Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-27-1999 Planning Commission MinutesCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roll Call Present: Commissioners Jackman, Kurasch, Patrick, and Chairwoman Bernald Absent: Commissioners Page and Roupe (who had indicated earlier they would not be present tonight) Staff: Director Walgren Pledge of Allegiance Minutes COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KURASCH MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 13, 1999, AS AMENDED BELOW. PASSED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS PAGE AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT). Page 3, paragraph 3, line 9, amended to read: “....support the expanse expansive hard surface...” Page 3, paragraph 8, line 1, amended to read: “Mr. Non Chi Cho Wang....” Page 9, paragraph 7, line 9, amended to read: “....said that electromagnetic is fields are bad for..” Page 10, paragraph 7, - delete paragraph in its entirety. Page 16, last paragraph on page, line 1, amended to read: “....he would suggest it be required that the applicant discuss the plan with neighbors.” Page 17, paragraph 9, line 1, amended to read: “....Chairwoman Bernald distributed applications questionnaires to Commissioners..” Oral Communications There was no one present who wished to speak on any subject not on the agenda. Report of Posting Agenda Director Walgren declared that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 22, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet Director Walgren announced that under Public Hearing Item #4, on page 3 under the staff analysis under Proposal, Lot Coverage, the second line should read “Residential Building (not Impervious) Coverage, Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1999 Page 2 of 14 (excluding streets). CONSENT CALENDAR 1. AZO-99-001 (Citywide) - CITY OF SARATOGA; The Planning Commission will consider changes to the City’s zoning ordinance regarding hillside fencing regulations and administrative appeals. Under consideration will be: 1) amendments to the Hillside Residential zoning district fencing regulations, and 2) amendments to the administrative appeals process. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared by the City of Saratoga and are on file in the Community Development Department. (CONTINUED TO 11/10/99 AT THE REQUEST OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KURASCH MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. PASSED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS PAGE AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT). PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. DR-99-038 (397-07-013) - BEAN, 15161 Oriole Way; Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 3,420 sq. Ft. single story residence and construct a new 6,139 sq. Ft. single story residence with a 1,412 sq. Ft. basement. Maximum height of the residence is proposed to be 26 ft. The site is a 1.06-acre parcel in an R-1-40,000 zoning district. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report, stating this is a request for design review consideration to demolish an existing single story home and construct a new single story building in its place. He described the property and reported that the project meets all minimum zoning ordinance requirements and has been reviewed by the applicable utility and public safety providers. He noted that the arborist report indicates that only one tree, a black walnut in marginal condition, is required to be removed. He said no correspondence from adjacent property owners or neighbors opposed to or concerned with the project has been received, and staff recommends approval. Director Walgren referred to trees #14 and #15 and reported that the arborist is recommending removing one of two very large pines on the property which has been leaning precariously for many years. The other tree is in poor condition and the arborist recommends its removal; however, it does not have to be removed, and the project could go forward without the two trees being removed. He said that if the Commission authorizes the removal as a result of approving the project, the City would have an opportunity to require in-kind replacement trees. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 7:47 p.m. Mr. William Bean, 21388 Sara Hills Drive, Saratoga, introduced himself as the applicant, designer, and property owner. He referred to the two pine trees, stating he concurred with the arborist in that they are marginal. He inquired about the amount of bond for removal and replacement of trees. Later in the meeting, Director Walgren explained the formula, noting that the arborist report did not include the removal of trees #14 and #15, which removal would reduce the amount of the bond. Director Walgren said this issue could be Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1999 Page 3 of 14 worked out with staff. Commissioner Kurasch noted that the bulk of the area was very linear and asked Mr. Bean what his requirements were for this type of design. Mr. Bean responded that because the contours of the land are leveled with the existing house it made sense to have a long house that followed the terrain with minimum grading while preserving the rear for a backyard. There was no one from the public who wished to address this proposal. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/JACKMAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 7:54 P.M.). PASSED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS PAGE AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT). Commissioner Kurasch commented this is a lovely and visible spot in the neighborhood, and the design would fit in with the neighborhood. She said her reservation was with the configuration horizontally as it almost looks like two homes. She noted that the linear position of the house makes it very difficult to be in character with other houses in the neighborhood, and her impression is that it is incompatible with the other homes because of its visibility. Commissioner Patrick stated she would be voting in favor of the proposal, although she would prefer wood siding. She said the design mimics the house across the street that is being built, yet it is a better design. She would prefer that the two Monterey pines be removed per the arborist report and that should be part of the conditions. She would also want the bonding adjusted by staff. Commissioner Jackman remarked that she liked the layout of the house. She said although it is very long facing the street, the backyard view is a good view, and the applicant is making the best use of the land. She also supports the removal of the two Monterey pines and reducing the bond. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with Commissioners Jackman and Patrick. She said the project is very well articulated and she will support the project. She would rather have a wood-sided house but because of the stucco house across the street, it would not be incompatible. She agreed that the Monterey pines should be removed, the resolution should include an in-kind replacement tree, and the bond should addressed with staff. Commissioner Kurasch added that this is a difficult decision for her because she likes the design; however, the project is one square foot below the maximum allowable, and her issue is that rather than try to fit a house under the maximum, her concern is the way the house is situated. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/JACKMAN MOVED TO APPROVE DR-99-038 WITH AN ADDITION TO THE RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO THE REMOVAL OF THE TWO MONTEREY PINE TREES PER THE ARBORIST REPORT. PASSED 3-1 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH OPPOSED; COMMISSIONERS PAGE AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT). 3. SUP-99-001 & DR-99-030 (393-39-011) - LUBRAN, 20199 Franklin Avenue; Request for Second Unit Use Permit approval to construct a 1,106 sq. ft. second dwelling unit with a maximum height of 15 ft. from natural grade. Also proposed is a 454 sq. ft. addition to the existing 2,646 sq. ft. main residence. The main residence will remain a single story structure with a maximum building height of 17 ft. Total floor area proposed for the site is 4,206 sq. ft. The site is located on a 16,552 (net) sq. ft. parcel in an R-1-10,000 zoning district. Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1999 Page 4 of 14 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report, described the details of the project, and noted that the proposal meets all of the criteria and development standards for a second dwelling unit, and staff recommends approval. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Dominic Passanisi of Scotts Valley, stated he does a lot of design work in Saratoga. He said that this proposal is an attempt by a daughter to take care of her mother on the site where the daughter grew up. He conveyed that in designing the placement of the second unit on the site, he wanted to maintain an easy driveway access as straight as possible for entering and exiting, while simultaneously maintaining as much back yard as possible. Commissioner Patrick indicated she could not determine from the plan whether the driveway coverage went from the lot line inward so that parts of existing vegetation will be cemented. Mr. Passanisi responded in the affirmative and stated the reason for cementing was to give the mother the widest driveway possible. Responding to Commissioner Patrick’s question whether he had considered moving the entire grandmother unit forward so the garages would be at the same place, Mr. Passanisi said the first design he submitted to the applicants had the unit further back toward the rear lot line as far as it could go. Commissioner Patrick inquired whether a gate or fence would be installed to prevent access to the back yard from the long driveway, and Mr. Passanisi stated that the gate or fence would go from garage to garage. In response to a question from Commissioner Kurasch regarding whether any screening would be installed in the east side, Mr. Passanisi said although none had been shown in the drawings, the 10 foot side yard setback would be landscaped. Ms. Betty Feldheym, 20184 Franklin Avenue, introduced herself as a neighbor and stated that she had submitted a letter in support of the project. She said she has lived next door to the applicant for 40 years and gets along very well with her. She noted that she would hate to see the oleanders along the driveway go; however, she has a lot of landscaping on her side. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/JACKMAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 8:12 P.M.). PASSED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS PAGE AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT). Commissioner Patrick spoke in support of the proposal except for the concrete driveway going right up to the fence line along the neighbor’s side. She would prefer a foot or two of planting in the strip which would not get in the way of the driveway access. Commissioner Jackman would like to see planting along the right side. She would like to see a plan with variation in the cement style to break up the volume of the expansive cement. Commissioner Kurasch had no problem with the proposal, liked the use, and stated it would serve a good purpose. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with other Commissioners. She said the project conforms to the development standards and occupancy requirements. She agreed that the oleanders should be kept or other planting should be installed along the fence line. Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1999 Page 5 of 14 COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/JACKMAN MOVED TO APPROVE SUP-99-001 WITH ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS, SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL, THAT A PLANTING STRIP AREA BE INSTALLED IN THE RIGHT SIDE, AND THAT A DRIVEWAY TREATMENT BE INCLUDED TO BREAK UP THE VISUAL EXPANSE. PASSED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS PAGE AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT). COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KURASCH MOVED TO APPROVE DR-99-030. PASSED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS PAGE AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT). 4. SD-99-005, UP-99-018 & DR-99-037 (386-53-001 & -029) - AZULE CROSSING INC., 12312 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road; Request for Subdivision, Use Permit and Design Review approval to construct 27 new residential units of approximately 1,815 to 2,345 sq. ft. and remodel the existing commercial building located at the front of the property. The commercial building will be expanded from its current 11,931 sq. ft. to 14,233 sq. ft. The property is located in a Commercial Neighborhood zoning district. The residential component of the project would occupy 2.62 acres while the commercial component would occupy 1.28 acres. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared by the City of Saratoga and are on file in the Community Development Department. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting this was a request for a mixed use development approval for a 3.9 acre parcel within a commercially zoned district located at the southeast corner of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way. He noted the property is currently developed with four commercial buildings, and one of the buildings is retail. He said the other three buildings are primarily office uses, and one is a restaurant. The application is being presented to the Commission tonight as the first of two public hearings. The project is subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. He said staff has done an environmental initial study on the project comprised of a traffic analysis, and staff is in the middle of the public review period for the initial study; however, given the several land use issues that the Commission needs to consider for this type of project, staff felt it was useful to present the project tonight to generate public input as well as Commissioners’ input so that changes could be incorporated as the project develops. Director Walgren reported that specifically the project requires tentative subdivision map approval to subdivide the rear 2.6 acres into 27 residential sites consisting of 12 small lot single-family sites and 15 single-family, owner-occupied, attached units. The 28th parcel would be the commercial use of the front of the property. He said the application requires conditional use permit. He conveyed that this is a commercially designated and zoned property within commercial districts; multiple-family and mixed-use projects of this type are permitted. He noted that to do a mixed-use project and not something that is entirely commercial requires discretionary approval by the Planning Commission. Director Walgren added that the residential buildings and commercial buildings require design review approval. A mitigated negative declaration has been circulated for public review which is also part of what the Commission needs to consider. When the public review period expires, the Commission will need to either adopt or reject the mitigated negative declaration. The site is under 4 acres and is currently developed with commercial structures of which the majority would be removed. The site abuts the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way to the south and residences beyond that, single-family homes to the east and northeast, commercial development to the northwest and to the west of the property across from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Director Walgren outlined the three primary land use issues identified by staff . He said numerous discussions Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1999 Page 6 of 14 have been held regarding the loss of development activity in the City as the little bit of land designated for commercial development is being pressured to be developed with residential projects. These projects have been approved when at appropriate locations, and they have been denied when they were deemed to be inappropriate locations where commercial activity should be preserved and retained. He said in this particular site staff has worked with the applicants for a relatively long period of time, noting the previous application submitted over a year ago for this property had a larger commercial component with a two-story building which the Zoning Ordinance does not permit, and it had approximately 35 residential units which is one-third denser than tonight’s proposed project. That project had Zoning Ordinance development regulation problems and staff expressed concern about the configuration in density of the project. That plan was ultimately withdrawn and the plan presented this evening has also gone through significant revisions and is now submitted with 27 units, which is significantly less dense. Director Walgren conveyed that staff review concludes that the overall mixed-use proposal is fairly appropriate for this site. He referred to the property maps, color rendering elevations of the residential units, commercial elevations, building footprint and streets, etc. mounted on the wall. He said though the site is almost four acres of commercial property, very little of the land has commercial frontage that would result in a truly commercial, viably successful retail project, and this is one of the factors staff took into consideration. Director Walgren continued reporting that to augment its review, staff required an economic analysis be prepared and submitted by the applicants, and the analysis is attached to the staff report. He explained that the analysis contains four scenarios outlined by staff. The first scenario includes the buildings as they currently exist but at full occupancy with a limited commercial frontage, and the conclusion was that the buildings would remain to be largely office uses and would not meet the City’s objective of trying to expand and encourage retail activity at this particular property. The second scenario is the proposal being considered tonight. The third scenario was where the property was entirely redeveloped at approximately 60,000 square feet of new commercial construction, and the findings were that that would be largely dedicated to office type uses. The fourth scenario was a proposal that would result in a lot line shift and a reduction in residential units with an increase in the commercial component. The applicant’s study has cited anecdotal or market reasons why the fourth scenario might not work, noting proximity to existing shopping centers, the current real estate market for retail space. Their conclusion was that the site could not successfully support doubling of retail square footage at approximately 30,000 square feet. Director Walgren referred to the primary issue as land use, asking whether this would be an appropriate mix for this type of project within a commercially zoned piece of land. He said another issue is the environmental initial study, noting that the focus is on the traffic analysis which concludes that the project would result in an anticipated net traffic increase of 72 daily trips and should not affect the level of service on Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road as measured at north- and southbound intersections on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road at Prospect, Seagull, and Cox Avenue. He noted that the applicant’s report notes that a signal is warranted at Seagull and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and that this project will significantly impact particularly westbound egress traffic in the morning and late afternoon peak hours through that intersection. He said that as a mitigation effort, staff’s report concluded that this project should pay towards a proportionate share of a traffic signal at Seagull and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. In determining what the proportionate share should be, staff referred back to a similar project approved many years ago for the old Hubbard & Johnson site, and based on a City Council decision, staff is proposing that the developers contribute a 50 percent cost-share. Director Walgren added that another land use issue is the design review aspect. He said the commercial buildings are proposed to be renovated with new elements that would bring the building up to a more contemporary standard. The staff report is supportive of the architecture of the building with a recommendation that the colors and materials be amended to reflect the colors and materials of the residential units which are Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1999 Page 7 of 14 deeper earth-tone colors versus the pastels proposed for the commercial building. One amendment staff would further recommend is the actual roof pitch element that covers the internal walkway connecting the buildings. Staff would recommend that the roof pitch be brought down to reflect the roof pitch of the existing building which would bring it closer to the 20' height limit imposed on the Zoning District. Lastly, Director Walgren commented that by combining a large residential component to a commercially zoned property, and by its design, it achieves a buffer that does not exist currently between the residences to the east, which currently back up to a parking lot, and the new commercial component. He commented that by design, the residential piece will provide significant protection to the existing homes to the east. Chairwoman Bernald commented that members of the community probably have a question why Measure G does not apply to this project. Director Walgren responded that Measure G does not apply to this property because it is a commercially designated property and this is a commercial-residential mixed-use development which is consistent with the General Plan designation. He explained that Measure G primarily protects residential properties from being re- designated to commercial, and that is not happening here. Chairwoman Bernald re-affirmed that the Commission tonight should first address whether this project is generally suitable to the site, then address the commercial aspect, and lastly address the residential aspect. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 8:55 P.M. Mr. Scott Ward, Classic Communities, 1068 East Meadow Circle, Palo Alto, addressed the Commission as the co-applicants for the proposal which they believe promises to redevelop and re-use an obsolete commercial property into a high quality, mixed-use development that is integrated into the fabric of the existing neighborhood and the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road retail corridor. He urged the Commission to support the proposal to revitalize the property in a responsible way. He said the applicants have been able to find a considerable amount of common ground on this property as they have been working on it over the course of the past several months. There is, in their opinion, broad base agreement that something needs to be done to the property to avert continued decline and that this property presents an opportunity to create a high-quality, new community of homes and businesses. The proposal retains the amount of floor area on the property that is actually devoted to retail uses and locates the floor area appropriately in close proximity to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, thereby achieving the important city-wide goal of retaining limited areas of commercially zoned tax- revenue producing properties. He commented that there are no negative fiscal impacts from this proposal, noting it re-uses the balance of the property to create a well-designed, new home community, and effectively down-zones the property from more intense commercial uses to less intense residential uses. He said this project establishes a buffer between existing R-1 uses and commercial uses. Mr. Ward went on to describe the project, noting that the landscape plan and architecture have been designed to assure privacy between the new homes and existing homes. He said the existing tree buffer is to be retained and enhanced, in-filled with new trees where it is sparse, and second stories have few, if any, significant openings to the rear. All of the main bedroom windows are to the front or to the side so the impact of the second story is borne by the new homes, not the adjacent properties. He stated that these features have been carefully designed to address neighbors’ concerns, and that the residential element is designed to reflect the traditional residential experience of Saratoga at a somewhat more modest scale. In describing the project, he said that all of the homes front on a private drive; front doors and living room windows address the street; each home has a two-car garage and a two-car driveway apron; and each home has a conventional rear yard. He said there is a continuous sidewalk network designed to create a positive pedestrian experience on site. The site Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1999 Page 8 of 14 plan is open to the rail corridor. He said while the proposal increases the total number of trips it actually reduces the total number of peak hour volumes. Mr. Ward described the common ground of the project. He said this week it was learned that a neighbor to the north had some concerns about retaining the existing masonry wall whereas the applicants had proposed a new masonry wall, and he conveyed that the applicants are prepared to amend the plan to assure that the masonry wall is retained to address grading conditions and to enhance privacy. He said the applicants intend to consider the Commission’s recommendations very carefully and do their best to respond to them before the next hearing. Chairwoman Bernald stated she was concerned with safety and getting emergency vehicles in and out of the area and asked about the area designated as an open play area or tot lot. Mr. Ward responded that the dimensions of the right-of-way support emergency access requirements, and they still need to test the requirements to make sure they conform to the standards. He said that they are open to incorporation of some form of common gathering place or recreation area which would serve the need within the community. He respectfully requested that the Commission consider such an area in light of the “park in lieu” fees that the developer is obligated to pay and that there be an appropriate offset regarding the inclusion of an on-site common green area. Mr. Kirk Hereld, Hereld & Ayres Architects, 39560 Stevenson Place, Suite 117, Fremont, CA addressed the Commission regarding the commercial retail portion of the project. He said their concept is to take the existing structure, add additional square footage, and renovate the building with new materials, new colors, different elements to break up the exteriors, make it a little friendlier, and turn it into a true retail center, eliminating some of the office-type uses in this part of the city. He said the building has a walking mall to the side of the center which they plan to skylight and extend all the way through the building, encouraging entry into those areas by addressing an entry feature in each point. They also plan to pave the entire lot, install new gutters, and put in new landscaping. Commissioner Patrick asked if the applicants seriously contemplated using pink and lavender colors. Mr. Hereld responded they would work with staff with whatever colors and hues would be appropriate. Commissioner Patrick asked what kind of look would be established with pink and lavender colors, and Mr. Hereld replied that the intention was that those colors would be more friendlier and more livelier, and it would get away from the building’s current extremely dark look. Mr. Dennis Griffin, 12302 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga, addressed the Commission representing the commercial section of the project. He said the intent is to increase the parking size of the commercial site and increase purchasing power which would increase the sales tax base. Chairwoman Bernald asked if there were any assurances that the commercial site would remain a retail place or that it would be dedicated to 75 percent retail over a course of time. Mr. Griffin replied that it would be difficult to say whether the applicants would maintain that; however, they are committed to only leasing to retail patrons, and the building is being designed and marketed to retail space. Commissioner Jackman asked if the applicants had any idea of what type of retail they would like to have Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1999 Page 9 of 14 behind the lighting business, and Mr. Griffin replied that the Front Window business is moving from their location next door to the lighting business. Director Walgren read into the record letters from Zoe Alameda, Alameda Family Funeral Home, and from Carl Orr, Color Shop Interiors, businesses on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, expressing their support for the project. Mr. Leon Mendelson, 20408 Seagull Way, Saratoga, conveyed that his major concern was partially addressed by the presentation. He said the existing cement wall serves as a buffer between the properties and as a retaining wall. The Azule parking lot is approximately two feet above his land level. Removal or alteration of that wall would impact his landscaping, drainage, and possibly cause land subsidence into his property. He said he finds it difficult to believe that the existing wall can be removed without removing most of the trees currently lining the wall. He noted that the trees provide a buffer between the proposed properties and his property. Ms. Joan F. Green, 12350 Goleta Avenue, Saratoga, said that she could not understand how traffic would be lower at peak hours. She asked what the rear yards of the houses would be. She said her objection is the same as it was 25 years ago and that would be the amount of cars coming in and going out of the area. She asked to see the traffic ingress and egress on the map. Director Walgren responded, noting that the commercial project would access Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way, and the residential portion would access only at Seagull. Responding to Ms. Green’s further questions regarding traffic, Chairwoman Bernald suggested that Ms. Green review the staff’s traffic study. Director Walgren clarified that the traffic analysis addresses net increase and traffic trips, comparing the net increase with what currently exists. Ms. Abby Krimotat, Executive Director of the Saratoga Chamber of Commerce, 20460 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, conveyed that the Chamber Board of Directors has unanimously agreed to approve and support the project, noting it is in the best interest of Saratoga. Ms. Kristin Davis, owner of the Front Window, 12378 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, stated she would be moving her store from its location to the new building, noting this was an important step for her and her business. She said Azule Crossing has been a retail spot since 1939, and she hopes this project will help everybody. Mr. John Mallory, 12258 Kirkdale Drive, Saratoga, stated he is a 30-year Saratoga resident, and expressed concern that this would be the fourth high-density development in this area since he has lived there. He urged the Commission to study this project which deserves a good intensive look. He expressed concern over the emphasis on sales tax. He sees the town as it has been developed as a town of houses, not a town of commercial development. He said if the city needs money, it should not be focused on sales tax, it should be focused on coming to the citizens through property tax or utility tax. He commented because there is very little to be developed in the town, the Commission needs to take a strong look at providing the services that the residences need in town, and it should be done with minimum traffic in mind so people do not have to go too far for services. He expressed concerned with trees, asking that more Oak trees as opposed to Monterey pines be considered. He reiterated that the Commission study this project carefully so it meets the standards expected in Saratoga. Finally, he asked for a community room because of the shortage of community rooms in the city. Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1999 Page 10 of 14 Chairwoman Bernald asked Mr. Mallory about the density and what he would specifically recommend. Mr. Mallory responded that he was more concerned with the mistakes that have been made (such as the old Hubbard & Johnson site), and noted that when one goes to the development it should feel like Saratoga with more freedom and landscaping. He said he is concerned about the long-run appearance and feeling. Mr. William Guthrie, 20422 Seagull Way, Saratoga, quoted from Article 1555 of the Zoning Ordinance and stated that the application was incomplete because it failed to address the language and intent of Article 1555. He asked the Commission not to accept the application, especially at the current density. He quoted from Measure G language and expressed that this proposal was placed in the Zoning Ordinance by voters of Saratoga and, therefore, deserves special attention. He said he would submit in writing several reasons why this proposal is inappropriate and inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood. He said the application should be denied based on Measure G. Mr. Jeffrey Walker, 20451 Seagull Way, Saratoga, stated he lives directly across from the subject property. He expressed that the density is too great due to traffic. He said he was not allowed to do a room addition due to the restrictions imposed because he is in an R-1-10,000 zone, yet, this project proposes 4500 square foot lots with 60 percent structure. He said this did not seem like a good fit. He stated that Seagull could not bear the traffic load of 27 more residences, and if a signal were installed, right turn traffic would back up past his residence, making it impossible for him to back out of his driveway. If the access was available for the residences off Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, some of these issues would be alleviated. Mr. Ward stated that Mr. Mendelson’s comment regarding the retaining wall and landscaping would be addressed. Referring to Ms. Green’s question, he said the rear yards on the perimeter are generally 25 feet minimum, which is fairly consistent, and that the rear yards of the internal lots are in the 20- foot range. He said he appreciated Mr. Mallory’s comments and conveyed that the applicants share some of his concerns and critiques regarding the Hubbard & Johnson property which have been considered. He said he would defer to Director Walgren regarding Mr. Guthrie’s comments. He noted that the applicants met with Mr. Walker previously and discussed concerns with singular access to the residential element from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. He said it is important for the residential aspect to have its separate identity from Seagull and it may be necessary to coordinate with Mr. Griffin the potential for other points of connection in addition to Seagull. Mr. Hereld noted he would be working with staff to develop a palette that would be more workable. He said he would also work with staff on alternatives regarding the traffic issue. Mr. Ward reiterated that the previous application was for 35 homes on the site, and the current proposal is 75 percent of the earlier submission. Commissioner Kurasch asked the applicant for clarification as to why it was important for the applicants or the community to have separate identities for the project, and why the proposal is two parcels, two separate applications, yet it is a mixed-use project. Mr. Ward responded that they may have over-reacted in terms of establishing separate identities, and perhaps it is an over-reaction to the other site along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road where in order to access the homes, one has to go through a retail strip. He said this has negative impacts on both the retailers and residences, and it is important for the residences to be able to identify their own community in a readable, trackable way. Commissioner Kurasch stated that for her, logically, the project does not necessarily have to be completely Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1999 Page 11 of 14 separated and walled off to have separate identities. She asked about vehicular or pedestrian access between commercial and residential. A discussion ensued. Mr. Ward stated that there is a continuous sidewalk from Seagull extending in front of the perimeter homes, then connecting to a point of connection at the interface between the townhomes and the single-family homes. He said there is an established pedestrian network that leads to Seagull that takes one to retail and it is accessible from every home in the development. He said a masonry wall is proposed and at the boundary between the two uses it does not, in its current configuration, penetrate that wall. Commissioner Jackman referred to security issues and said she would like to see a common open area and not necessarily play equipment. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KURASCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 9:30 P.M.). PASSED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS PAGE AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT). Commissioner Jackman stated she liked the general concept, noting the density of the condominiums and houses concerns her in that there is no open space, and this is very important. Commissioner Kurasch commented that having a connection between the uses would solve the traffic intensity problem from Seagull Way whether it were a driving or walking opening from the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road side by the railroad tracks. She said traffic needs to be addressed in both uses and not just peak hours. She noted that her experience in commercial development is limited and she could not comment on this aspect of the proposal. She said she was still uncertain about what would be the most successful scenario. Commissioner Patrick commented that the commercial development is a great idea and it does not look like the retail use is being intensified for the commercial use. She said her concerns echo some of Mr. Mallory’s concerns. She referred to the on/off access Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and noted the same problem exists at Argonaut retail center. She stated she was uncomfortable with an exit or access out of the commercial onto Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road turning towards The Village. She said it is a difficult situation now and it would not be made better by the traffic configuration or ingress/egress pattern proposed. From her perspective, the applicants need to work on that aspect of the commercial portion. She conveyed that it is necessary for access between the commercial and residential in some way to eliminate the residential traffic problems which will be discussed later, and to prevent a three-step process to get into the residential itself. She commented that if the residential is going to be part of the neighborhood, there are too many steps in the process. It needs to be more gradual and more natural development into the residential from the commercial. She said she is concerned about the traffic onto Seagull but not from the commercial. She said she would like to see the roof line pursuant to staff change as it pertains to the commercial design. She noted the description of the colors is apparently visually different than the color samples she has seen. She said she had concern about the commercial, noting that the concept of a whole commercial development would work rather than having it all be on the front. She said she understood the difficulty with the existing commercial. She expressed that the parking configuration for retail should help, and that more landscaping is always better. Chairwoman Bernald conveyed that this proposal in general was an appropriate use of the property and shared the concerns heard earlier regarding the ingress/egress off Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and off Seagull. She suggested perhaps looking at left turn lanes outside of the area to access it. She agreed with Commissioner Patrick regarding the more gradual and natural development into the residential from the commercial and the tight parking situation in the residential area. She lauded Mr. Mallory for saying that the services needed in Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1999 Page 12 of 14 Saratoga should be heeded, however, she feels that the services already in existence at Azule have been there for quite sometime will be able to stay. She expressed concerns that assurances are kept that the project will be maintained as commercial retail. She said that contrary to Mr. Mallory’s comments, Saratoga should maintain every tax base that it can. The citizens have not voted in favor of raising their taxes and it is important to maintain what is currently in the tax base. She expressed that Mr. Guthrie’s concerns are very legitimate and a discussion with Director Walgren would answer his concerns. She said that most of the citizens of Saratoga would have thought when they voted for Measure G that they were voting for something that would cover such a development; however, unfortunately, she said, it was not worded as such. She stated that the project could get to where it is compatible with the neighborhood and through perhaps less density, less buildings, a single- story building here and there, and definitely some open common ground. Chairwoman Bernald noted it is difficult to separate the project, and moved the focus to address the commercial segment. Commissioner Kurasch stated her main concern was the commercial connection. She said it is important to have a little continuity physically and visually and have a face on the street. She noted the project is an improvement over what is currently in place. Commissioner Patrick conveyed that she would encourage as much of a retail component as possible. She said if the commercial is going to be retail use, she would be much more favorably inclined to support it. She expressed concern that residents in Saratoga have to drive miles to make purchases and likes the idea of having the services close to home. Commissioner Jackman referred to the traffic and the need for the signal at the corner of Seagull. She commented that left-turn lanes could be installed to lighten the issue of the traffic and improve the current situation. She stated that the entrance and exit from the commercial area on the side of the railroad tracks will have to be a right-turn only. She noted that the traffic could be controlled. Chairwoman Bernald lauded that there is wood siding on the building and suggested less stucco. She said she agrees with staff in changing the slope of the roof, and she would like to see more detail on the plans. She said she was having trouble with depth, noted that the lighter colors would be an attractive draw on the commercial buildings, and she would recommend that the colors coordinate with the homes. She would also like to see retail services appropriate to the community and assurance that the retail would be built with that in mind. Chairwoman Bernald declared a recess. Upon reconvening, the same Commissioners and staff were present. Chairwoman Bernald turned the focus of discussion to the residential aspect of the proposal. Commissioner Patrick referred to the issue of compatibility with the existing neighborhood, including traffic, and said that the neighbor’s questions and concerns need to be addressed. She expressed concern with the transition, specifically, the perimeter housing and the second-story versus single-story configurations, and noted that perhaps it is not as compatible to the neighborhood as it could be with the first few houses being two-story houses versus single-story which is more compatible with the neighborhood. She said she understood that the project would downsize a commercial area into a residential area, which is difficult for everyone. Her concern is that the homes, although very well designed, may not be compatible with the neighborhood. She said she was uncomfortable with the one-lane access to the residential, which seems too restrictive. She noted that rather than looking out to the neighborhood, the development looks inward, and she would prefer that this be more of an outward looking development. She would like to see a plan with every lot marked to try to vary some of the heights to make it more of a mix. The colors seem to be appropriate. She would want open space Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1999 Page 13 of 14 somewhere, not restricted to the 27 residential units, and available for the neighborhood to use, with walking paths or access to the other neighbors. Commissioner Kurasch stated she would look at the configuration of the streetscape in the internal loop in terms of community versus how it relates to the larger neighborhood. She commented she has seen similar projects with large density units and described how the units were structured and how they relate to each other. She noted that the architecture and quality of design is outstanding. She described other similar projects she has seen where townhomes were connected by pedestrian driveways with sidewalks in between them, with alleys connecting the back of the buildings, and areas used as common ground for recreation. She said the open space is very important to the project. She suggested that perhaps the townhomes not have large, or any, yards, and that those areas could be accumulated as a public space to be used by everyone. Commissioner Jackman stated she was very pleased to see a project with 1400-1800 square feet homes in the area. She complimented the applicants for considering building homes for people who only need or can only afford homes this size. She said many homes being built in Saratoga are 4000-6000 square feet with corresponding prices, which many people cannot afford or have no need for a big house. Director Walgren remarked that this is a multiple-family project and it is important to keep in mind when considering whether the homes should be single-story buildings, whether the lots should be larger, and whether there should be greater open space incorporated into the project. He said the more one incorporates design amenities into the project, the more removed it becomes from a multiple-family project. Following discussion, consensus was to continue the public hearing to the November 10, 1999 agenda. DIRECTOR ITEMS - Planning Commission holiday schedule Director Walgren reported that the Planning Commission meetings for the upcoming holidays are November 23 (instead of November 24), with land use site visits on November 22. He said the second meeting in December is traditionally canceled and will be canceled this year. Director Walgren noted that two hours should be allocated to the telecommunications meeting scheduled for November 10, 1999, and Commissioners agreed. A discussion ensued and Director Walgren responded to questions from Commissioners. COMMISSION ITEMS None. COMMUNICATIONS Written - City Council minutes for special meeting of September 23 and regular meeting of October 6, 1999 - Noted. Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1999 Page 14 of 14 - Notice for regular Planning Commission meeting of November 10, 1999 - Noted. - Deer control materials provided by Commissioner Kurasch - Noted. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chairwoman Bernald adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m. to the next meeting on Wednesday, November 10, 1999, at the Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: MINUTES AMENDED AND APPROVED BY: Lynda Ramirez Jones James Walgren Secretary to the Planning Commission