Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-26-1999 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, MAY 26, 1999 Civic Center, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairwoman Bernald called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Jackman, Kurasch, Page, Patrick, Waltonsmith and Chairwoman Bernald Absent: Commissioner Roupe Staff: Director Walgren Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - May 12, 1999 Minutes for the May 12, 199 Regular Meeting will be submitted for approval at the June 9, 1999 Regular Meeting. Oral Communications No comments were offered. Report of Posting Agenda Director Walgren stated that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 21, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet No corrections were noted. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. DR-98-067 & F-98-006 (517-13-012) - CAGAN, 15001 Bohlman Road; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new two-story 5,122 sq. ft. residence with a maximum height of 26 ft. on a vacant 2.4 acre (net) parcel in a Hillside Residential zoning district. A fence exception is also requested to enclose 13,000 sq. ft. The Design Review proposal was originally noticed for the April 14, 1999 Planning Commission public hearing, but was continued at the request of the applicant. (CONTINUED TO 6/9/99 AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/JACKMAN MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 26, 1999 PAGE - 2 - ITEM 1 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. DR-98-034 (397-03-074) - GAUDREAU, 14510 Sobey Road; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 5,454 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 6,019 sq. ft. The parcel is 1.29 acres and is located in an R-1- 40,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 5/12/99). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report. He indicated that at the site visit, the Commission noted that the property is fairly steep and devoid of significant vegetation with the exception of a hand full of trees scattered on the property. He said that there is a slightly level plateau at the top of the property which is in front of an existing 500 square foot cottage. He said that staff worked with the applicants closely to get the driveway into a configuration that would meet the maximum slope gradients acceptable to the fire district. Staff informed the applicant that the architecture proposed was different from the majority of the homes in this area. He said that Sobey Road is characterized by the early ranch style, rural homes. Staff finds that this design is a contemporary design but that given the horizontal post and beam style of architecture, he felt that it lends itself to a hillside parcel. He said that the colors and material board notes the use of stone veneer at the base of the building with the use of medium earthtone colors and earthtone shake-style composition roofing materials. With the materials to be used, staff feels that the design review findings can be made relative to architectural compatibility. He said that staff does not believe that the home would unnecessarily obstruct neighbors’ views or privacy. Therefore, he recommended approval of the project subject to the conditions contained in the resolution (i.e., redesign some of the exotic elements on the building and the requirement that the applicant work with staff and the fire district relating to the installation of a fire hydrant). Commissioner Kurasch requested a definition or that staff explain why the basement is not computed in the square footage as the basement appears to be partly exposed. Director Walgren stated that city code defines a basement based on the volume of the room enclosed on all sides by existing grade so that no more than two feet is exposed from the grade to the ceiling of the basement. If a room is entirely below grade and meets this definition, it does not count toward the building's square footage and that it does not count toward the building's height nor story limitation. He said that this design, as it steps down the hill, has a portion of the underfloor of the building that qualifies as a basement. The back part of the basement labeled "workshop" qualifies as a basement. However, as you move toward the daylight plane of the hill where the garage is exposed to the grade, the garage would not qualify as a basement. He said that staff met with the applicant's architect several times to rework the cross sections and design to ensure that the design meets the city's definition of a basement and that there is not a three-story overlap in the design. Commissioner Jackman requested that the applicant explain what modifications have been made to the front entryway. Specifically, she wanted to know what the bulb elements were at the top PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 26, 1999 PAGE - 3 - of the columns. Commissioner Jackman requested to know why the driveway off of Singing Hill is going to be maintained other than for fire safety. She felt that since the accessory structure is to be a guest house, it seemed more likely that the access would be from the house to the guest cottage. Director Walgren said the applicant may want to maintain Singing Hill as a secondary access but deferred the question to the applicant. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. G'lush Dada, project architect, informed the Commission that she tried to meet all zoning and design guidelines as well as meeting her client's requirements. She said that she tried to use horizontal lines to compliment the slopes and that she created a flat roof design to reduce bulk and height. She addressed the entryway and noted that the staff report recommends reducing the entrance element. She informed the Commission that she used a parapet element to design a 1.25 entryway (porch). She said that the tower element is 17 feet behind the porch. As this is an up slope approach to the house, she did not believe that you would be able to see the windows. The windows would be used to create light for the entry hall. She requested that she be allowed to keep the entry porch as other homes in the area have higher entryways and that she did not believe that it was a tall element. She felt that the use of horizontal elements would blend well. If required to be changed, it would ruin the continuity of the design. She said that precast concrete spheres are proposed to emphasize the entrance. If this element is a problem, she would agree to eliminate it. Commissioner Waltonsmith asked why Ms. Dada designed a steep driveway versus the continued use of the existing driveway off of Singing Hill? Ms. Dada stated that the entrance to the home will be from Chester Avenue as this is the front of the house. Commissioner Waltonsmith expressed concern that additional impervious coverage is proposed with the construction of a new driveway on a steep slope with water draining down the street. She asked why the existing driveway could not be used? Ms. Dada said that the new driveway off of Chester was designed at the request of her client. She said that the existing fencing is proposed to be retained and that if it is necessary, additional fencing would be provided. Commissioner Kurasch asked if consideration was given to moving the cottage? She asked what were the needs of Ms. Dada's clients that triggered the concept of a new driveway? Ms. Dada responded that thought was given to siting the garage in the flattest area. Therefore, she created a court area in front of the house and that keeping more land for the driveway reduced slope grading. She said that the driveway would allow parking for social gatherings. Commissioner Kurasch requested that Ms. Dada explain what she has done to minimize the perception of bulk with a horizontal home design. She felt that an area above the garage gives the perception of a three-story home with the exposed lower area adjacent to the basement. Ms. Dada said that the drawings submitted to the Commission are two dimensional, technical PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 26, 1999 PAGE - 4 - drawings and that the drawings do not give a depth to the design. Dan Gaudreau, applicant, said that there were two reasons for the design of a new driveway: 1) access to the guest house and to provide another parking facility and 2) he wanted the front of the house to face toward the hill as it would give the house a better look to have the approach from Chester Avenue. He said that he wanted a full circular driveway but that it could not be designed to meet the criteria of the slopes and other city code requirements. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Commissioner Waltonsmith said that she appreciates the fact that the applicant is going to remodel the guest house so that it looks like it is a part of the house. She felt that this is a gorgeous design. However, she was not sure if the design was good for the property as the design appears to be quite bulky. She said that she did not like the idea of installing another driveway with this amount of impervious coverage. She recommended that the Singing Hill driveway be retained, eliminating the Chester Avenue driveway. She said that she would not vote for this project at this time. Commissioner Kurasch said that this is an interesting design based on how it relates to this particular property. She expressed concern with being able to make the findings to support this type of design. She said that the perception of bulk is from other properties/individuals to the site and not that there would be a blockage of views. She did not believe that the perception of bulk has been minimized or addressed, understanding the severity of the slope. She recommended that the architect step the roof with the terrain, reducing some of the horizontal look. She said that the three story design troubles her. Contrary to what staff has stated, she did not believe that all of the area can be defined as a basement. In looking at some of the sections of the plans, she sees three stories with the use of a retaining wall. Although the finished grade is at the retaining wall, it drops from the existing grade and expressed concern that it would be visible. She said that she discussed with Director Walgren how the 26-foot level is measured. She understood that the measurement is taken from natural grade, but that with the drop of grade, the overall cumulative affect would result in a large amount of bulk. Therefore, there may be a perception of a three-story home. She said that the two sections that are most troublesome are the ones fronting Chester and the left side elevation which would be the most visible from the surrounding properties. She felt that there are alternatives that can be made such as: using underground spaces to reduce bulk; terrace the building floor levels; minimize areas of maximum height; avoid large underfloor areas and exposed foundations; minimize grading; and minimize the amount of continuous concrete or paving. She said that this design represents the maximum allowable grade. She recommended that an alternative design be considered that is less impacting to a hillside lot. She supported a driveway entry or scaling back the large turn around as it is located in an area that has a severe slope. Director Walgren addressed the issue of design review and the three story perception. He referred to the left side building elevation and indicated that this elevation shows more of the volume spaces that are not solid walls that will provide shadow and depth to the elevation. He said that the elevation better illustrates that the roof steps down. He informed the Commission PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 26, 1999 PAGE - 5 - that the maximum permitted lot coverage in this district is 35%. He noted that the applicant proposes less than 20% total site coverage. Commissioner Kurasch noted that this is a hillside property so it makes this number translate a little differently in reality. She agreed that the design is within the maximum allowable lot coverage. She stated that a part of the concern is the configuration of the driveway. Chairwoman Bernald asked if it would help if the Commission goes to a study session to allow the Commission the opportunity to view a three dimensional model to assist it in seeing how this design is going to work? Commissioner Page said that he liked what the architect has done and felt that the space was used well. He even liked the access from Chester Avenue and felt that once the landscaping is installed and the growth comes in, the house will look great. However, he expressed concern that this is an area that is prominent. He felt that a more classical approach to the existing homes should be pursued. He said that he would want to see a less modern approach used because people from the other hillside may not see this home in a positive light. He said that he could support the project but that he would want to see something done (i.e., entrance redesign, or cutting down some of the geometric shapes). Commissioner Jackman said that she likes the project. She noted that the house faces Chester Avenue and therefore the driveway has to come from Chester Avenue. She inquired as to the square footage of the gray house located across the street? Director Walgren responded that the approximate square footage is 5,500-6,000, similar to the square footage of this home. Commissioner Jackman noted that the garage is located to the far left end and that it is the first story with a second story above it. At the other end of the home, where the lot goes up, if measured from the garage level to the top of the far right side, it looks like a two and a half story home when in actuality, there is never more than two stories in one spot. She did not believe that the basement presents a problem. She felt that the design could compliment the neighborhood and stated her support of the project. Commissioner Patrick stated that she liked the design of the home. She noted that this was a neighborhood of new homes. She felt that the trees to be planted would make a difference on a hillside that is devoid of planting. Because of the way that the driveway is to be configured and the uniqueness of the lot, she felt that it was a good idea to have two driveways. She felt that the neighbors on Singing Hill would cooperate to maintain the road. She stated that she would support the application subject to staff's recommendation, minimizing the entryway. Chairwoman Bernald stated that this is an exciting design. However, she has a problem with carports but that she understood the reason for a carport. She said that she would support a study session to see the dynamics of the entryway, to see if it fits and to see if it is not too over whelming (use of a three-dimensional mock up). She asked if it would help make the decision any easier if the Commission was to go into a study session or were some of the Commissioners PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 26, 1999 PAGE - 6 - not comfortable in supporting the project? Commissioner Kurasch said that she made her points very clear and that she did not believe that she needs to study the design any further. She said that she could not make the findings to support the project. Commissioner Page said that this is a diagram that is flattened out and that it does not show how the home actually looks. He felt that this flattened look tends to make the home look bigger and more grandiose than it might be. He felt that a study session may serve to include some of the elements that staff has talked about and to help the Commission get a better perspective of the design and how it would or would not fit into the neighborhood. Commissioner Kurasch stated that her concern was not so much of the design in the hillside but with the amount of impervious surface that is proposed next to the home. She said that there is an area of 50 feet in front of the house on two sides that will not accommodate screening. She said that she liked the side landscaping as it is effective. She did not agree that the front area will provide much screening of the driveway. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-98- 034 PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-2 WITH COMMISSIONERS KURASCH AND WALTONSMITH VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSENT. 3. DR-99-007 & UP-99-007 (397-24-007) - DUNCAN, 20211 La Paloma Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to allow the construction of a new 2,398 sq. ft., single-story residence and a detached garage of 482 sq. ft. Use Permit approval is requested to allow the detached garage to be located within a rear yard. (CONTINUED FROM 5/12/99). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner Kurasch stepped down from discussion of item 3 due to a conflict of interest. She said that she is in a financial contractual and professional agreement with the next door neighbor. Director Walgren presented the staff report. He said that at the May 12, 1999 meeting, upon being presented with a letter of objection from an immediate adjacent neighbor to the variance, the applicant agreed to continue the item to redesign a project that meets the minimum six foot side ya rd setback requirement. He indicated that the variance is no longer a part of this application. He said that staff finds the design to be compatible with the older homes in the neighborhood. He said that the developers of the Spaich Hayfield Estate Subdivision, Pinn Brothers Construction, directly to the north of this property have submitted a letter attached to the staff report discussing the detached garage's location directly under PG&E lines. He said that this situation has existed for many years and that the lines were probably installed following the construction of the building. Therefore, there were no utility easements recorded along the back of the property as you would normally have. After noting this concern, staff has included a condition that PG&E be consulted and that they agree/consent to the proposal before submittal of building permits. Pinn Brothers also expressed concern with the protection of a large eucalyptus PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 26, 1999 PAGE - 7 - tree located on the side property line. He said that the resolution contains conditions that the arborist has prepared that address this concern. He also indicated that staff received correspondence from the immediate adjacent neighbor to the east expressing concern with the protection of their cedar tree located in the front corner of the property next to the existing driveway. The neighbor is requesting that the tree's canopy be entirely fenced off to protect it during construction. He said that staff would defer this recommendation to the applicant to determine if this will work. It would need to be known if the applicant is willing to remove the rose garden to access the middle of the property over a curb line. An alternative would be to lay down heavy mulch between the two driveway strips and then place plywood on top of this. He said that a combination of mulch and plywood panels would allow vehicles to drive over and not further compact the root zone. He said that both street trees are to be replaced and stated that the arborist has noted that the larger tree has been structurally undermined as a result of sidewalk improvements and that it is a hazardous tree. It is being recommended that both trees be removed and that new street trees be planted. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 8:21 p.m. George Espinola, project architect, stated that he is prepared to accept the conditions as recommended by staff. He requested that he be allowed to build a 13'4" high garage as the recommended 12 foot height limit would affect the architectural compatibility with the main house. It would require him to use a roof pitch that would be flat in the back. He asked if the property owner would be required to provide replacement street trees or would the city be responsible for replacement trees? Director Walgren said that the property owner would be responsible for replacing the street trees with 24" boxed replacement trees. Mr. Espinola said that he would be opposed to constructing a fence in order to protect the neighbor's tree. He said that he would also be opposed to providing driveway access through the middle of the property. He said that he would like to explore the options which allows the continued use of the driveway for access during construction. Commissioner Patrick said that the Commission is in receipt of a letter from the adjacent resident that states that an agreement has been reached regarding the tree and that mulching/plywood would be utilized. Mr. Espinola deferred this question to the property owner. Commissioner Page asked how high would the interior be with a 13'4" garage? Mr. Espinola said that with a 13'4" peak would provide a little over an 8-foot plate in order to install a 7-foot door plus an acceptable header over the door. Director Walgren informed the Commission that the neighbors to the east have expressed concern about the protection of the trees. He said that staff has copies of two letters from Meg Caldwell and Bob Williams, 20201 La Paloma Avenue. The first letter outlines their interest in protecting the trees, listing their three preferences. A second letter was received noting that they have worked out an agreement relating to protection of the trees. The letter also states that an agreement has been reached that stipulates that during demolition, when heavy equipment is on the property, the driveway access will not be used. Following demolition, mulch will be put PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 26, 1999 PAGE - 8 - down within the center strip and the edges of the driveway to ensure that the root zone is not compacted by construction vehicles. Low branches are to be tagged for visibility. COMMISSIONERS MOVED PAGE/PATRICK TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Commissioner Patrick said that she has no objection to the design. She stated that she did not see a need for a taller garage. She said that she was pleased that the neighbors came to an agreement regarding the trees and that she would recommend approval per staff's recommendation. Commissioner Jackman expressed concern with the recommendation to tag the branches. She said that she has visited the site several times and that she knew the previous owners well. She said that the site contains an outstanding tree. She has had experience with trucks knocking branches down and that she was afraid that tagging the trees would not help when a big truck is backing up. She felt that the tree is a big asset to the Duncans as well as the owner of the tree. She felt that it was important to install protective fencing around the tree, at least during the demolition stage and while heavy equipment is coming in and out of the site. She said that she could support the design because the applicant worked with the neighbors to move the side yard setback. Commissioner Page said that he liked the design as it fits extremely well with the neighborhood. He was pleased to see the way that the neighbors pulled together. He felt that it was great that an agreement has been worked out with Meg Caldwell and Bob Williams and that he was happy to support the agreement. He said that he understood some of the reasons addressed by the project architect for an increase in garage height but stated that he would support the garage at 12 feet. Commissioner Waltonsmith agreed that the design is quite nice and that it fits in with the neighborhood. She was glad to see that the applicant came to a negotiated conclusion with the neighbors as it makes it easier to approve the project. She did not believe that increasing the height of the garage to more than 12 feet was justified. Chairwoman Bernald felt that the plan is charming. She stated her support of keeping the garage height down per staff's recommendation. She felt that the Commission should support the agreed upon solution of the neighbors and not require fencing of the area. She noted that the neighbors have offered to do some work at their expense which means that they will be looking out for the tree to ensure that it is protected. She said that she could support the project and support the letter from Bob Williams and Meg Caldwell. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. UP-99-007 PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, INCLUDING THE LANGUAGE OF THE SECOND LETTER FROM MEG CALDWELL AND BOB WILLIAMS AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL. Director Walgren clarified that the motion would include installation of fencing during demolition. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 26, 1999 PAGE - 9 - THE MOTION CARRIED 4-1-1 WITH COMMISSIONER JACKMAN VOTING NO, COMMISSIONER KURASCH ABSTAINING AND COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-99- 007 PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0-1 WITH COMMISSIONER KURASCH ABSTAINING AND COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSENT. Commissioner Kurasch resumed her seat on the dias. 4. DR-98-014 (503-13-059 & 503-13-122) - FOSTER, 22217 Mount Eden Road; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,507 sq. ft., two-story residence on this 2.25 acre vacant lot. The property is located in a Hillside Residential zoning district. In September 1998 the two assessor parcels were merged and the one adjacent to Mount Eden Road was annexed to the City of Saratoga. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report and stated that the project meets all minimum zoning ordinance requirements. He said that the project has been reviewed by the public works department for offsite improvements, the city's consulting geologist and city arborist, and the Saratoga fire district. He said that staff has worked with the applicant to achieve an architectural design that meets the city's design criteria for the hillside district and for this area in particular. Staff worked with the applicants in great lengths to achieve a driveway that meets the fire district's maximum permitted slope gradients. He said that staff feels that the design findings can be made to approve the project. He said that the neighbor to the southeast of the property expressed concern with the southern elevation containing a window and balcony element. Staff's review of the plans conclude that this is a decorative balcony versus a truly usable balcony. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 8:35 p.m. Daryl Fazekas, project architect, said that a split-level house that merges into the hillside is being proposed with a front setback of approximately 250 feet. He said that the highest point of the roof is located in the center of the house and that the height is less than 26 feet. He tried to cut bulk and mass by providing a one story roof element across the front of the house and having the second story roof element recessed. He adjusted the roof elements to different heights to provide variety. Also, the vegetation on site is to be protected and that it is proposed to plant native trees. He will be contacting the arborist to have him on site. He tried to create privacy on both the left and right sides of the neighbors. He said that a 33-foot side yard setback is proposed on the right side. He would agree to increase the setback to 37 feet. He felt that the traditional style matches the surrounding neighborhood and that the floor area is less than is allowed for a lot of this size. He noted that he tried to step the house back from the center to the left and right side to provide front and rear articulation. He stated that he would be willing to accept the Commission's recommendation relating to the Juliet balcony located on the right side. He indicated that he is proposing two, two car garages. He said that he originally proposed one wood burning fireplace and two gas fireplaces but that the owner may decide to change them to all gas burning fireplaces. The driveway is proposed to be looped based on the steepness of the hill. He said that the lower areas have a geological feature in the center. Therefore, he had to push the house PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 26, 1999 PAGE - 10 - uphill further than he wanted to. Paul Scola, 22301 Mt. Eden Road, adjacent neighbor on the down hill side of the subject property, stated that upon initial review of the plans, he had initial concerns as they relate to privacy. He said that his backyard, sideyard, porches and balconies face the proposed house. However, the house is high enough that it is not a direct view to his living area. He said that there is a window that may have been proposed in the family room that is no longer proposed. He indicated that he spoke with Ms. Foster who agreed to do some planting along the boundary line that would prevent a view straight down into his yard. He said that he was pleased with the location of the house on the property and stated his support of it. John Keenan, 22215 Mt. Eden Road, stated that he has been an area resident for 22 years with the closest neighbor being approximately 800 feet away. Now, someone is proposing a home approximately 30 feet away. He said that he too spoke with Ms. Foster who has agreed to eliminate the window and the balcony on the right side of the house. He informed the Commission that the driveway has been in place for at least 30 years. He said that the boundary has been a subject of question for the entire time that he has lived in his house and that the stakes have not been located. Therefore, the boundary question is somewhat in the air. He expressed concern with the drainage from a retaining wall behind the driveway. He said that the plans show a drainage swale between Ms. Foster's driveway and his. He spoke to Ms. Foster's geologist who has agreed to install a concrete swale to channel the water. He said that Ms. Foster has agreed to move the house to the left to address his concern of bulk and to lessen the impact to his property. Director Walgren clarified that one of the previous speakers mentioned that the applicants are willing to shift the home five feet to north, away from the Keenan property. Mr. Keenan said that it was his understanding that the house would be shifted greater than five feet. Kim Foster, applicant, confirmed that she spoke to both neighbors. She said that Mr. Scola agreed to a five-foot shift of the house to the left. However, Mr. Keenan would like to move the home further. She said that she would like to work with both neighbors to come up with an exact setback number agreeable to both. Chairwoman Bernald asked if there were any restrictions associated with the lot that would not allow the house to be moved any more than five feet? Director Walgren said that several items will need to be checked such as driveway gradient, retaining wall heights, slopes, under building pads, and grading. He said that given the home's design, he felt that the home can be shifted more than five feet along the contours in a north direction. He said that a condition could be added to state that the house is to be relocated no less than five feet but in a position acceptable to both neighbors. Chairwoman Bernald noted that Mr. Keenan requested that both balcony and the window be removed. She asked how Ms. Foster felt about this request? Ms. Foster said that she agreed to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 26, 1999 PAGE - 11 - the removal of the balcony but that she was not aware of the request to eliminate the window. If she is going to shift the home further, she could not look toward Mr. Keenan's property as she would be further away from Mr. Keenan's property. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Commissioner Page asked if it would be better to continue this item due to the many contingencies that have been raised by the neighbors in order to see a final product instead of adding conditions that may or may not be accurate. Director Walgren said that if it is just a matter of eliminating the balcony and shifting the home 5-10 feet, he felt that the amendments would be relatively minor. He stated that the resolution of approval contains a condition that requires that a final landscape plan be developed. He said that this condition can be expanded to state: "increase landscaping on the south side." Commissioner Page said that it was great to see the neighbors working together. He felt that the home is nicely designed and that this is a neighborhood that is going through a lot of renovation. He said that he empathized with Mr. Keenan not having neighbors for a long time and now he will have neighbors. He said that one of the things that he looked at was the amount of cut and fill. He said that he can find that the additional grading is required to allow access to the home as there will be 60% cut and fill in the driveway to access the home and that there is only approximately 436 cubic yards of cut and fill relating to the home itself. He said that he could support the project subject to the conditions contained in the resolution, including the conditions that are yet to be determined. Commissioner Waltonsmith agreed with the comments as expressed by Commissioner Page. With a four-car garage 10 feet away from a neighbor, she felt that it would be nice to move the home away from the neighbor. Therefore, she would support the project and the changes identified above. Commissioner Patrick noted that both neighbors are trying to push the house from their home which leads her to believe that things are not agreed upon. She said that she could not support the project as the house is too much of a one story, non split level home, and appears as a square. She said that she understood the logistics of the grading for the driveway. However, she felt that the design needs to be reconfigured and that she could not support the application on this basis. Commissioner Jackman said that she has a lot of trouble with the driveway and understood that the applicant had to grade it for fire department access. However, she felt that this was a lot of extra cut and fill primarily for a driveway. She felt that there should be a configuration that does not require this much cut and fill to get to the top of the house and cover this much of the ground. She noted that 1,000 cubic yards is the maximum cut and fill allowed in hillside areas and that 196 cubic yard seems like a lot to go over when it is primarily in the driveway. She recommended that the project be redesigned. She also expressed concern with the mass and with the use of pinkish-beige tile and stucco paint. She felt that a yellow color would blend in better with the neighborhood. Therefore, she could not support the project at this time. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 26, 1999 PAGE - 12 - Commissioner Kurasch stated that she likes the way the house is designed but that she also has a problem fitting the house into the site. She recommended that consideration be given to a different configuration for the driveway or flipping the house, providing a greater setback away from the existing home. She expressed concern that residents come and go and that approval of the project, as designed and sited, may affect future residents. She understands that the Commission has to make all six findings to allow extra grading in hillside areas. She stated that she has a problem supporting additional grading of the site. She said that she would like to see simple natural material groupings discussed by staff that would blend in with the rural area be included in the landscape plans, including the use of native plantings. She felt that community views are important. She said that she has reservations about supporting this application. Chairwoman Bernald said that given the fact that there are two neighbors interested in the siting of the house, she recommended that the applicant have the land surveyed. She said that she would like to avoid this application returning to the Commission in the future because of problems. She said that she liked the design as presented in the colored rendering that was included in the Commission's packet. She said that she did not care for the use of river rock and recommended that it be removed. She stated that she could support the project subject to the house being moved 5+ feet to the left. She recommended that the balcony be removed but that she did not see a reason to remove the window if the house is to be moved. She would support the inclusion of Mr. Keenan's condition relating to drainage. Regarding the driveway, the Commission saw an extensive driveway elsewhere during the site visit. Because the driveway was well landscaped, she did not believe that anyone would know that the driveway exists. She said that she is seeing a lot of cut and fill. However, given the configuration of the lot with the geological problem down below, the house has been sited where it needs to be sited. Therefore, she understood why the driveway is there. She said that staff has enumerated the six conditions and felt that the findings can be made. Therefore, she could support the project subject to the conditions she stated. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/WALTONSMITH MOVED APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR- 98-014 WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: ELIMINATION OF THE USE OF RIVER ROCK; THE HOUSE TO BE MOVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEIGHBORS, THE WINDOW BALCONY TO BE REMOVED, INSTALLATION OF A DRAINAGE SWALE AND THE OTHER CONDITIONS THAT THE NEIGHBORS AND THE OWNER HAVE DISCUSSED (I.E., PROPERTY TO BE SURVEYED; FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN TO INCLUDE NATURAL GROUPINGS OF IDENTIFIED NATIVE PLANT SPECIES). THE MOTION FAILED 3-3 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: BERNALD, PAGE, WALTONSMITH; NOES: KURASCH, JACKMAN AND PATRICK; ABSENT: COMMISSIONER ROUPE. Director Walgren said that this item would automatically be scheduled for the Commission's June 9, 1999 meeting at which time Commissioner Roupe would be present and will have reviewed the audio tapes, read the record and be prepared to vote and break the tie. He said that the other alternative would be that the applicant can accept the tie vote as a failed vote and appeal PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 26, 1999 PAGE - 13 - the denial to the City Council. 5. DR-99-013 (366-14-059) - JIH, 12651 Arroyo de Arguello; Request for Design Review approval to add a 584 sq. ft. second story to an existing 3,415 sq. ft. residence. Maximum height is proposed to be 21 ft. The applicants are also proposing to add 163 sq. ft. to the existing first story. The total floor area proposed is 4,162 sq. ft. on an 18,381 sq. ft. (net) parcel located in an R-1-15,000 zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report and informed the Commission that the parcel is constrained by its own configuration in terms of accommodating any other additions to the site once you deduct the front, rear and side yard setbacks. He said that there is little room in this flag lot for an addition at a first floor level. He said that at a site visit, staff tried to take a look at window orientations and how this 21-foot tall building would affect neighboring views. Staff did not feel that the project would have any unnecessary impacts or obtrusive impacts on neighboring property owners. When dealing with a flag parcel, the impacts are always magnified by the fact that you have additional properties abutting it by the nature of being a flag parcel interior to a residential block. Upon advertising the project, staff received several letters from adjoining property owners expressing concern that the addition will block their views, will impose on privacy, or that the sheer size of the home is over development of this particular neighborhood. He said that the home will become more visible from the surrounding owners but that it would be difficult to state that it will unreasonably obstruct all existing views. Regarding the window orientation, he said that the windows on the second story that faces the adjoining property owners are stairway or hallway windows that can either be eliminated or obscured. Regarding the bay window, while it looks like a room window, he said that it is just a hallway window. The two habitable windows face the property owner to the east (the Whites), the front parcel abutting Arroyo Del Arguello. He said that these two windows cannot be altered. In terms of privacy, he recommended that the Commission give focus to the two, forward facing windows. He said that the City recently passed an ordinance that requires class A roofing throughout Saratoga. Therefore, this project proposes fire retardant roofing material. He said that because of the odd configuration of the parcel, the setbacks are not necessarily based on how the house is used. He informed the Commission that the front yard setback is measured from the south property line and the building is right at the minimum requirement. Because of the nature of the parcel, there is no defined rear yard. The sideyard setback are the two property lines coming out perpendicular to the front which terminate to the far northwest corner. The rear yard setback is a radius drawn from the furthest corner. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing. Thomas Liu, project architect, stated that he spent a lot of time analyzing the neighbors' views and the constraints associated with the very unique shape of the lot. He also took into consideration the location of the building based on the property's shape. He tired to minimize any impacts associated with the second story addition by setting back the wall, reducing the overall building height and reduced the pitch of the second story to 3.5 in order to lower the overall building height. He felt that the design addresses Mr. Dittrick's concern who resides PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 26, 1999 PAGE - 14 - across from the property owner's garage. He realized that a second story, if not sited in the right location, would somehow block views. He shifted the building to the right from the Dittrick's angle to create a corner next to the pine trees to provide them a view of the hillside. Regarding the concern of building mass and bulk, he said that this is a very small and minimal second story addition, noting that the second story addition is approximately 580 square feet with a first story addition of 160 square feet. He said that the first floor addition is designed to accommodate the stairs to access the second story addition. The second story addition will consist of two bedrooms and closets. Because of the privacy concern, he tried to locate the bedroom toward the backside so that the hallway serves as a visual buffer. In looking at the elevations, he tried to setback the second story from the garage in both directions in order to reduce mass and bulk. He said that due to the existing topography, the Knapps and Logothetis first floor level is almost to the second floor level of this project. By reducing the overall building height to 21 feet, it was his belief that if the neighbors stood at the ground floor deck area, the eye level will pass through the roof line. He reiterated that he tried to reduce the building's height to a very minimal level in order to address the neighbors' concerns. Donna Dittrick, 20834 Verde Moor Court, informed the Commission that she lives directly behind where the garage exists. She stated that she has lived in her home for 24 years and that at that time, a walnut orchard existed. She said that approximately 9-10 year ago, most of the orchard was removed to be replaced with single story homes. She said that Mr. Jih has been a good neighbor. She informed the Commission that she spoke to Mr. Jih, after receiving the public notice, and that he said that he would like to be a good neighbor. She said that the Jihs have a 3.5 car garage and that due to the odd shape of the lot, the addition will oversee her backyard. She said that her rear yard consists of the family room and the kitchen, the rooms where her family does all of its living. She said that what she sees is the Jih's roof and the mountains. With the addition, her family's view is being compromised. She also expressed concern with the bay window and the two other windows proposed above the garage overlooking her backyard, impacting her family's privacy. She requested that the rural feel of Saratoga be maintained. She did not believe that a second story addition has a place in this block. She did not believe that the odd shaped lot should be an excuse for making the area an unenjoyable place for the neighbors to live. She also expressed concern with the future buyer of her house when she decides to sell it if a second story addition goes up. If the second story is moved to another location, it would still ruin her views. Director Walgren clarified that the right elevation windows would not necessarily be a privacy impact because they are hallway windows and that they could be eliminated. He did not believe that the windows were necessary for a habitable room with the exception of the front corner window. He recommended that the Commission focus on this window. Sharon White, 12649 Arroyo de Arguello, stated that she her home is located in front of the flat lot and sits parallel to this house. She said that the residents of this house have to pass the side of her home adjacent to her master bedroom window. Then they go around the back of her lot and do another turn to access their garage (an S access to the garage). She said that the Jih's home faces her backyard. She stated that she has a small lot and that she sees the Jih's home above her PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 26, 1999 PAGE - 15 - already. If a second story is to be added, it would be obtrusive to her property. She said that she did not want to deny the Jihs the house that they would like to have but felt that it would be unfair to take away the privacy that exists today. She said that if this addition is approved, construction vehicles would be using a driveway that is located 15 feet from her swimming pool. She said that this is a very odd, rectangular configured home and felt that the Jihs were adding a rectangular addition on top of an existing rectangular box. She did not believe that the addition would look nice from her view. The windows proposed at the upper end will look directly down to her yard, her family room, the master bedroom and her kitchen. Regarding the comment that the roof line is low by today's standard, she said that the existing home has a low ceiling and that she anticipated that the remodel would be low anyway. She stated that if she was in the market to purchase her home and saw that a two-story home was built behind it, she would not consider purchasing the home. Ron Knapp, 20885 Wordell Road, informed the Commission that he has been an area resident since before the subdivision was installed. He said that at the time the subdivision was installed, he appeared before the Planning Commission to suggest that the odd configuration of this parcel did not allow this lot to be shoved to the back of the other three lots of the subdivision even though it met the one-third acre requirement. Despite his concerns, the subdivision was approved. He said that he would like to support the Jihs as they have been good neighbors. However, he has concerns with the property. He said that he is located higher to the west, and that in his case, the views of the hills would not be a problem nor would the Jihs be looking down his yard. Conversely, he would be looking right down the proposed bulky structure. He said that his property is situated such that his main view off of his deck and picture window are right over the current garage where the second story addition is planned. He said that the lot is jammed with a large 3,400 square foot house, a triple garage, a swimming pool, a pool house and a tremendous amount of driveway. He noted that the house is relatively close to the back property line, not meeting the rear yard requirements. He felt that a larger home would appear to be a terrible bulk and that a six-bedroom home with a guest bedroom is a bit much for the constrained small lot. He stated his opposition to the second story addition. However, if the addition was moved to the other end of the house, a second story would not be an impediment because it would be away from his views and be located behind several large trees. He said that his problem was somewhat mitigated 25 years ago by the fact that he had three very large pine trees between him and this property. Since that time, one tree has died and has been removed and that the other two trees were leaning and have since been removed. He said that this is now a non tree barrier and that the fence level is below him. Therefore, there is no privacy afforded by a fence. He stated his opposition to the addition as proposed. Bob Herzberg, 20823 Verde Moor Court, informed the Commission that he lives across the street from the Dittricks. He addressed the Dittrick's concerns regarding the impact of this house on their views and privacy. He said that he spends many evenings in the Dittricks' backyard and that he has no doubt that this house will impact their views as you can clearly see the existing roofline. If the roofline moves up and back toward the Dittricks's, it will impact their views. He felt that a bay window and the other windows would be overlooking the yard and would impact the Dittricks' sense of privacy. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 26, 1999 PAGE - 16 - Mr. Liu noted that the property contains heavy vegetation. Therefore, he did not believe that the Jihs would be able to look down into the backyard and driveway of the Whites who live on Arroyo de Arguello due to the tall trees and the fact that the second story is setback at least eight feet. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Commissioner Jackman stated that the Commission conducted a site visit yesterday. She expressed concern with the approval of a second story addition as the property is fairly well built out. Because of the configuration of the property, anything done to this lot will impact five neighbors rather than the customary two to three neighbors. When you look at the site plan, it lists the setback to the rear as 55 feet for the first story and 59 feet for the second story. At the site visit, she felt that the driveway where you turn into the garage, appeared shorter. Looking at the site plan, the 55 feet is measured from the corner of the garage and not the corner of the new structure. Therefore, she did not believe that this is a true reading. The other side of the garage shows 31 feet which she felt was a true reading. She felt that this distance is barely enough to turn into the driveway. She felt that the approval of a second story addition would impact neighbors too much. Even with a 21 foot instead of 26 foot tall building, she felt that there would be a lot of impact to the neighbors. Commissioner Patrick felt that the second story appears to be far enough away from everyone so that it is less of an impact than what the neighbors may believe that it will be. She agreed that the flag lot is a strange configuration but that she did not believe that if an individual purchased a strange configured lot that one would receive approval of variances due to the configuration of the lot. She noted that there is an incredible amount of vegetation installed by the neighbors to block the view of the driveway. She said that she could not approve the addition because she did not believe that the design is well integrated into the existing house as this appears to be a box on top of a box design. Commissioner Page felt that the applicant did a great job in keeping the height of the house down as this is a major concern. However, he felt that the addition is more of a tower element than anything else. He did not believe that the addition integrates well with the house. He felt that there may be alternative designs but that he was not sure if any of them would be acceptable because there will be serious impact to neighbors’ privacy and views caused by the configuration of the lot and the placement of the home on it. Therefore, he could not support the addition and stated that he was not sure if there was much more than can be done to convince him that there is a configuration that would work on this lot. Commissioner Kurasch concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioner Page. She agreed that the second story addition did not integrate well with the house. She said that one of the neighbors had an interesting comment that the view of the direct line of sight and the desirable view was of concern. She said that she also respected the views of the neighbors or higher residences and the impacts that would be created. She wondered if there were other PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 26, 1999 PAGE - 17 - alternatives such as shifting the design toward the street or variance to setbacks to address the neighbors' concerns. She felt that the problem was the site's location. Commissioner Waltonsmith stated her concurrence with the comments as expressed by her fellow Commissioners. Therefore, she could not support the request. Chairwoman Bernald stated that she also agreed with the comments as expressed by her fellow Commissioners. She felt that this a box on box design. She felt that the Commission has seen other designs in the city where a second story addition has been setback to the back end of the house, resulting in an unobtrusive design. She felt that staff could cite examples where the neighbors (Dittricks and Whites) would not be aware that there is a second story. Given the small amount of space that is being requested, she felt that the Jihs can fit the addition running north/south in length rather than the east/west being proposed. She said that she could support a north/south redesign if the Jihs decided to return with this suggested design layout. She said that she could not support the design as presented. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/PATRICK MOVED TO DENY DR-99-013. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSENT. 6. DR-98-049 (517-07-013) - NOBLES, 20801 Pamela Way; Request for Design Review approval to add a 981 sq. ft. second story to an existing 1,734 sq. ft. single story residence. Maximum height is proposed to be 21.5 ft. The applicants are also proposing to add 10 sq. ft. to the existing first floor. Total floor area proposed is 2,725 sq. ft. on a 7,600 sq. ft. parcel located in an R-1-10 000 zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report and indicated that the request meets all minimum zoning standards. He informed the Commission that staff has been in corresponding with the neighbor directly to the southwest of the property. He said that a letter from the neighbor, Mary Lynn Dutro, was distributed to the Commission this evening expressing concern about the potential privacy impacts of the two, upstairs master bedroom windows of the elevation facing her property. Ms. Dutro is requesting that the Planning Commission consider an alternate design to the windows to protect her privacy during the season when her deciduous trees have lost their leaves. He said that this is the only correspondence received to date on this project and that staff can recommend approval of this application by making all the necessary findings upon further consideration of the letter submitted by Ms. Duttro. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 9:35 p.m. Wayne Nobles, applicant, said that he bought a home that supports the needs of his young family. He felt that he has created a design that is perfect for the neighborhood and enhances the appeal of his home and the surrounding properties. He stated that he discussed Ms. Dutro's proposal. He said that unfortunately, with the type of windows she is suggesting, they would not be appropriate for the home. He noted that the window is centered on the lot and overlooks the center yard. He informed the Commission that Ms. Dutro's lot is located 35-40 feet from the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 26, 1999 PAGE - 18 - windows. He furnished the Commission with photos that he took from his roof line, looking at the deciduous trees. Mary Lynn Dutro, 20825 Pamela Way, felt that the pictures taken by Mr. Nobles were well put together and that the pictures show the trees at their best. She felt that the Nobels did a nice job in placing a small home on a small lot and felt that it will be nice design when completed. She expressed concern that the windows would over look the side back yards. She said that there are three deciduous trees depicted in the photograph and that these trees provide screening part of the year. She said that the distance between the homes is not much, noting that driveway is located on the property line. She requested that the Commission make stipulations relating to the windows that address her future privacy needs and value of the home. Commissioner Patrick said that pictures show lovely vegetation of trees. She asked if Ms. Dutro has given consideration to planting non-deciduous trees? Ms. Dutro responded that she did not believe that there was space to plant additional landscaping. Mr. Nobles informed the Commission that he showed his plans to the other neighbor and that they have not expressed concerns. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Commissioner Page felt that this is a lovely addition to the home and that is in keeping with the neighborhood and the home. He said that the windows are of concern. However, he did not believe that the Nobels would be looking out the windows often. He said that he could support the project as presented and that he did not believe that there would be a view into the home as the windows were nicely designed. Also, the angle would restrict views into Ms. Dutro's home. While there may be some backyard viewing, he did not believe that it would be a type of window that would be used for this kind of activity. Commissioner Kurasch agreed that this is a beautifully designed project that it would integrate well with the house, and that it will be a real asset. She recommended that something be done with the windows to address the privacy concern, (i.e., planting of tree(s) or some other kind of privacy protection). She recommended that the arborist's comments be incorporated as a condition. She wanted to emphasis the corrective measures to the rear twin valley oak which is strongly recommended by the arborist in order to protect the privacy of other neighbors. Commissioner Waltonsmith agreed with the comments as expressed by the Commission, stating that she liked the sensitive design. She stated that she would approve the request. Commissioner Jackman stated that she could support the application. She expressed some concern with the upstairs window but that she was not sure what can be done during the winter to change the view. She noted that there is a fence between the branches of the oak tree and that there were things that are not too healthy for the tree when the buttrices are exposed. She recommended that this be included as a condition. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 26, 1999 PAGE - 19 - Commissioner Patrick concurred with the comments expressed by her fellow Commissioners and stated that she could approve the application. Chairwoman Bernald also concurred with the comments expressed and felt that this was a charming addition, one that is well integrated. It was her belief that due to the angle that the house sits on, it will make it impossible to see inside the home. She understood that there would be some privacy issues on the deck but that the impacts would not be great enough to turn down the application. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KURASCH MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR- 98-049. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSENT. DIRECTOR ITEMS - Cancellation of August 25 Meeting Director Walgren said that it is traditional to cancel the Planning Commission's second public hearing meeting in August to accommodate summer vacation schedules. IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION TO CANCEL ITS AUGUST 25, 1999 MEETING. - Conflict of Interest Laws Handbook Director Walgren informed the Commission that he has received, through the city attorney's office, new Conflict of Interest Laws Handbooks, produced by League of Cities that he will be distributing this evening. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioners Waltonsmith and Kurasch requested that a joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting be scheduled as soon as possible. Director Walgren noted that the next joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting is scheduled for September 7, 1999. Chairwoman Bernald said that there are symphony tour signs being displayed throughout Saratoga stating that there is a showcase house in Saratoga. She asked if the use is in the city or in the county and whether the signs have been permitted? Director Walgren informed the Commission that it is a county property that is being advertised as being in Saratoga and that it is a home located outside the city's jurisdiction. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 26, 1999 PAGE - 20 - Chairwoman Bernald indicated that she has received a request from KSAR staff to meet with the Commission so that they can demonstrate how the cameras and microphones work so that they are better integrated. She requested that the Commission meet a few minutes early prior to the next scheduled meeting. COMMUNICATIONS Written - City Council Minutes for Regular Meetings of April 27 and May 5, 1999, and Special Meeting of May 4, 1999 - Planning Commission Notices for Regular Meeting of June 9, 1999 - Notice of Preparation of Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration for Regular Meeting of June 23, 1999 - Letter from Irene Jacobs, Staff Liaison to the Parks and Recreation Commission Director Walgren informed the Commission that the Parks and Recreation Commission and public works department are considering a custom restroom building design that would be more unique and that the new design would need to go out to bid. Commissioner Jackman stated that she read the Saratoga Village Plan and that it contained definite ideas that would affect Wildwood Park restrooms. She stated that she wanted to make sure that there was consistent Saratoga style in the restroom design. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING There being no further business, Chairwoman Bernald adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m. to Wednesday, June 9, 1999, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk