another step as this site has been reviewed several times. She would like to vote to deny the applications with prejudice. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 29 - Director Walgren clarified that denial with prejudice would mean that a similar application could not be resubmitted for a period of one year versus turning around and resubmitting a revised application the next month. He noted that a negative vote on a tentative subdivision map needs to reference the specific findings that the commission has. He identified the following findings that can be made to deny the tentative map: 1) the site is not physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and 2) the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO DENY WITH PREJUDICE APPLICATION NO. SD-98-008 BECAUSE THE APPLICATION DOES NOT MEET THE BURDEN OF PROOF FOR THE FINDINGS SUCH AS: THE PROPOSAL OF HIGH ELEVATION AND PLACEMENT ON THE SITE WHEN CONSIDERED IN REFERENCE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE COMMUNITY VIEW SHEDS WILL ADVERSELY IMPACT THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES; THE NATURAL LANDSCAPE WILL NOT BE PRESERVED IN SO FAR AS BEING PRACTICAL; AND THE APPLICATION WILL NOT BE INTEGRATED INTO THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND WOULD NOT BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-1 WITH COMMISSIONER JACKMAN VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO DENY WITH PREJUDICE APPLICATION DR-98-052 BASED ON THE FINDINGS IDENTIFIED IN THE ABOVE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSENT. 9. DR-99-009 (397-24-010) - PINN BROTHERS, 20040 Spaich Court (lot #5 of the Hayfield Estates subdivision); Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,670 sq. ft., two-story residence. The site is 60,157 sq. ft. and is located within an R-1- 20,000 zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner Kurasch stepped down from discussion of this item. Director Walgren presented the staff report. He said that the project meets all subdivision restrictions and conditions of approval as well zoning ordinance requirements for this particular district. The architecture of the home was pre-approved at the subdivision level. Architectural exhibits were submitted as part of the vested tentative subdivision map which dictated the homes of a mix of craftsman or prairie style architecture using earth tone colors, materials, siding, brick and stone detailing. He said that the plans are consistent with what the planning commission reviewed at the tentative map stage. He recommended approval of the application with the conditions contained in the resolution. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing. Chuck Bommarito, representing Pinn Brothers, stated that he has reviewed the staff report and concurred with the staff report. He said that there was an issue in Barry Coate's report regarding PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 30 - tree damage down in the creek area. He said that since the report was distributed, he met with Mr. Coate and reviewed the installation of the storm system. He said that Mr. Coate came to the site after receiving the report and approved the installation. He clarified that there was no damage to the tree nor was a fine imposed. He furnished the Commission with a colored rendering. Commissioner Waltonsmith asked if the rendering depicted the picture of the home? Mr. Bommarito said that the colored rendering depicts the home and that the colors were in close proximity to the colors of the home. He provided the Commission with a color board. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Commissioner Jackman stated that the design of the house was compatible with that of the neighborhood. She said that she was not clear which trees are to be protected. Director Walgren stated that the trees on the property are primarily located at the base of the property, adjacent to the creek. These trees would be protected with permanent chain link fencing. He said that there is one tree off to the side of the property which is outside of the building footprint and that it would also be protected with chain link fencing during construction. Commissioner Jackman felt that there was a lot of work with the planning of the whole neighborhood. She felt that the project meets all city regulations. Therefore, she would approve the application. Commissioner Patrick stated her concurrence with Commission Jackman's comments. Commissioner Page stated that he liked the prairie design and that he would support the project. Commissioner Waltonsmith stated that she liked the design of the home as it appears that a lot of work went into it. She expressed concern with the surveyed trees. She noted that a cyclone fence is in place but that page 0000011 of the staff report states that the canopy spreads far out over the cyclone fencing. This would mean that the roots extend beyond the cyclone fencing. She wanted to make sure that there is something in the record about extra protection of the trees located in the stream system. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioner Waltonsmith. She said that she wanted to see all the trees in the area protected. She hopes that as this is ongoing extensive project that the arborist will visit the site frequently and take note of anything that is amiss. She said that she has no problem with the design review as she felt that this would be another beautiful home, very compatible with the soon to be neighborhood. She stated that she would vote in support of the application. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-99-000. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0-1 WITH COMMISSIONER KURASCH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 31 - ABSTAINING AND COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSENT. Commissioner Kurasch resumed her seat on the dais. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS 10. AR-99-008 (503-31-080) - KAABIPOUR, 13970 Albar Court; An appeal of the Community Development Director’s decision to approve an administrative level design review application to add 198 sq. ft. to the first floor and 927 sq. ft. to the second floor of an existing 4,858 sq. ft., two-story residence. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren informed the Commission that this is an administrative application that staff reviewed. He said that administrative notices were sent out to all of the adjoining property owners and that the adjoining property owners had ten days to review/comment. He said that there is an appeal process that can be appealed to the Planning Commission but that it cannot be further appealed to the City Council. He said that the staff planner reviewed the project and found that it met all of the zoning ordinance criteria. It has been noted by the neighbors who appealed the project that there are significant privacy impacts in that the house looks directly down onto their property and their rear yard area. The staff planner agreed with the applicant that this is a privacy problem that currently exists and that a benefit of approving this project could result in mitigation measures being taken to correct the privacy problem such as the planting of evergreen screening of large growing shrubs or trees. With this included as a condition of administrative approval, staff approved the project and the neighbors are appealing the approval to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kurasch requested that staff clarify the drainage problem and whether staff believes that this project will have an impact. Director Walgren did not believe that the drainage problem will not have an impact. He informed the Commission that there have been severe geotechnical problems in this area, noting that there was a major road failure that the city was responsible for repairing as it was a publicly accepted roadway. These improvements were to the up slope properties, partly being this property. It was his belief that the immediate area/landslide problem has been corrected. In response to Commissioner Jackman's question, Director Walgren said that he did not believe that the proposed addition would increase the geotechnical problems. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 11:02 p.m. Atul Sheth, 13946 Damon, appellant, stated that he was pleased to see that the Commission was sensitive to privacy issues. He said that he is the father of two teenage girls. He provided the Commission with photographs that depict his concerns. He said that this home is at a higher level than his home and that the second floor of his home is the first floor of his building. He said that a photograph shows the adjacent home's chimney from his bedroom window. He said that there will be 18 windows looking into his bedroom, causing a privacy problem. He said that he PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 32 - has no objection of his neighbor building a house but that he did not want the home to be built at the cost of his privacy. He said that approximately six months to a year ago, someone focused a laser beam through the window at his teenage daughter. If the Commission allows this project to be built and he cannot maintain his privacy, he asked what good is a million-dollar home to him. He requested that the Commission take into consideration his concerns. When he first looked at this application, he was informed by staff that the application would be approved regardless of his objection. He was told his course of action would be to appeal the administrative approval. Mrs. Sheth, 13946 Damon, stated that she made a phone call to the neighbor who acknowledged that a laser beam was being focused on her daughter and that the action stopped. Commissioner Page asked Mr. Sheth if he felt that the trees would be appropriate screening to give back the privacy that is not afforded today? Mr. Sheth responded that a solution would be to eliminate the windows facing his bedroom. He felt that the installation of trees would help but that they would not be sufficient to address his privacy concern. If there are no windows facing his home, he would not have an objection to a two-story home as long as his privacy is maintained. Chairwoman Bernald noted that there are windows already facing his home. She asked what Mr. Sheth would propose for the existing window? Mr. Sheth clarified that the windows are not in place at this time. Abe Kaabipour, property owner, informed the Commission that when he was notified by the Sheths about the laser beam, he immediately took it away from his 12 year-old son. He indicated that at the site visit yesterday and through photographs, he showed the Commission that the Sheths have 20 windows looking down into an adjacent neighbor’s house and that the neighbor installed trees to address the privacy issue. He said that the Sheths’ privacy is just as important as his privacy is to him. He said that he is not interested in looking into the Sheths’ house. He said that he would be willing to install any kind of trees to address their privacy concerns. He informed the Commission that he tried to communicate with Mr. Sheth but that the phone calls were not responded to. Mr. Sheth stated that he moved into his home two years ago and purchased an existing two story home. Also, the trees had been planted by his adjacent neighbor prior to his moving into his home. When the public notice came to him that Dr. Kaabipour was building a home, he had a heart attack and was hospitalized. He said that none of the messages left were forwarded to him during his illness. When Dr. Kaabipour contacted his wife, she advised him of his heart attack and that they could not respond at that time. Dr. Kaabipour informed his wife that the house was going to be built with or without their permission and that it appeared as a threat. His wife informed Dr. Kaabipour that they would be happy to work with them. She also advised Dr. Kaabipour that she had no objection to a second story addition as long as did not impact her family’s privacy. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 33 - Commissioner Kurasch felt that this was a neighbor problem based on the height of the home and the nature of how the homes are situated. However, with the small addition she was not sure how many windows could be changed or how practical it would be. The idea of adding landscaping was a good suggestion. She recommended that the two parties get together so that they can come up with an agreeable plan or to come up with something that would be amenable to both parties. As the house already exists, she did not see the impact as being greater. Commissioner Waltonsmith stated that she would support the project. However, she was concerned with Dr. Sheth's privacy for his young teenage daughters. She recommended that both parties start thinking about landscaping that would provide some privacy. She said that she could not vote against someone's addition when the addition fits within the design of the existing house. Commissioner Jackman stated that she could understand Dr. Sheth's privacy point of view. She said that she was surprised that Dr. Sheth had not already installed some of