Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-08-1999 Planning Commission MinutesCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, September 8, 1999 - 7:30 p.m. Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting Roll Call Present: Commissioners Jackman, Kurasch, Page, Patrick, Roupe and Chairwoman Bernald Absent: None Staff: Community Development Director James Walgren, City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - August 11, 1999 COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/JACKMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 11, 1999 WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS. PASSED 3-3 (BERNALD, KURASCH AND ROUPE ABSTAINED). Page 6, paragraph 1, line 4: “….the siding siting of the houses so as not to conflict….” Page 5, paragraph 8, line 1: “COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/JACKMENT JACKMAN MOVED.…” Page 7, paragraph 8, line 2: “….two trees is amplified exemplified by the placement….” Oral Communications There was no one present who wishes to speak on any item not on the agenda. Chairwoman Bernald moved the agenda to the Consent Calendar. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. UP-99-011 (397-04-098) - EVAN, 14594 Sobey Oaks Road; Request for Use Permit approval to construct a 650 square foot pool house in the rear yard. The existing residence with garage is 4,547 square feet. The property is 40,075 square feet and is located in an R-1-40,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED INDEFINITELY AT THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST. IF THE PROJECT MOVES FORWARD AS PROPOSED, A NEW HEARING DATE WILL BE ADVERTISED). COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. PASSED 6-0. Chairwoman Bernald moved the agenda back to Report of Posting Agenda. Report of Posting Agenda Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1999 Page 2 Director Walgren declared that pursuant to Government code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 3, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet - None. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. UP-98-011.1 (503-24-009) - AMALFARD, 14445 Big Basin Way; Request for modification to an approved Use Permit to allow deli and outdoor seating in conjunction with the market use that was previously approved. The building is 2,700 square feet on a 4,375 square foot lot and is located in a CH-1 Commercial Historic zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 8/11/99). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner Jackman recused herself from this item stating that she resides within 300 feet of the project. Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting this was an amendment to a conditional use permit that the Commission issued last October to operate what was then a gourmet market, Caravan Market, in the Village within a commercial historic zoning district. He said that retail and services uses are permitted by right in the Village; however, certain uses such as a restaurant or business engaging in the sale of alcoholic beverages require conditional use permits to allow the Commission an opportunity to review the proposal for any potential impacts to adjacent residences surrounding the Village. At the time the permit was issued, the applicants were asked whether they intended in the future to expand into a restaurant or delicatessen activity, and they stated they had no such plans. He conveyed that it was noted that a restaurant or delicatessen was a different type of activity under the zoning ordinance, and if the project expanded to include food service, it would require an amendment to the conditional use permit. He said that the applicant accepted that condition. Director Walgren continued his report, stating that earlier this summer a restaurant bloomed at the market. The city contacted the owners and reminded them that an amendment to the conditional use permit was required. In the interim, the owners procrastinated in following up and sold the business. The ownership was transferred to the new owners who planned to operate a similar business called the Saratoga Café. They were reminded that the restaurant was operating in violation of the city code and that the city had not authorized the new restaurant to move or operate in the location. The new owners accepted the city’s regulation and agreed to operate only as a market until the amendment to the permit could be heard by the Commission. They were also notified that a sign permit would be necessary for any new signage on the building. Director Walgren noted that since the last discussion with the applicants, a restaurant business has been operating at the site and signage has gone up. He said that the city sees this business as an appropriate use for the Village as it is pedestrian oriented, consistent with the Village plan, and encouraged by the City. He stated that staff is recommending approval of the modification of the use permit to expand from a market to a restaurant. However, staff is also recommending that the Commission address the issue that the business had been operating in violation of the permit’s previous use for some time, and recommend a fine or assessment consistent with the conditions of the original use permit. He said it is important to acknowledge that these regulations are in place for a reason and they need to be followed. Chairwoman Bernald asked for the dates or amount of time that the owners operated without a permit, and Director Walgren responded he did not have the specific dates, but they could be determined. Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1999 Page 3 Chairwoman Bernald inquired whether the violators were the previous owners or new owners or both. Director Walgren replied that the previous owners were involved, and from the article in the Saratoga News and the tour of the site yesterday, it appeared the new owners were also involved. Responding to a question from Commissioner Roupe, Director Walgren confirmed that the current application is in violation of the city ordinance and that staff had notified the new owners that it was not possible to operate as a restaurant or delicatessen. Commissioner Roupe requested clarification regarding whether staff had told the applicants that it was now okay to operate as a restaurant or delicatessen, and Director Walgren confirmed that staff had made it very clear to the applicant that it was not appropriate to proceed with the project from the initial application submittal of the amendment to the use permit. Commissioner Roupe asked how long the applicants had been operating in violation, and Director Walgren replied that he would defer the question to the applicant. Commissioner Kurasch questioned how a fine would be levied on the previous owner and whether the current owner would be liable to a fine once the ownership changed. City Attorney Wittwer responded that the Commission would impose the fine, noting that who would pay is contingent upon the contractual relationship between the previous owner and current owner. Commissioner Roupe asked what other sanctions beyond a fine could be levied on the applicant who knowingly violates the City code. City Attorney Wittwer replied that the Municipal Code includes issues regarding criminal sanctions such as misdemeanors and infractions. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 7:48 p.m. Ali Amalfard addressed the Commission stating he is the owner of Saratoga Café, 14445 Big Basin Way, and noting that he took over the business from the previous owner two months ago. He said he visited the business and discussed with the owner the previous setup. He said the very next day, before negotiations for the sale of the business began, he went to the City Planning Department for guidance. He said the City mentioned the outside patio which the previous owner had been operating for awhile. He also said that the previous owner had noted he did not have the appropriate permit. Mr. Amalfard said that he paid the fees to the Planning Department, and a hearing was set for August 11, 1999. However, prior to the hearing date, staff informed him that the issue had been continued to September 8. He alleged that the staff person told him he could proceed with the project because he had not caused the postponement. He said that two weeks later, the staff person called him and informed him that he could not proceed and would have to wait for approval from the Planning Commission. He said that in the meantime, he has learned that the power to the building has to be upgraded, and he has been operating on temporary power. He said he has not been able to open the business due to lack of power at the location. Continuing his address, he stated that the business opened yesterday and today he was opened for half a day. Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1999 Page 4 Commissioner Roupe asked the applicant whether prior to today and independent of the chairs being placed outside, had he operated a delicatessen or restaurant inside the establishment, selling food to the public. Mr. Amalfard responded in the affirmative, noting that he had operated based on the existing business. In response to Commissioner Roupe’s question, Mr. Amalfard stated he had been operating for less than 24 hours. Responding to Commissioner Roupe’s request for clarification on whether the applicant had been advised that he was not authorized to operate, Mr. Amalfard said the only issue was about placing the chairs outside and that no one had told him anything about not operating a delicatessen. Commissioner Roupe asked the applicant whether he understood that the issue from the previous owner was that he had no authorization for a delicatessen or chairs being placed outside. Mr. Amalfard responded he did not understand. He said he went to the Planning Department from the beginning because he did not want to do anything illegal. He said had he been aware of the circumstances, he would have complied with city requirements. Commissioner Roupe asked Director Walgren to clarify the situation. Director Walgren clarified that he had several conversations with the staff planner, noting that staff was very clear that the former business, Caravan Market, had been approved and no restaurant activity had been approved. He said that was an outstanding violation of the previous business that staff was still in the process of clearing with the previous owner when Mr. Amalfard purchased the business. He said that from his conversations with staff, staff was very clear with Mr. Amalfard. However, Director Walgren stated he understood how there could have been a misunderstanding, especially for an interior type activity inside the market versus actually expanding the business to the exterior. Mr. Amalfard indicated he explained everything to the city when he applied for the business license. He said he had to fill out an additional form regarding the food service. He said the city approved the business license for Saratoga Café with a notation stating, “food service and restaurant.” He said the business would not be a restaurant because he does not have a kitchen. Commissioner Patrick asked the applicant whether he had read the permit which was supposed to have been heard August 11, and Mr. Amalfard replied that he had read it. Commissioner Patrick quoted from the permit language which states, “The market is currently serving sandwiches, drinks, and salads from a small deli area set up at the rear of the store. This use was not specified in the original use permit application, and therefore, it needs to be approved with this modification.” Mr. Amalfard replied that the language was correct, however, he maintained that staff approved him proceeding with the project. Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1999 Page 5 Commissioner Kurasch inquired about the Health Department inspection, and Mr. Amalfard responded that the Health Department was not related; however, the health Department inspected and gave him a new permit with the new name. Commissioner Kurasch asked Director Walgren whether the Health Department would require a clearance from the Planning Department before issuing a permit. Director Walgren responded that this is not a requirement; however, the city transmits applications to the Health Department for their comments which are placed in the project file for the proposed use. Chairwoman Bernald asked whether the staff planner was authorized to provide the information as stated by Mr. Amalfard. Director Walgren responded that the staff planner did not say it was appropriate to operate the business because the hearing was postponed from August 11 due to lack of a quorum. He said he had a discussion with the staff planner immediately afterwards and it was noted that the applicant was concerned about the delay. Bob Cancellieri addressed the Commission, noting he and his wife own the property at 14445 Big Basin Way. He said he had spoken to both previous and current owners, encouraging them to obtain city approval and proceed with the project. He was not aware that the previous owner had not obtained the proper permit. He spoke in favor of the project. Commissioner Roupe commented that the Commission certainly recognizes that there are a number of delicatessens in the vicinity, and it is not an issue of another delicatessen going in. He said the simple fact is whether or not there was operation without a permit in place. Mr. Amalfard added that what happened was a misunderstanding and that he would be willing to comply with whatever the city requires. Commissioner Page referred to the applicant’s earlier comment regarding the power to the building and asked whether the applicant had enough power for the delicatessen cases. Mr. Amalfard responded that he had to shut down immediately due to lack of power. Responding to a question from Commissioner Page regarding when the applicant began to load up the delicatessen cases, Mr. Amalfard stated he started yesterday. He said the business was closed over the weekend. Commissioner Page commented that he had been inside the business over the weekend, the doors were opened, and people were inside the store. Mr. Amalfard remarked that the business was not officially opened over the weekend. In response to Commissioner Kurasch’s question, Mr. Amalfard stated he purchased the business on July 14, 1999. Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1999 Page 6 Commissioner Roupe clarified that the issue is not the chairs being outside and that the violation is the operation of a delicatessen/restaurant inside the building. Mr. Amalfard responded that he understood the situation; however, he went to City Hall for the permit because the previous owner had not informed him of the circumstances. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 8:10 PM). PASSED 5-0 (COMMISSIONER JACKMAN RECUSED). Commissioner Roupe stated that it appeared the applicant had been operating contrary to the statements of the use permit. He said although fines can sometimes be imposed, he saw a problem with someone paying the fine and declaring freedom to do as they please. He noted he did not condone that type of operation. He emphasized that this is a very poor practice and he would vehemently oppose this situation in the future. He stated, however, on the contrary, there could have been a misunderstanding without intent, and he could accept the use permit and plan as proposed. Commissioner Kurasch commented that whether the knowledge was there or not, it seemed straightforward from the city. She said she would like to see conditions on the permit such as a fine or assessment for the violation; a limit on the tables or a definite number given; and a definite detail of the fence including style and materials to fit in with the Village plan with approval from the city or Commission. Commissioner Page agreed that the definition of the fence be approved by staff. He said he was uncertain that the delicatessen portion of the business had been operating since the new owner took over; however, when he was in the premises over the weekend, the business was staffed and it looked open to him. He said he did not see many things in the deli case, which could indicate that that portion of the business was not open. He expressed that it would not be appropriate to fine a new business owner for a former business that failed. He said he would not be in favor of a fine at this time because he did not believe the delicatessen portion was operating. Commissioner Patrick concurred, noting that the fencing referred to the railing as shown on the map. She said she drives past the business at least twice a day and is aware of when the business has been in operation. To her knowledge, she had not seen seating outside; however, she saw that the previous owners did have outside seating, which was in violation. She stated it would not serve a purpose to fine the current owner for the previous owner. She agreed that the railing needs more definition by city staff and that the business is a well-remodeled building by the previous tenants. She expressed displeasure at the signage being installed without approval. She said she could agree with the proposal as long as the applicant continued to work with city staff, pointing out that any further violations would not be graciously considered. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with Commissioner Patrick, except she expressed that a fine should be imposed to send a message that the city is serious about these types of issues. She said some misunderstanding was a convenience for the operation. She noted she would like to see fencing details approved by staff. She said she would support a fine of a least $250. Although the signage was premature, she said it is a good sign and meets all the criteria. Commissioner Page asked about imposing a fine based upon the number of days the sign was up without a permit. Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1999 Page 7 Director Walgren recommended one single fine for the sign and one single fine for the operation of the business without permits. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/ROUPE MOVED TO APPROVE UP-98-011.1 WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT THE FENCING/RAILING BE APPROVED BY STAFF, AND THAT A ONE-DAY $250 PENALTY FINE EACH FOR THE SIGN AND FOR THE USE OF THE DELI, OR A TOTAL $500, BE IMPOSED. PASSED 5-0 (COMMISSIONER JACKMAN RECUSED). Commissioner Jackman returned to the meeting. 3. DR-99-028 (510-01-023) - HOWELL & McNEIL DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 15081 Pepper Lane (Parcel B); Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,242 square foot, one- story residence. The site is 22,720 square feet and is located in an R-1-20,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 8/11/99). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting this application is to build a new 4,242 square foot, single story residence on an undeveloped 22,720 square foot lot located within an R-1-20,000 zoning district. He said that the application would be reviewed and approved as an administrative application; however, because the proposal is for a 24-foot tall building, exceeding the city’s 18-foot high cutoff for administrative reviews, it requires Planning Commission consideration at a regularly noticed public hearing. He noted that all of the adjoining property owners within 500 feet, which is well beyond the state minimum requirement for noticing, have been provided a notice for the project and invited to review and comment on plans. Two letters in support of the project were received from the adjoining property owners. A letter from the immediate adjoining property owners to the south raised concerns about the 24-foot height of the building; however, as a result of their letter, the poles were constructed on the property so that the neighbors and the Commission on their site tour yesterday could have a chance to better assess the overall profile of the structure. It was noted that the property was subdivided earlier this year. Director Walgren further reported that an existing older building located on the corner was reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commission and Planning Commission at the original tentative lot split stage and their goal was that the existing home be retained, and it is currently being renovated. Another goal was that a new home be consistent architecturally in size and mass with the older home. He said the applicants have noted that 24 feet in height achieves the latter goal. He noted the older building is a two-story structure with a very steep roof pitch and a very tall profile matching the profile and architectural style of the building and other homes within the neighborhood. He stated that staff is recommending approval of the application. Director Walgren reported that the arborist’s report lists several tree protection measures, some of which, in Director Walgren’s opinion, may not be practical. He cited, as an example, transplanting tree #20 which would not be the best approach to retain the tree. He said transplanting is not always successful for a tree of this size. He stated that staff is recommending approval with an additional condition allowing the applicant, staff, and arborist to work further on the application to protect and monitor trees #20 and #21 as specified in the report before permits are issued. Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1999 Page 8 Commissioner Roupe announced that he lives in the neighborhood, but after consultation with Director Walgren it has been determined that he lives in excess of 300 feet from the furthest property line. He proposed that he not recuse himself from discussion and deferred to the chair. Chairwoman Bernald stated it was noted where he lived and it is appropriate for him to participate in the meeting. Commissioner Patrick asked for clarification regarding deleting all of #2 from the arborist’s recommendation or only the portion requiring a revised grading plan. Director Walgren responded it was only the latter portion. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 8:27 PM. Gregory Howell, Howell-McNeil Development, 125 Glenridge Avenue in Los Gatos, and Tim McNeil, 18450 Sobey Road, Saratoga, introduced themselves to the Commission and stated they were here to answer any questions or concerns regarding the project. Mr. Howell said they had worked diligently with staff to design a home which fits in with the neighborhood. Commissioner Kurasch inquired about the neighbor who was concerned with the height of the property and the second letter the neighbor was supposed to submit. Director Walgren responded that the letter had not been received yet. Mr. Howell stated he had the letter in his possession and read into the record a letter from Phil and Tessie Young of 15101 Pepper Lane, stating, “Regarding my objections to the height of your home, we have agreed that you will place trees along the property line to block our views. This is acceptable to me and with this understanding, we withdraw our objections.” Mr. Howell further added that the Youngs had an arborist who drew up ideas which would be competing with the oaks already there. He said that he had a general understanding with Mr. Young to provide screening and has not come up with the specifics as to what to use to screen the Young house from the project. Chairwoman Bernald asked whether the applicants would be willing to submit a landscape plan to staff for approval, and Mr. Howell responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Page asked whether moving the trenching for the utilities was feasible, and Mr. Howell responded that it could be done. Commissioner Jackman referred to tree #20 being very close to the rear of the garage and corner of the house and asked whether any more consideration had been given to redesigning the garage to face the street. Mr. Howell responded that he had agreed to what was stated earlier, that the tree should not be moved, and that the house was designed so that the tree could be saved. He said he has also worked with the immediate neighbor who had requested that the tree stay for screening. Responding to a question from Commissioner Kurasch regarding tree #20, Director Walgren replied that the arborist report concludes that the combination of improvements around the tree would remove Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1999 Page 9 approximately 60 percent of its feeding roots which would virtually destroy the tree. He said the requirement is that prior to going forward on the project, the garage be physically shifted away from the tree. In response to Commissioner Roupe’s inquiry regarding staff’s recommendation that a private arborist be retained, Director Walgren explained that on certain projects, where there are a large number of trees, the City requires that the applicant retain a private arborist. Commissioner Kurasch expressed concern with the size of the house. Mr. Howell commented that the applicants worked within the city’s guidelines. Commissioner Kurasch referred to the letters from the two neighbors opposing the height of the building, and Mr. Howell indicated that the Youngs had withdrawn their letter and that the Nelsons would be submitting a letter stating they no longer opposed the project. Commissioner Kurasch expressed concern regarding how the house fit into the neighborhood. Mr. Howell responded that when a house is designed over 18 feet, the square footage needs to be shrunk. He said the applicants have done their best to balance the height and square footage of the house, the lot coverage, and they have met all of the City requirements. Commissioner Jackman recalled that objections were expressed when the lot was divided and complimented the applicants on the fact that the neighbors were not coming in to object to this proposal. She asked how the tree and garage issue would be resolved. Mr. Howell responded that they have agreed to the arborist’s recommendation to put in a pervious type of material for tree #20 so water can pass through and the tree is protected. He said that moving tree #20 is not the right answer as the tree would die if it were moved. Director Walgren said the simplest means would be to shift the garage forward or shift it sideways to reduce it in size. He stated that the more involved solution would be to redesign the house to prevent so much massing at that end; however, it could be done relatively simply by just adjusting the garage. A discussion ensued redesigning the garage including sliding it forward. COMMISSIONERS ROUPE/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 8:44 PM). PASSED 6-0. Commissioner Jackman commented that the project was very well planned and proposed directing Director Walgren to work on the location of the tree and garage. Commissioner Patrick agreed that staff be directed to work on the garage design. She preferred that the garage doors not face the street. She said the tree should be protected. She concurred with Commissioner Kurasch’s earlier comments that the design and guidelines per square feet are up to the maximum, indicating that was the maximum allowable within the discretion. Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1999 Page 10 Commissioner Page concurred, especially if staff would be working with the applicants on the garage. He asked that whatever the design changes are regarding the garage, that consideration be given for the shed in the back and that construction equipment not further impede the growth of the trees. A discussion ensued whether the shed would be removed. Commissioner Kurasch stated that other than her reservations about the size of the house, she had no objection. She said she did not like the configuration of the garage and was concerned about the adjacent neighbor. She noted that if the tree issue could be worked out, along with the screening, she would support the project. Commissioner Roupe indicated he supported the project and appreciated that the applicants worked closely with the neighbors. Commissioner Patrick noted that the screening for the neighbors was not mentioned and should be in the recommendation. Chairwoman Bernald concurred and commended the applicants for working with the neighbors. She noted that the proposal had conditions of protecting trees #20 and #21 and re-siting the garage to do so. She acknowledged that the conditions included contracting with a private arborist during construction, a landscape plan subject to staff approval, and the removal of the shed would be determined by staff based on the arborist report. COMMISSIONERS ROUPE/KURASCH MOVED TO ACCEPT DR-99-028 WITH THE CONDITIONS AS STIPULATED IN THE RESOLUTION. PASSED 6-0. DIRECTOR ITEMS - UP-98-010 & V-98-014.1 - AHMADIAN, 14031 Saratoga Avenue; Request to amend a Planning Commission condition of approval ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting this was an application approved by the Planning Commission in October 1998 to build a detached garage within the required rear yard setback, which has been built. The Commission also approved variance for a second story addition into the attic of an existing older home to convert the attic with dormer windows into habitable space. He said that while under construction, the house was entirely demolished, which is not how the project was advertised and approved. A stop work order was put on the project, and the applicants appeared before the Planning Commission for an amendment to their variance request because the home was entirely removed and was nonconforming to older historic setback requirements. He reported that the Commission heard testimony regarding how the demolition occurred without the city’s notification, and the variance was ultimately approved with the requirement that the house be built exactly as it existed and originally documented in October 1998. A requirement was placed that it be built with the same details, including frieze details under the building’s roof eaves, and that the ultimate arbitrator of the condition be the Heritage Preservation commission (HPC). He noted that the project has now been Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1999 Page 11 completed with minor glitches which have all been resolved, except for one. He said that the HPC and applicant have reached an impasse as to whether the final detailing should be done. Director Walgren recalled that the agreement made in February 1999 when the variances were approved was that the project had to be completed to its original condition and to the Heritage Preservation Commission’s satisfaction. The applicants are now requesting an exception to this condition. He said both the applicant and Norm Koepernik, HPC Chair, were present tonight to respond to questions. Mike Pavlin, 13280 Rio Ranchero, addressed the Commission, noting he and Mary Ahmadian, 14031 Saratoga Avenue, are partners in this project. He said that when they first took this project on, the house was not listed as a historic building, and in the process, it became a historic building. He said they were not notified that it was a historic building until a glitch occurred when the contractor went beyond the limitations. He said the issue at hand is the actual frieze moldings. He said the main complaint is with the details that the HPC is requesting and that they do not serve the appearance of the house. He said he is currently adding the frieze to the house and it is creating a mismatch between the garage and house and a mismatch to the current lines of the building. He said the design on the plan did not account for a frieze width of 10-12 inches, and by adding the width around the roofline and over the windows, the specific frieze is not visible. Director Walgren clarified a question from Commissioner Kurasch regarding the photographs submitted and stated that the porch was approved to be added in October 1998. Norm Koepernik addressed the Commission, confirming the staff report and noting that the only issue was the windows. He said the applicants wanted to put in vinyl windows, and they were told that they would have to install wood windows to match the existing structure. Chairwoman Bernald referred to the applicants’ belief that this was not a heritage preserved home and asked how the HPC became involved. Mr. Koepernik explained the process, noting that applications come to the HPC attention after they are reviewed by the Building and Planning Departments. He said prior to any remodeling, the applications have to go through the HPC. He stated that the HPC not only researches new structures throughout the Village, but also those on Heritage Lane. He said the applicants were aware that the HPC had reviewed the application and had indicated that the structure was significant to the ambiance of Heritage Lane, and that this was part of the condition prior to the applicants getting permits and plan approval. Responding to a question from Chairwoman Bernald, Mr. Koepernik stated that the applicants’ representative was informed of this situation at the Planning Department level and that both the representative and applicants were present at the HPC meeting. Commissioner Roupe commented that the HPC has waived certain elements of identical replacements as being acceptable, and asked what the criteria was for requiring the one element be replaced as per the original. Mr. Koepernik responded that the frieze is part of the historical nature of the building and probably the easiest component to reinstall. Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1999 Page 12 Responding to a question from Commissioner Roupe regarding why other significant elements were waived, Mr. Korpernik stated that requiring the applicants to remove the rest of the siding and install original siding would be a major undertaking. Commissioner Jackman stated that she passes by this house daily, has seen the construction, and does not see anything at this point that resembles the older house. She said she would be in favor of the HPC recommendation regarding the frieze. Commissioner Kurasch asked how different the house was from the original, and Mr. Koepernik responded that the basic footprint of the house remains the same. He said the applicants did what they were supposed to do initially; however, the building is significant in the size and mass for that period of time. He said the siding is larger than it should have been, the detail around the window is not as it should have been. In response to a question from Chairwoman Bernald, Mr. Koepernik said that he went to the site to help the applicants come up with a logical and easy solution and reduced the frieze to 10 inches. He said typically it is a 12 or 16 inch frieze with the extra molding below and above, and adding the extra moldings would not be correct. He noted that the same illusion could be created by doing a simple frieze. Further responding to Chairwoman Bernald’s questions, Mr. Koepernik indicated that all of the windows would be able to function once the frieze is attached. Chairwoman Bernald asked Mr. Koepernik if he were designing the structure again, whether he would make the windows or porch any different. Mr. Koepernik responded that the whole house could be easily duplicated, noting he is in the building development business and it would not be any more costly than what was done. He opined that something went wrong in that the applicants took it upon themselves to make decisions after they were aware of the process. Commissioner Kurasch suggested that perhaps more dialogue should have taken place, or maybe the HPC could be more involved in the inspections, or a coordination policy may be necessary. Mr. Koepernik commented that the HPC has tried to have the expertise to handle historical structures, and the HPC might want to be more involved with historical inspections in cooperation with the Building and Planning Departments. He said the applicants were supposed to have submitted samples of sidings before proceeding to the next step, which they did not do. Director Walgren remarked that this project put the HPC in a difficult situation. He said the siding was a more severe issue than discussed at the site visit yesterday. He said the applicants used entirely different siding which gives the house a more contemporary appearance. He stated that the responsibility was on the applicants who should have had the material approved by the HPC before installing it. He said the applicants agreed as part of their variance application to have those materials reviewed and approved by the HPC before they were installed. The HPC felt that once the siding was put in it would be too much of a hardship to remove it. If the Planning Commission felt that the side should be replaced, that was the same issue that was before the HPC. Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1999 Page 13 Commissioner Patrick commented that this is the third time the applicants have come before the Planning Commission. She said the first time they appeared, the Commission gave certain allowances to the building because they were retaining some of the original structure. She stated that when the issue of the structure being demolished came before the Commission, it was a difficult meeting, and the Commission was attempting to give some leeway like the HPC did to the applicants, which, in hindsight, she would not have done. She said that a bond should have been required of the applicants to ensure that the house became what it should have become. She noted that the city does not have the ability to do day-by-day inspections, which this project required. She conveyed that in retrospect, the HPC did what they could, and that the Planning Commission laid a burden on the HPC by telling them that they keep track of this project for the Planning Commission. Regarding the frieze, she indicated she could not imagine why the city would give the applicants anything at this point. She noted that the city imposed its requirements which the applicants did not follow. She added that the appropriate frieze needs to be installed or the project would not be approved. She said if the applicants want to come back to the Commission, perhaps they could also remove the siding. She remarked that the letter from the applicant stated that they tried to keep the historical look as much as possible, yet the Commission asked the applicants to keep the historical look of the house, not to try to retain it as much as possible, and to ensure the consistency of the neighborhood, which they did not do. Commissioner Roupe concurred with Commissioner Patrick. He referred to his earlier comment regarding fines as one buying one’s way out of compliance, and stated that the concept of a fine to erase a transgression is the wrong way to go. Commissioner Kurasch asked whether the applicants had been fined. Director Walgren responded that they had not been fined at this state and that the issue of the fine had not been resolved yet. Commissioner Jackman stated that this house is on the market and asked whether anyone could move in before a final inspection. Director Walgren replied that although sales could occur, no one could move in; the house could not be made habitable, nor have utilities hooked up until it was finalized. Commissioner Patrick noted that the applicants were volunteering to pay a $30,000 fine, which she said would not eliminate the frieze in her opinion. Responding to a question from Commissioner Kurasch, Director Walgren stated that in February the variance that came before the Planning Commission could have been denied, however, as a penalty, the project was shut down for many, many weeks. He said each violation had been caught and resolved in an open, upfront, and proper manner, and this issue is now at the next stage of the project. Commissioner Roupe asked for clarification regarding the only issue being the frieze. Director Walgren responded that the issue is whether the HPC should retain authority regarding whether or not the home is complete to their satisfaction. Mr. Pavlik responded to an earlier question regarding what could have been done better to avoid situations like this. He repeated that the applicants were not aware that the house had a historic designation until it Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1999 Page 14 was actually torn down. He suggested one way to avoid a similar occurrence would be to mark every single property in the city to indicate historic significance. He suggested that the city procedure be changed so that the HPC makes recommendations to the Planning Commission instead of two separate entities who give recommendations to each other. Director Walgren clarified that the HPC is advisory to the Planning Commission, and when the application was originally reviewed in October, the HPC’s recommendation was that this building be placed on the historic inventory concurrent with the applicant’s proposal. He said this procedure was not what led to the issue at hand. He said that when the applicants came before the Planning Commission in February asking for new variances as a result of the house being moved, the agreement was entirely independent of the HPC designation. He noted that the agreement was that the Planning Commission would approve the variances if the home was put back in its original condition, including specifically wood siding, window detailing, trims, frieze detail. Ms. Ahmadian addressed the Commission, stating that she accepted that she (and Mr. Pavlik) had made a mistake. Commissioner Page concurred with Commissioner Patrick’s comments, noting that discussion of ancient history was moot. He acknowledged that the Commission delegated the responsibility to the HPC of overseeing this project, and the HPC recommendation should be upheld since the HPC has the experience and ability to do so. He noted that something needed to be done to retain some semblance of what is Heritage Lane and that the friezes needed to be put back in. Commissioner Kurasch agreed with her fellow Commissioners, suggesting that perhaps the HPC could develop a policy of what kind of conditions they would be comfortable with in working with historic homes under construction. Commissioner Roupe concurred, commenting that the delegation to the HPC should be upheld. Commissioner Jackman concurred that the frieze should go back on and that the final inspection not be finalized until both the HPC and Planning Commission are totally satisfied. She said she was uncertain about the appropriateness of fines, but considering the issues with this project, she suggested that Director Walgren consider the possibility of a fine in addition to having the frieze re-installed. Chairwoman Bernald inquired about the fine, and Director Walgren responded that he would work with the HPC to arrive at an appropriate solution and inform the Planning Commission at its next meeting. He would also allow the project to go forward requiring the frieze be put back on with HPC approval. Responding to a question from Chairwoman Bernald regarding whether the frieze would also be applied to the garage, Director Walgren responded that the frieze would be applied to the house only. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with the other Commissioners. She noted that the applicants have had several opportunities to comply with the requirements which have not been followed. She said she had met with the applicant yesterday and discussed that Heritage Lane is special to Saratoga and the city has an obligation to maintain its history. She stated she would recommend the frieze going in and would also recommend a fine. She said the Commission has given direction, and she hoped this project would be a demonstration of the Commission’s determination to protect the city. Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1999 Page 15 - Planning Commission recruitment Director Walgren reported that the city is recruiting for a new Commissioner to replace Commissioner Waltonsmith who was recently appointed to the City Council and has already served her first Council meeting. Potential candidates must submit an application by September 27. - Planning Commission retreat A discussion was held regarding setting a date for a planning Commission retreat. Consensus was to set the date toward the end of January, by which time the new Commissioner would be appointed. - Circulation Element update kick-off meeting Director Walgren reported that the Circulation Element Update is the city’s long-range traffic plan, and the kick-off meeting has been scheduled for September 23, 7:00 p.m. in the Community Center Multi-purpose Room. COMMISSION ITEMS Chairwoman Bernald requested that the selection of the new Bicycle Committee representative be posted on the agenda. Commissioner Kurasch requested a legal opinion regarding antenna panels. City Attorney Wittwer noted that Director Walgren had already requested legal information regarding the Telecommunications Act. Commissioner Roupe requested that the legal opinion include whether electromagnetic radiation is an appropriate issue for Commission discussion. Director Walgren reported that staff is holding off on some applications for installing antennae until the Commission has had an opportunity to discuss this issue. A discussion ensued, and Director Walgren noted that the issue is on the September 22 agenda. COMMUNICATIONS Written - City Council Minutes for regular meeting of August 4 and regular adjourned meeting of August 10, 1999 - Noted. - Correspondence from Bert Martel, dated August 13, 1999 - Noted. Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1999 Page 16 - Notes for regular meeting of September 22, 1999 - Noted. - Notice of Preparation of Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration for regular meeting of September 22, 1999; NAVICO, INC., 14230 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - Noted. - Notice of Environmental Negative Declaration (public hearing date to be determined); SPRINT PCS, PG&E tower on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road at the Southern Pacific Railroad crossing - Noted. - Notice of Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration (public hearing date to be determined); METRICOM, 14000 Fruitvale Avenue - Noted. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING With no further business to discuss, Chairwoman Bernald adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m., to Wednesday, September 22, 1999, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Lynda Ramirez Jones Minutes Clerk MINUTES AMENDED AND APPROVED BY: James Walgren Secretary to the Planning Commission