Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-10-1999 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call Present: Commissioners Barry, Jackman, Page, Patrick, Roupe, and Chairwoman Bernald (Director Walgren introduced Dr. Cynthia Barry as a new Commissioner.) Absent: Commissioner Kurasch (who notified staff she would not be present tonight) Staff: Director Walgren On behalf of the Commission, Chairwoman Bernald expressed condolences to Commissioner Kurasch on the loss of her mother-in-law. Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - October 27, 1999 COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/JACKMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27, 1999, AS WRITTEN. PASSED 3-3 (COMMISSIONERS BARRY, PAGE, AND ROUPE ABSTAINED; COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). 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 November 5, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet Director Walgren referred to page 3 of the staff report for Public Hearing Item #7, and corrected the parcel size shown as 23,185 square feet (net) to read (gross). He said the actual net parcel size is 18,731 square feet. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. DR-97-061 (503-72-014) - LIU, 14805 Masson Court; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,461 square foot two-story residence on a vacant 2.75 acre lot. The property is within a Hillside Residential zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 11/23/99 AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT). Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 19 November 10, 1999 2. 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 11/23/99 AT THE RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF). COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. 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 25 new residential units of approximately 1,524 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 for this project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. (CONTINUED FROM 10/27/99). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren reported that considering the complexity of the issues related to the project and considering that it was in the middle of the environmental review period, it was appropriate to schedule a pre-meeting for the Commission to give staff and the applicants an opportunity to discuss more substantive issues before tonight's’ potential final meeting. He said the proposal is to demolish three office buildings, retain the retail building, and expand it by approximately 2,000 square feet. He referred to the maps mounted on the wall to describe the project. He said the discretionary approvals required by the Commission include subdivision approval to allow 25 residential lots to be created and one commercial lot; a conditional use permit approval to allow a mix use and multiple-family/commercial development within a commercial zoning district; and design review consideration for the architecture, size, and massing of the buildings. He reported that the item was presented at the October 27 meeting, at which time the report was presented and distributed, and Commissioners reviewed the environmental initial study in detail. He stated that the environmental initial study consisted of a traffic analysis and an economic analysis. He referred to the discussion held at the October 27 meeting, and reported that the Commission, in general, supported the mix of commercial/residential development, and generally was in concurrence that the initial environmental study was complete, and discussed project details. Regarding the proportional mix, he said this has been a significant issue since the first proposal was submitted in 1998 which was much more dense and did not meet minimum zoning ordinance standards. Director Walgren conveyed that the commercial zoning district allows for mixed-use developments and for multiple-family developments. He noted that Saratoga has very little land to provide such alternative housing as long as the project is appropriate, meets the City’s development criteria, and meets the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan and zoning ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 19 November 10, 1999 Director Walgren noted at its October 27 meeting, the Commission addressed project specifics such as recommending that the applicant incorporate more open space into the project, provide a more gradual transition of housing types from single-family to commercial; better integrate the development with the commercial component to the west (both pedestrian access and vehicular access); and it was noted that the proposed homes fronting Seagull Way should be integrated into the one-story homes on Seagull. Director Walgren commended the applicant for comprehensively addressing the issues, noting the modified exhibits propose a secondary vehicular access; a pedestrian connection linked to a private open space; and two private open spaces incorporated as a result of eliminating two home sites. He said the applicants have also redesigned the homes closest to Seagull Way. He noted the perimeter units are all small lot detached single-family units with 25 feet rear setbacks, and the interior has been revised to eliminate the row houses and incorporate duplexes, thereby addressing the more subtle transition recommended by the Commission. Director Walgren stated that staff recommends approval of the plan as presented with two conditions – one is that the utilities fronting the project would be required to be underground and the park in lieu fee of $10,000 per residential unit would still apply. Another condition would be that the applicant is required to pay 50 percent of the required traffic signal at Seagull Way and Saratoga-Sunnyvale. He said the signal was not necessary because of the development as it is already a warranted signal; however, the development would contribute additional traffic to the minor road accesses to the signal. Director Walgren noted that it has been brought up before, and again through correspondence tonight, that this project may be or should be subject to Measure G. He stated that the project is not subject to the technical requirements of Measure G which would prevent a residential property from being re- designated to a more intensive property without voter approval. He added that in terms of the spirit of Measure G, this is a commercial proposal of a commercial-designated property at the front and the residential component in the back which is a less intensive use in the commercial designation. Director Walgren read into the records two letters - one an e-mail note from Joan Green expressing concern that the private open space not be credited to the public’s park in lieu fees and concerns about increased traffic as a result of the proposal. Other correspondence was from William and Hung-Chin Guthrie, 20422 Seagull Way, Saratoga, with a petition attached citing their concerns. Commissioner Barry stated for the record that since she was not present at the October 27th meeting, she has reviewed previous reports and tonight’s reports carefully; has reviewed the minutes; and has spoken with other Commissioners. She conveyed that she has received a thorough orientation from Director Walgren at which time she asked many questions regarding this proposal. She said that although she was not at the October 27th meeting, she intends to vote on the proposal tonight if it should come for a vote, and she has prepared herself to do so. Commissioner Roupe indicated he was interested in the overall direction from the City regarding the relative balance between commercial property, multi-family use, and single-family occupancy, and what position or policy is in place to address these issues. Director Walgren responded that the City Council has given the Planning Commission and staff clear direction and consistently their concern has been to maximize the viability of land designated commercial in Saratoga. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 7:55 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 19 November 10, 1999 Mr. Scott Ward, 1068 E. Meadows Circle, Palo Alto, representing Classic Communities, recalled comments he made at the October 27 meeting, and reviewed in detail the modifications they made based on concerns expressed at that meeting. He noted that while they do not plan to contest the condition regarding the obligation to pay for 50 percent of the signal cost, it entails a disproportionate cost to them. Commissioner Page referred to lot #1, and asked what fencing and landscaping plans were proposed for the side abutting Seagull Way. Mr. Ward responded that they are considering a low wall or fence at the edge of the right-of-way along Seagull and extending to the enclosed side of the home. He said there was no plan to install a six-foot fence within the 20’ setback area along Seagull. Commissioner Page referred to the commercial site and the stucco front design and said it appeared to be out of character with the rest of what is on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Mr. Dennis Griffin, 12303 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, stated he represented the commercial side of the project, and responded that would consider using wood siding or another material. Commissioner Jackman asked whether the windows on the commercial building would be more visible than they currently exist, and Mr. Griffin responded that they would be and that the intent would be to remove a foot and one-half of the overhang. Commissioner Barry noted that a basement section of the building is included in the retail space and asked how the basement would be used. Mr. Griffin replied that the basement was built when the structure was built in 1939, and he has completely gutted it, cleaned it, and raised the ceiling. He said it was unknown what business would go in, but every effort is being made to keep it retail. Mr. Griffin, responding to Commissioner Barry, stated that the basement does have a stairway. Commissioner Jackman expressed that this is about the last underdeveloped commercial area in Saratoga, and it needs to be carefully considered. Ms. Kristin Davis, 12378 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, representing her family, expressed her and her family’s various interests in this property. Her family is the current owner of Azule Crossing, and they intend to remain the owners of the commercial building. She noted her family has lived in this area for over 75 years and that her grandfather purchased the site in 1937. She said many family members live in the surrounding homes and are impacted like other residents by this property. She said whether or not the property is zoned commercial or residential, the City must do its best to represent and make decisions on the interests of all concerned. She conveyed that the impact on the current residents would be less if the property is zoned residential and Classic Communities is allowed to continue with the project than if it remains commercially zoned. She expressed that there is a need for smaller homes with less maintenance within the City of Saratoga, especially for the elderly, some of which are in her own family. Mr. William Guthrie, 20422 Seagull Way, stated he submitted a lengthy set of comments, took his concerns to the neighborhood, and many of the neighbors agreed and signed a petition which was also submitted. He apologized for section 7 of the comments submitted, saying he tried to carefully present Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 19 November 10, 1999 this section because it could be misinterpreted. He said it was not intended to sound harsh or challenging. He noted that reducing to 25 units does not alleviate his concerns. He referred to a conditional use article that says this type of application infers no rights to the applicant. He said that because this project creates problems for the community such as inadequate parking and a load on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road commute traffic, the burden needs to fall back on the owners and developer to explain why they should be allowed to create those problems. He said the number of parking spaces allocated is inadequate and will cause a problem in the retail section and on Seagull Way. He noted that if the minimal number of parking spaces is not enough to resolve the problem, then he would question why such a position is acceptable. The parking problem could be easily solved in a number of ways by providing each unit with a long enough driveway so the guests can use the driveway if required; increase the number of communal parking spaces; or put in a 36’ wide road instead of a 20’ wide drive so parking would be legal along the road. He said if the developer does not wish to implement a solution, he would question why, when they are asking a favor from Saratoga to be allowed to create this residential development, should they also be allowed to create problems for the community. He said these questions would also apply to the commute on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and the fact that he and his neighbors feel it would be injurious to the neighborhood. Responding to a question from Chairwoman Bernald, Mr. Guthrie said that regarding the environmental impact, it is important to note the total number of trips whether there is a reduction or increase. As far as impact on congestion, a residential section is going to contribute traffic to the standard commute. He noted that the traffic analysis clearly stated that the congestion on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, especially the Prospect light intersection, is unacceptable at the commute hours and this will further aggravate traffic. He said the impact on congestion is clearly detrimental. Chairwoman Bernald asked if Mr. Guthrie had a problem with the traffic light in general, and Mr. Guthrie stated he did not comment on the traffic light at all. Chairwoman Bernald asked Mr. Guthrie what he viewed as reasonable, and he responded that after discussing among the neighbors, they are proposing consideration centered around 6,000-8,000 square feet lot size per unit on average, which would bring the density to about 18. Commissioner Barry asked if there was anything else Mr. Guthrie or his neighbors would like to add to the project, as she noted in his written comments that Mr. Guthrie did not necessarily oppose the project. Mr. Guthrie replied that he did not oppose the project; however, as proposed, it is too much at odds with the surrounding neighborhood and inappropriate. He said that at lower density, they would not oppose it. Ms. Abby Krimotat, Executive Director, Saratoga Chamber of Commerce, reiterated her comments from the October 27 meeting, stating that the Chamber’s Board of Directors and Executive Board are in unanimous support of this project, both residential and commercial. They feel this would be a great asset to the community and a much-needed improvement in the gateway business district. Mr. John Mallory, 12258 Kirkdale Drive, addressed the Commission, stating he reviewed the developer’s letter modifying the proposal, the staff recommendations, comments prepared by Mr. Guthrie, and spoke to local residents. Based on those observations, he would encourage a study session to allow the residents and developer to meet and ask questions to feel comfortable with the project. He expressed concern that agreement be reached to meet the high standards for Saratoga. He said that, generally, some mistakes have been made in the city, which is what led to Measure G. He conveyed that although Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 19 November 10, 1999 this project is not covered by Measure G, this is very important to the citizens, and suggested more time be spent on it. He said that the comments prepared by Mr. Guthrie should be analyzed in detail, noting that Mr. Guthrie’s point regarding incompatibility with the neighborhood is real. He said the way it is designed, there are going to be parking and traffic problems and agreed that too much density could be injurious. He expressed concern that all the houses, especially those bordering the neighborhood, are two-story, thereby, creating bulk, height, and common walls. He added that he would like to see in the contained area of houses something that would bring people together, such as a pool, a community center, or a pavilion. He noted that this would be the fourth major high-density development area in this part of the city. Mr. Ward responded to allocation of retail versus residential, saying that the area to the west of the side is not a viable retail area. He said it has not, and will not, generate retail tax revenues for the city. Market forces are working against the retention of this portion of the property for retail use. Mr. Ward said that the developer prides itself in reaching out to the community. The developer wrote a series of letters to the neighbors of the property, writing three letters and placing three phone calls to Mr. Guthrie. He said they never received a response, but they did have an opportunity to meet with most of the other neighbors, and they conducted a public hearing at the offices adjacent to the property. He said they got input from the community prior to making the application, and the application was based on that input. He says they believe they have been responsive to the community. The developer has attempted to work collaboratively. He reiterated that it is not easy for the developer/owners to make changes because it costs them money; however, they have listened to the community and have made appropriate responses. He pointed out that each unit has its own full two-car apron parking place to accommodate four spaces on site - two in the garage, two in the apron. Additionally, there are 13 spaces beyond that. Mr. Ward addressed the traffic questions, noting that 60 trips are added by this project, and between 26 to 30 peak hour trips are reduced, most of them in the evening. To him this is a limited traffic impact for redevelopment of a site that delivers so many assets. Commissioner Jackman asked Mr. Ward to convert the 10.3 dwelling units per acre to the average square feet per unit. Mr. Guthrie responded that the revised proposal provided 7.5 units per acre in the single-family component; the attached component is about 11.5 units per acre. The land area for the single-family units is 4,500 square feet per unit, and the land area for attached units is approximately 3,000 square feet. Director Walgren noted this is a multiple-family project, and the maximum density permitted by the General Plan and zoning regulations would be approximately 38 units total, with approximately 14.5 units per acre. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Ward to address the comment regarding a study session with the neighbors and the developer. Mr. Ward responded that the proposal for this project has been out for over a year and explained that a series of meetings have been held with the neighbors. Commissioner Bernald asked whether an agreement could be drawn up to allow residential overflow parking on the commercial portion. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 19 November 10, 1999 Mr. Ward responded he would be open to such an agreement. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 8:40 P.M.). PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). Commissioner Roupe stated he had visited the site, reviewed the record, and recognizing limited opportunities in the city for multi-family dwellings and that the city is trying to promote existing commercial properties to the maximum extent possible, this is a reasonable compromise and he can support the project. Commissioner Page concurred with Commissioner Roupe, noting that the Commission has a responsibility to the greater community. He said that the graduation of homes from commercial to the single-family on the smaller lots is acceptable for the classification of the property, although at first he had a reservation with the lot size. He commended Ms. Davis and her family in their efforts to stay with the project. He said he is in support of the project. Commissioner Jackman commented she is in favor of the project, stating she was pleased that Mr. and Mrs. Guthrie took the time to submit their comments. She reiterated that Measure G did not apply to this project. While the homes are not the same as those on Seagull, this was designed to be a transitional zone. She said she would be supporting the project. Commissioner Patrick concurred with what has been stated. She commented that there are no technical requirements of Measure G. She said Measure G either does or does not apply. She said Measure G does not apply to this situation. She applauded the planning and response that has gone into this project. She would prefer to see wood on the frontage of the retail because it gives it more of a rural ambiance. She said the stucco does not match the residential. She said the issues raised by the speakers are real issues. The City has a responsibility to provide affordable housing in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding neighbors. She applauded the planning of the project and said she would be supporting the proposal. Commissioner Barry said she is very close to supporting this project. She agreed with her fellow Commissioners regarding the good intent and hard work. She said it would be a shame to have serious neighbor opposition. She said the spirit of Measure G is an issue. She expressed concern that while the data shows a viable retail situation may not be existent today , it does not speak to tomorrow. She said there is a fiscal impact to the city, and if the economic situation changes, there is no going back as one normally could with a conditional use permit. She stated that she would hope the numbers could be addressed and she hoped that this could be resolved. Therefore, she is not prepared to support the proposal tonight. She noted she liked the design. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with other Commissioners. She recognized Commissioner Barry’s concerns. She said this development has concerned her enough for a long time that her votes for changing any type of commercial space from retail property to even office buildings have been negative. She said she has taken this project with a lot of concern and determination to help support the commercial aspects. She reviewed the General Plan and cited land use items 4.0 through 4.3. Additionally, she asked herself the questions regarding reasonableness, and cited those questions. She said the project as proposed complies with those sections she cited, and she will be voting in favor of the project. Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 19 November 10, 1999 Commissioner Barry asked whether the units would meet the median cost housing, and Director Walgren responded that considering the market conditions, these units would not meet the criteria for moderate, medium, or low-income housing. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/PATRICK MOVED TO ADOPT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION. PASSED 5-1 (COMMISSIONER BARRY OPPOSED; COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). COMMISSIONERS ROUPE/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE SD-99-005. PASSED 5-1 (COMMISSIONER BARRY OPPOSED; COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). COMMISSIONERS ROUPE/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE UP-99-018. PASSED 5-1 (COMMISSIONER BARRY OPPOSED; COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). COMMISSIONERS PAGE/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE DR-99-037 WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT THE UTILITIES IN FRONT BE PLACED UNDERGROUND; THAT PARK IN LIEU FEE OF $10,000 PER RESIDENCE BE ASSESSED; THAT THE APPLICANT PAY HALF THE COST OF THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT SEAGULL WAY AND SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD; THAT AN AGREEMENT BE MADE THAT WILL ALLOW OVERFLOW PARKING OR EVENING PARKING FOR THE RESIDENTS IN THE COMMERCIAL AREA; AND THAT THE FRONTAGE WHICH IS CURRENTLY DESIGNED AS STUCCO BE CHANGED TO WOOD AS COMPATIBLE WITH STAFF’S DIRECTION. PASSED 5-1 (COMMISSIONER BARRY OPPOSED; COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). Chairwoman Bernald declared a recess. Upon reconvening, the same Commissioners and staff were present. 4. DR-99-040 (397-24-084) – PINN BROTHERS, 18921 Hayfield Court (Lot 6); Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,063 square foot single story residence on a vacant 65,436 square foot lot. The property is located within an R-1-20,000 zoning district. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 8:59 p.m. Mr. Chuck Bommarito, 14315 Douglas Lane, stated he had nothing to add to the staff report and was present to respond to Commissioners’ questions. Mr. Bommarito responded to Commissioners’ questions. Commissioner Page inquired about the peak of the house which stands out and takes away from the design. He asked if removing or modifying that portion had been considered. Mr. Bommarito asked whether Commissioner Page was concerned with the columns or the grill effect above. Commissioner Page responded that if the columns were removed, and the peak came down a bit it would suit him fine. He said the columns are a little over the top for the neighborhood, especially with the elegant Julia Morgan house. A discussion ensued, and Commissioner Page conveyed that he was not happy with the columns. Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 19 November 10, 1999 There was no one from the public who wished to address this subject. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/JACKMAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 9:15 P.M.). PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). Commissioner Barry commented she liked the design, noting that the project met the infill design criteria. She said the houses and plans are compatible within the neighborhood. Commissioner Patrick noted she had no objections to the proposal. Commissioner Jackman remarked that the project was large but compatible with the neighborhood. She will vote to support the proposal. Commissioner Page concurred that this is a great design, except for the columns as he described and he would like to see those changed. He will support the underfloor exception. Commissioner Roupe stated he supports the project. He referred to the rendering and elevations which he said shows the front porch area is lower than the peak of the house and does not look so accentuated, which may be an artistic illusion. He suggested the applicant work with staff to address Commissioner Page’s concerns. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with other Commissioners, stating she supports the underfloor, feels the entryway is a bit grandiose, and would like to see the objects that go across the top removed and the whole element lowered. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/BARRY MOVED TO APPROVE DR-99-040, GRANTING THE UNDERFLOOR EXCEPTION AND WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT WORK WITH STAFF TO MODIFY THE ENTRANCE TO NOT BE SO IMPOSING. PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). 5. DR-99-006 (517-19-040) - SIADAT, 14780 Vickery Avenue; Request for Design Review approval for the demolition of the existing residence and the construction of a new 5,229 square foot, two-story residence. The driveway will be relocated so that primary access to the site will be from Montalvo Road. The site will have a net lot size of 44,480 square feet and is located within an R-1-20,000 zoning district. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting this is a request for design review consideration to demolish an existing home which sits on the property bounded by Vickery Avenue to the north and Montalvo Road to the south. He said this is a very long, narrow parcel that fronts up to Highway 9. It is located within an R-1-20,000 zoning district and the net size of the property is just over one acre. The proposal includes changing the access from Vickery Avenue to Montalvo Road and retain the existing cottage building. Director Walgren reported that the second part of the application is a request for a building site approval for all properties in Saratoga that were created more than 15 years ago or as part of a subdivision that was recorded more than 15 years ago. He said the building site approval process allows the City to determine if additional roads rights-of-ways, and public improvements such as fire hydrants are necessary. He said the City Public Works Department is recommending exemption from the process which is standard when all utilities and roads rights of ways issues have been addressed satisfactorily. He noted that the City has Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 of 19 November 10, 1999 surplus right-of-way that is being dedicated for public road right-of-way on Vickery Avenue, and the City has been working with the property owners to process a relinquishment or abandonment of the surplus right-of-way. He conveyed that the benefit to the applicants is that it increases their net site area and allows the home to be at the 5,200 square foot as proposed. He said that without the abandonment of the right-of-way, the floor area would be reduced. In exchange for that abandonment, the Public Works Department has met with the applicants and developed a list of conditions, including that public storm drain improvements be completed along Montalvo Road and requiring a pedestrian connection perpendicular across the property approximately within the middle of the finger that extends out to Highway 9. Director Walgren expressed that the applicants are concerned with the requirement regarding the pedestrian connection, and continued to describe the benefits of the easement. He said that the proposal meets the minimum zoning ordinance standards. Responding to a question from Commissioner Page regarding the applicant’s concern about insurance or legal ramifications of the easement should somebody be hurt, Director Walgren said that the issue has been researched and tried and precedent has been set. He said it would be no different than public sidewalks or public pedestrian/equestrian trails, and the liability would ultimately fall on the City if it becomes a public easement. Chairwoman Bernald asked if there were any restrictions as to how high a fence on the easement could be, and Director Walgren responded that the section should be no more than 36 or 42 inches in height; however, a section could be six feet in the area where debris is coming in to the property. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 9:38 p.m. Ms. Lorraine Siadat, 14780 Vickery Avenue, addressed the Commission as the owner of the property. She asked that the condition of the foot path be removed. She said her concern is liability, and she does not want the area turned into a dog run. She noted the area is dark at night, and she would not want anyone tripping and falling along the path. She said the traffic on Vickery and Montalvo are not used to people darting out from the trees which is what would happen and someone could get injured. She said although there is a designated crosswalk, people tend to cut through her property. Commissioner Patrick asked whether the applicant had any plans to fence off the “finger” of the property to prevent off-road vehicles, and Ms. Siadat described the incidents related to off-road vehicles entering the property. Ms. Siadat said once the plans are approved, she would like to call in a landscape architect and begin designs for fencing. Responding to Commissioner Patrick’s inquiry regarding her vision of fencing, Ms. Siadat described the open space where one can see the trees, ground, and wildflowers. In reply to Commissioner Patrick’s question, Ms. Siadat said she would not be opposed to a condition that she put in a split-rail or open type of fence. Commissioner Roupe described the path/sidewalk he saw at yesterday’s site visit and suggested that the applicant could consider fencing at the end of the property which would not be obtrusive to the applicant but would still allow access to the downtown area without having to get on Highway 9. He asked if the applicant would object to a pedestrian connection being placed at the end of the property inside the barrier (on the property side) instead of the middle of the property. Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 of 19 November 10, 1999 Ms. Siadat responded she would have no objection. Commissioner Jackman commented that putting the walkway through the center of the applicant’s property would be very destructive to the applicant’s privacy. She said she would like to see on the applicant’s side of the traffic barrier some way of continuing the asphalt walk along the very tip of the property and leave the rest of the property so it is closed in for the applicant’s use. Mr. James Iverson, 14701 Vickery Avenue, addressed the Commission as the property owner across the street from the “finger” of the Siadat property, stating he was opposed to the path through the middle of the property. His concerns for not putting the path in the center of the property included the City making that kind of requirement of any property owner against their wishes; liability issues; maintenance issues; safety issues; loitering and littering; and privacy issues. He encouraged the Commission to favor the end-of- property approach to the path and if a fence is required, he asked that neighbors who would be impacted be included for input. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 9:42 P.M.). PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). Commissioner Jackman stated she liked the property layout and felt strongly about not having the walkway through the middle of the property. She said she would like to see a see-through fence, and would like to see the project go forward. Commissioner Page agreed with Commissioner Jackman and noted the design is appropriate to the neighborhood. He said he was in support of the pathway at the end of the property. He said it was appropriate to note that the City is giving up its easement on the property in lieu of other elements. He said he was not in support of fencing the area aside from open fencing, and strongly urged the applicants to work with the neighbors before installing fencing. He said he would support the project with the condition that the walkway be at the end of the property. Commissioner Roupe said he could support the project with the condition of the relocation of the walkway. He urged the applicant and neighbors to work with staff to maintain open fencing so the area remains an open space. Commissioner Barry agreed with her fellow Commissioners. She commended the applicant on the good job she has done in taking care of the area. Commissioner Patrick conveyed that this is not a taking, but a trade-off, and that the applicants are getting something in exchange for giving up a portion of their property for the path. She said she would want the path at the end, and noted it is important that it be a continuation of the Highway 9 pathway. She stated she would require the peninsula be fenced in open fencing as approved by staff as a condition. She commended Mr. Spaulding, the architect, for the wonderful design. She said fencing is very important for the applicant’s safety as well as the City’s safety. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with other Commissioners, noting the design fits in beautifully with the neighborhood, and expressed her appreciation to Ms. Siadit for the care to the property she has demonstrated. COMMISSIONERS JACKMAN/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE DR-99-006 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE WALKWAY THROUGH THE CENTER OF THE PROPERTY BE OMITTED AND PLACED ALONG THE TIP OF THE PENINSULA NEAR HIGHWAY 9, AND THAT THE Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 of 19 November 10, 1999 PROPERTY BE FENCED WITH A SEE-THROUGH FENCE, SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL. PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT.) 6. DR-99-041 (503-09-022) - SVOBODA, 22040 Mt. Eden Road; Request for Design Review approval for the construction of a new 864 square foot horse stable. The application includes a request for an exception to allow the prefabricated structure to exceed the 12 foot height limit by one and one-half feet. The site is 5.15 acres and is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the details of the staff report. He said this type of application would normally not be required to come before the Commission; however, the cumulative square footage of the property, including the existing home and stable, exceeds 6,000 square feet, and design review approval is required by the Commission. Additionally, the prefabricated structure exceeds the height limit of 12’ , and the Commission can approve additional height up to 15’ maximum if the findings can be made. He described the lot, stating the proposal meets all zoning ordinance requirements and horse permitting requirements. He noted that no corral is proposed at this time; however, if it were proposed in the future, there would be two constraints to doing so. He said the constraints are that the hillside district limits fencing to no more than 4,000 square feet total and corrals are only permitted in areas that have an average slope of less than 15 percent. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 9:53 p.m. Mr. Bill Svoboda, 22040 Mt. Eden Road, presented a brief history of the project, noting that the raised roof creates ventilation and better circulation for the horses. Responding to a question from Commissioner Page regarding an easement on the property, Mr. Svoboda said that the area is an existing trail with no easement, but he does not have access to Mt. Eden Road. Mr. Svoboda said he brought in gravel to help the erosion problem. Commissioner Roupe asked whether the applicant would be pursuing a corral or paddock in the future, and Mr. Svoboda responded that he envisioned such a component in the upper level east of the house. Commissioner Roupe cautioned that great care should be taken because of the hillside district if the applicant proceeds with a corral or paddock. Commissioner Barry asked if there was room to put in a corral, and Mr. Svoboda responded that approximately one and one-half flat acre exists in the area. Responding to a question from Commissioner Bernald, Mr. Svoboda said he planned to walk the horses up from the house area to the upper level and walk them down. There was no one else present who wished to address this issue. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/BARRY MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 10:00 P.M.). PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). Commissioner Patrick stated she had no objection to the proposal, and noted that red with a green roof is hardly unobtrusive, but it cannot be seen from where it is sited. She would vote in favor of the project. Commissioner Barry concurred. Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 of 19 November 10, 1999 Commissioner Jackman concurred; however, she noted she was biased toward wood. Commissioner Page said he could support the project. Commissioner Roupe concurred with other Commissioners. Chairwoman Bernald stated she would support the project. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/JACKMAN MOVED TO APPROVE DR-99-041. PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT.) 7. DR-99-032 (397-28-047: Lot #3) - BLACKWELL PROPERTIES, 14000 Alta Vista Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 4,197 square foot two-story residence with a 687 square foot basement. Maximum height of the residence is proposed to be 26 feet. The site is located on a 23,185 (net) square foot vacant parcel within an R-1-12,500 zoning district. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the details of the staff report. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 10:05 p.m. Mr. David Britt, 108 North Santa Cruz Avenue, Los Gatos, addressed the Commission representing Blackwell Properties. He said that the staff report provides a comprehensive outline of this subdivision. He added that the preliminary designs presented during the vesting subdivision map process were used in creating the design presented tonight. He said that the property dictated designing two-story homes to be more environmentally sensitive to the site; thus saving more trees and creating more open space. When the preliminary two-story designs were requested by staff, the applicant worked closely with the arborist to ensure tree protection and determine the best location for each house. They also worked closely with staff to ensure the house designs would be compatible with the City’s design standards, and modified the design and lot shapes to be more sensitive to the neighbors’ views and privacy. He said the preliminary designs were well received by the staff, Commission, and neighbors, and the subdivision was approved. He noted the designs which they have been presenting are essentially the same as those presented when they were in the subdivision approval process. Mr. Britt conveyed that the house design presented tonight would require a floor area exception. He said when the City Council visited the site, they determined the two two-story homes on Alta Vista and the five two-story homes on Ocala Way should be defined as the neighborhood. He said that by not granting the exception the total square footage of the house would have to be reduced by 358 square feet, equivalent to two bedrooms and a bathroom, which he would consider a complete redesign of the residence. Commissioner Roupe asked whether there was a project arborist associated with this project as well as a city arborist, and Director Walgren noted that was part of the subdivision approval. Commissioner Roupe commented that the trees protected by the tree ordinance are not doing well during the construction period. Commissioner Barry inquired about the condition of the trees, and Director Walgren responded that some trees were affected by natural causes, and explained that demolition of the buildings was conducted very carefully, but the city arborist noted there would be some degradation done on the site, Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 of 19 November 10, 1999 and extensive conditions were put in place to minimize those impacts. Chairwoman Bernald asked about the two fireplace chimneys and referred to an ordinance that asks for only one wood-burning fireplace. She asked Mr. Britt to address the issue of removing one of the chimneys. Mr. Britt responded that one of the fireplaces per the ordinance has to be an Environmental Protection Agency-approved firebox without emissions; however, the conversion of such a box into a wood- burning fireplace would be very difficult. He said he would like to see any projection off the building wall with a fireplace have a full chimney for an authentic chimney look. He said there are ways to take down the chimney and have a projection off the wall, but he would argue it would not be as good- looking as a full chimney. Chairwoman Bernald commented she agreed; however, she was looking to the health aspect and asked what was involved in converting a box to a fireplace. Mr. Britt responded that the entire prefabricated box would have to be completely removed all the way up through the chimney and replaced with a wood-burning box, and he would have to reframe the chimney. Commissioner Jackman commented that the two chimneys give a nice balance to the exterior look, even if it cannot be converted. Commissioner Roupe proposed keeping the chimney structure and blocking it so it is not an effective flue, and installing a vent to prevent possibility of conversion without tearing the chimney down and rebuilding it. A discussion ensued regarding the chimney. Commissioner Barry asked for staff advice. Director Walgren responded that the simplest approach would be to eliminate the chimney, noting that the conversion of the venting to a wood-burning fireplace would be just as difficult. Restricting to a non- wood-burning box would comply with the ordinance. Mr. Britt confirmed Commissioner Page’s inquiry that the gas-burning fireplace is in the living room and that chimney is separate from the second story of the house. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 10:22 P.M.). PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). Commissioner Page commented that this was a nice design, but he did not see the purpose of the chimney in the living room., but he would go along with what his fellow Commissioners say. He opined that the City Council was wrong in granting the floor area exception. He said just because some houses over the hill and through the dale can be seen does not make it part of the neighborhood and one has to consider the homes one goes through in the egress and ingress to the site. He said he could support the project as it is and consider the chimney as his fellow Commissioners do. Commissioner Roupe commented he would support the project as proposed. Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 of 19 November 10, 1999 Commissioner Jackman stated she would support the project as presented. Commissioner Patrick stated she disagreed with the floor area exception and disagreed with the City Council’s reading. She did not agree that the applicant is entitled to the floor area exception. She remarked that the houses are too big. She said this site is special and spectacular and was kept as such by the people who owned the property for a long time. She does not like putting in maximum size houses. She did not think the floor area exception should be granted because the house should not be so big. Regarding the fireplace chimney, she said she did not see that aesthetically it made a difference. She was not opposed to it either way, but did not feel it was aesthetically required. She would prefer no wood-burning fireplaces because this will be a polluted area quickly. She said she would prefer to be looking at no wood-burning fireplaces. She suggested the applicant might look into the wood-burning fireplaces which emit no pollutants into the air. She said although the design is wonderful, she will be opposing the project based on its size. Commissioner Barry noted she had no history of this project as the other Commissioners do; however, from listening to the discussion, she wants to support Commissioner Patrick’s comments. She agreed that bigger is not better and that designing to what is allowable is not in anyone’s best interest. She referred to the issue of the chimney and fireplaces, and said that if the Commission does not want to encourage more fireplaces on future plans, it could ask the applicant to remove the second chimney as a way of sending a message. She noted that the roof looks very massive. She said if every design in that area is that big it is going to be overpowering. Chairwoman Bernald conveyed that this is a very well-designed home and very well thought out. She said in looking at the site, the design fits well onto the site. She said this is a neighborhood onto itself, noting the other two homes which have been approved are two-story. She said she could support the project, but is adamant about the chimney, agreed with Commissioner Barry’s comment about sending a message, and stated it would be reasonable to ask that the chimney be removed and side-vented. COMMISSIONERS ROUPE/JACKMAN MOVED TO APPROVE DR-99-032 AS PROPOSED WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE CHIMNEY EXHAUST IN THE LIVING ROOM FIREPLACE BE REMOVED AND THAT THE FIREPLACE BE VENTED EXTERNAL TO THE BUILDING AS APPROPRIATE. MOTION FAILED 3-3 (COMMISSIONERS BARRY, PAGE, AND PATRICK OPPOSED; COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). Director Walgren commented that this was a failed motion and an attempt could be made for a second motion with other mitigating conditions that could be considered. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE DR-99-032 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE FIREPLACE IN THE LIVING ROOM BE VENTED AND THE CHIMNEY BE REMOVED AND THAT THE FLOOR AREA EXCEPTION NOT BE ALLOWED. MOTION FAILED 3-3 (COMMISSIONERS ROUPE, JACKMAN AND CHAIRWOMAN BERNALD OPPOSED; COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). Director Walgren announced that the next step would be to automatically continue this to the next Commission meeting on November 23, noting that the applicant has an opportunity not to wait until that meeting for a final vote, can accept the failed motion and appeal directly with the City Council. He said this was not a decision that the applicant had to make this evening. Director Walgren clarified that the negative votes were not based on the floor area exception findings. It is a fact that this was a vesting subdivision map, and the applicants have the right to request the full area Planning Commission Minutes Page 16 of 19 November 10, 1999 permitted at the time their vesting subdivision and house designs were approved. He said the issue is whether the exception finding can be made to allow the maximum permitted square footage. The two findings are that the homes are architecturally compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and that there is a predominance of two-story homes in the neighborhood. He said architecturally, it has been found that the homes are compatible. He said in a count of 60 homes, 31 were two-story and 29 single- story homes, which is a predominance of two-story homes. Commissioner Patrick said her vote was based on the house being too big, whether it is a predominantly two-story home neighborhood made no difference to her in how she voted. Commissioner Barry concurred with Commissioner Patrick, noting that for her it is a design review issue that there is too much bulk and the bulk is lot greater than the closest houses and is overpowering. She said if the same design shrunk a little, she could support the project. 8. DR-98-044 (503-13-021) - CHIU, 21777 Mt. Eden Road; Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 2,488 square foot single story residence, and construct a 7,326 square foot single story residence with a maximum height of 26 feet. The site is located on a 2.72 (net) acre parcel within a Hillside Residential zoning district. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting the property backs up to the Calabazas Creek. He said that approximately 75 percent of the property levels off and drops quickly to the creek. He noted that a Santa Clara Valley Water District creek maintenance easement in back of the property has been deducted from the gross site area. The application has been reviewed by staff and the proposal meets all minimum zoning standards; however, the staff recommendation is to deny because there did not seem to be a lot of room left to work with the design to achieve something that staff could find would be compatible and described the compatibility issues. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 10:39 p.m. Mr. Scott Stotler, Stotler Design Group, 275 Tennant Avenue, #100, Morgan Hill, addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicants. He distributed a rendering of the project to Commissioners to describe the project, noting that the owners have put in $14,000 worth of trees in the property. He said the lot is over 118,000 square feet, over 3 acres gross, and 2.72 acres net. The size of the lot is nearly the size of three residential one-acre lots. He explained that the coverage on the house including the garage and driveway is about 12.5 percent coverage, under the 25 percent allowed. The house is designed with spacious setbacks, earthtone colors, stucco, dark gray roof exterior, and the stone columns are a sandstone color to blend in with the environment. He said the applicants wanted a single-story house so it would be low-impact and not too vertical, and a house where they would not have to go up and down stairs. He said the house has a low-pitch roof and described the articulation of the roof. He noted that no basement was proposed for the house. He addressed staff’s comments, conveying that the 25-foot height roof is only the peak of the entry, and the majority of the house is 18-20 feet tall to the rooflines. He stated that the footprint is called sprawling but coverage is only at 12.5 percent, which is relatively low. He said the house is set back quite a way which picks up more driveway. He continued to discuss the efforts to minimize the impact to the street. He distributed photos of new homes in the neighborhood and the proposed project to demonstrate the compatibility of the project. Mr. Stotler said that it has been over one year that the applicants have been trying to satisfy staff’s conditions. There was no one else who wished to address the Commission on this subject. Planning Commission Minutes Page 17 of 19 November 10, 1999 COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 10:50 P.M.). PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). Commissioner Patrick indicated she concurred with staff. She reiterated that just because one is entitled to go up to 15,000 square feet of impervious coverage does not mean one has to. She said she did not see where the fire department required a turnaround or driveway area. She could envision easier ways to design the driveway right along the side of the property and into the garage in a much more efficient manner. She noted the house is sprawling and is not compatible with its site along a creekside that is wooded. She stated she is opposed to the design. Commissioner Roupe stated he agreed with Commissioner Patrick on the point that a bad example should not serve as a precedent, and the Commissioners are here to judge the design on its own merits. He said there is a certain compatibility question to consider. He shared the concern that this house seems to occupy the entire width of the lot and in doing so, it makes it seem more massive. He expressed that the house would have a large impact when viewed from the street. He said he would have difficulty supporting the project. Commissioner Jackman conveyed that she was overwhelmed by the size and sprawl from the street. The house looks huge. She said she would have trouble approving 7,326 square feet even if it went toward the back. She noted this is a hillside residential area and the proposal is not in keeping with the residential area. She expressed that the house was too big for the lot, and the massiveness is too much. She said she could not support the project. Commissioner Barry agreed with her fellow Commissioners. Stating this was her first meeting, she said she would want to look at the guidance and guidelines that were available to the applicant in deciding what kind of design and building to plan. She cited Item #9 from the Hillside Specific Plan and noted that if someone else has approved something that should not have been approved because it does not fit with the rural character of that land, the Commission cannot perpetuate that error. She appreciated what she heard from Mr. Stotler regarding decisions made in an effort to minimize impacts; however, the property has more depth than width, and the applicants did not take advantage of that. She said the lot could be better used, noting that the house does not fit in with the terrain because of the way it is situated. Commissioner Page agreed with other Commissioners. He said more could be done to utilize the space. He said the elements are not fitting with what the City is trying to do in the character of the hillside residential district. He said the proposal is not appropriate to the neighborhood, and he could not support it. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with other Commissioners, and stated she could not support the project. Commissioner Jackman commented that she could understand the applicants’ desire to live in this area, and she would like to see them design a different plan to enable them to live there and still not destroy the hillside area concept. COMMISSIONER PATRICK MOVED TO DENY DR-98-044. Director Walgren suggested for the benefit of the applicants that an alternative to denying the proposal would be continue the application indefinitely to address all of the comments made in the staff report Planning Commission Minutes Page 18 of 19 November 10, 1999 and made at tonight’s meeting. This alternative would be the applicants’ choice. By doing so, the applicants would forego an opportunity to appeal the decision, but would allow them to continue to work with staff to bring a revised application back to the Commission. The applicants were asked whether they preferred a vote or indefinite continuance, and they chose the latter. COMMISSIONER PATRICK WITHDREW HER MOTION. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CONTINUE THE ITEM INDEFINITELY PER STAFF AND APPLICANT. PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). DIRECTOR ITEMS - Appointment to Bicycle Advisory Committee Director Walgren reported that former Commissioner Waltsonsmith was the Commission’s representative to the Bicycle Advisory Committee; however since she became a Council member, a vacancy exists. A discussion ensued. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/BERNALD MOVED TO APPOINT COMMISSIONER BARRY TO SERVE AS THE COMMISSION’S REPRESENTATIVE TO THE BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). - Director Walgren reported that the Circulation Element community participation meetings were held, public hearings will be ongoing until early next year, and the plan should be adopted by early spring. - Director Walgren announced that the Mountain Winery draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been released, and the city has until mid-December to share comments with the County of Santa Clara Planning Commission. He said the draft EIR addresses only existing conditions and does not include expansion of the facility. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioners Roupe and Page said they would not be in attendance at the November 23, 1999 Commission meeting. Director Walgren discussed the proposed agenda for November 23, 1999, noting that some agenda items for that meeting have been previously postponed for a full Commission. A discussion ensued regarding whether there was a need for a November 23, 1999 Commission meeting. As only two agenda items to address one-year extensions would be on the agenda, Director Walgren said there would not be a need for the November 23, 1999 meeting. Planning Commission Minutes Page 19 of 19 November 10, 1999 COMMUNICATIONS Written - City Council minutes for regular meeting of October 20, 1999 - Noted. - Notices for regular Planning Commission meeting of November 23, 1999 - Noted. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chairwoman Bernald adjourned the meeting at 11:10 p.m., to 7:30 p.m., December 8, 1999, at the Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Lynda Ramirez Jones MINUTES AMENDED AND APPROVED BY: James Walgren Secretary to the Planning Commission