the landscaping to ensure more privacy. She recommended that stakes be used to identify how high a tree would need to be to ensure privacy for both parties, using evergreen trees that would ensure privacy all year round. She said that she would vote to deny the appeal. Commissioner Patrick stated that she appreciated Dr. Sheth's concern for privacy. However, in reviewing the pictures submitted, she said that she could not see through the windows from Dr. Sheth's house to Dr. Kaabipour's home and vice-versa. She did not see that the addition would increase or decrease any of the issues. She recommended that Dr. Sheth install trees, landscaping or fencing in order to preserve what Dr. Sheth feels is appropriate for his family and not necessarily rely on a neighbor to do so. She stated that she would be voting to deny the appeal. Commissioner Page stated that he also has two young daughters and that he understood the need for privacy. He said that he viewed the pictures provided and visualized the views that would be from Dr. Sheth's house. He felt that staff's condition relating to the installation of trees would provide the proper screening. He requested that staff ensure that the trees to be planted are fast growing, full canopy specimens and that they are of a height that are considerable. He stated that he also would deny the appeal. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with all the comments expressed this evening. She said that she owned a home in which a very small house was built behind hers. All of a sudden, the home was torn down and remodeled with the construction of a two-story home. She said that every window focused on her family room, bedroom and hot tub. She also felt that her privacy was gone. However, she did everything that she could to her own backyard by planting redwood trees to protect her privacy and worked with the neighbors behind her who moved into the home to plant redwood trees, resulting in good cover and seclusion. However, in this case, she noted that Dr. Sheth moved into a home with a preexisting situation. She did not believe that the Commission can do anything about this and that she did not believe that the addition would make the situation any worse than what already exists. She said that Dr. Kaabipour allowed the Commission to go through his home and that the Commission looked at Dr. Sheth's home from the windows, the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 34 - deck, and from upstairs and that the Commission could not look into Dr. Sheth's windows. She hopes that this gives Dr. Sheth some satisfaction and that she hoped that the two parties, together or separately, plant more trees on the properties as there is an ideal location that runs between the two pieces of properties to plant trees. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO DENY THE APPEAL, APPROVING AR- 99-008. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSENT. Dr. Kaabipour stated that he would work with Dr. Sheth regarding installation of trees. DIRECTOR ITEMS - Request for modifications to a previously approved project: DR-97-043 - Massihpour, 18590 Avon Lane Director Walgren presented the staff report and informed the Commission that the request is to modify the exterior materials of a new home that is under construction, approved by the Planning Commission previously. He identified the major changes as follows: elimination of the horizontal wood siding with the use of a stucco exterior with a stone veneer; altering the architecture slightly to a more contemporary design. Staff believes that the wood siding was approved for a reason, noting that this is a rural part of Saratoga where this type of home is more appropriate. Staff felt that the home should be built per the approved plans. Chairwoman Bernald stated that it was agreed upon earlier by the Planning Commission that it is not the Planning Commission's custom to open the public hearing for Director’s items. Therefore, the Commission will not be receiving any testimony this evening. The Commission will be recognizing the staff memo and responding. IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION TO CONCUR WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND DIRECTED STAFF TO FOLLOW WHAT THE COMMISSION PASSED IN THE PAST WITH THE INSTALLATION OF WOOD SIDING. - Appointment of Planning Commission Vice-Chair Director Walgren recommended that the Commission appoint a new vice-chairperson. COMMISSIONER PATRICK MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY CHAIRWOMAN BERNALD, TO NOMINATE COMMISSIONER PAGE TO SERVE AS VICE-CHAIR. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSENT. - Appointment of Bicycle Advisory Committee representative PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 35 - Director Walgren presented the staff report. He indicated that this is a city standing committee that meets as needed but not more than four times a year, meeting approximately one or two times a year. The committee reviews development proposals and bicycle facility issues. Chairwoman Bernald noted that a representative from the Public Safety Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission also sits on this committee along with a Public Works Department staff member and two community representatives. Commissioner Waltonsmith indicated that her husband is a bicyclist. BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSION APPOINTED COMMISSIONER WALTONSMITH TO SERVE ON THE BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. - Consideration of minutes of May 12 and May 26 meetings at June 9, 1999 meting due to absence of Minutes Clerk Director Walgren informed the Commission that the May 12 and May 26 meeting minutes will be made available for the Commission's June 9, 1999 meeting due to the absence of the Minutes Clerk. COMMISSION ITEMS Chairwoman Bernald welcomed the new Commissioners on board and wished them good luck. She recommended that the new Commissioners speak with staff if they have any questions that can be cleared up before the meetings. COMMUNICATIONS Written - City Council Minutes for Regular Meeting of April 21, 1999 - Planning Commission Notices for Regular Meeting of May 26, 1999 - Letter to Planning Commission from Marjorie J. Burnett dated May 3, 1999 - Staff correspondence copies to Planning Commission ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING There being no further business, Chairwoman Bernald adjourned the meeting to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1999 PAGE - 36 - Wednesday, May 26, 1999, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk