Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-24-2007 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Hlava called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao Absent: None Staff: Director John Livingstone, Senior Planner Chris Riordan, Contract Planner Heather Bradley and Assistant City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of October 10, 2007. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rodgers, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of October 10, 2007, were adopted as submitted. (6-0-0-1; Chair Hlava abstained) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no oral communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 18, 2007. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Hlava announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050(b). CONSENT CALENDAR Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Conformance with the General Plan (John Cherbone). Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission found the CIP to be in conformance with the City’s General Plan. (7-0) Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 2 *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 Application #MOD07-0001 (397-27-010) Picheti/Cahoon, 18935 Hayfield Court (Continued to the November 14, 2007 meeting): The applicant requests Modifications to an approved Design Review approval. Modifications include, but are not limited to, the addition of stone to the front façade, the alteration of proposed home’s placement on the site, the rotation of the garage and additional windows on the right elevation. The property is R-1- 40,000. (Shweta Bhatt) Chair Hlava advised that Item No. 1 would be continued to the meeting of November 14, 2007. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Cappello, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission continued consideration of the request for Modifications to a previously approved Design Review approval for property located at 18935 Hayfield Court to its November 14, 2007, meeting. (7-0) *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2 Application #ADR07-0002 (389-26-022) Sripadanna, 18524 Montpere Way: Appeal of an Administrative Design Review approval for a remodel with partial demolition and addition to the existing one-story home located at 18524 Montpere Way. The proposal would enlarge the home by approximately 1,096 square feet (which includes a carport conversion to enclosed garage). Total proposed floor area, including garage, would be 2,730 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed structure will not exceed 18 feet. The maximum impervious coverage would not exceed the allowable 60 percent of the net site area. The lot size is 8,520 square feet and the property is located in the R-10,000 zoning district. (Heather Bradley) Contract Planner Heather Bradley presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this is an appeal of an Administrative Design Review approval for the remodel and addition to an existing single-family residence that was approved by staff on September 5, 2007. • Explained that the approval was for an addition of 688 square feet to the living area and the conversion of an existing carport into an enclosed garage adding an additional 408 square feet to the existing home. Total floor area would be 2, 730 square feet with a total maximum height of 18 feet. • Said that the applicants first filed their application in January 2007, which was originally for a two-story design that came up for review by the Planning Commission on March 28, 2007. Based on concerns that the neighbors raised at that public hearing, the applicants had an historic evaluation prepared for the property and subsequently withdrew their two- Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 3 story application in favor of the single-story proposal the Commission sees before it tonight. • Informed that the Heritage Preservation Commission did review their plan at their meeting in August and agreed with the applicant’s consultant that the property did not meet the minimum criteria for listing as an historic resource. • Reported that the appellant filed this appeal on September 20, 2007, and it was scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting of October 10, 2007, but was continued at the request of the appellant to tonight’s meeting. • Explained that the appellant lives in the house to the south or left of the site, adjacent to the side of the subject property where the majority of the addition would be constructed. • Said that the appellant has expressed concerns with the proposed height of the addition and the compatibility of the proposed remodel with other homes in the neighborhood. • Stated that staff has, however, determined that the style of the remodel/addition is in keeping with the contemporary style of the original architecture that is predominant in this neighborhood, which is generally characterized by low-pitch gable and shed roof forms, wide eave overhangs, exposed beams and non-traditional window placement. • Said that the proposed design would add a master bedroom, expand the living room and enclose the covered parking area. The remodel would require raising the existing ridge from approximately 12 feet to 14 feet and adding a shed roof over a bedroom, which would slope from 8.5 feet to 18 feet. • Said that the applicants have proposed many energy efficient strategies that include a green living roof. • Stated that a color and materials board is available for review. • Reported that staff has found that all the Design Review findings can be made to support the project. • Explained that there are a couple of changes to the draft resolution: o Condition #1 – insert, “The proposed home, as remodeled, shall be located and constructed as shown.” o Condition #4 – delete, “… and the historic evaluation report dated April 12, 2007 and the HPC minutes.” City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer: • Said that Conditions #7 and #8 need to work together and proposed the following added text at the end of Condition #7, “If stormwater cannot be retained on site due to topographic, soils or other conditions, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plans and compliance with Condition #8 shall be required.” • Advised that Condition #8 can stay as it is. Commissioner Rodgers asked about the elimination of the condition prohibiting the conversion of the green roof into a patio or balcony. Planner Heather Bradley explained that this was included in the original conditions of approval. It was eliminated in this resolution because it was considered unnecessary. However, it could be added if it is of concern. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 4 Chair Hlava reported that she didn’t realize this was an appeal and that the appellant is the one who gets the 10 minutes to speak. She asked if the applicant should get the same 10- minute allotment of time. Commissioner Nagpal said that would be fine. She asked for clarification that since this is an appeal of an Administrative Design Review approval, is the action of the Planning Commission this evening final. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer confirmed that the Commission’s action would be final. Commissioner Zhao: • Referenced a letter received from the appellant, Mrs. Rodgers, which was included in Attachment #8. • Pointed to the second paragraph that states that Mrs. Rodgers had gone to the Planning Office and was told that this applicant could not alter the footprint of their home. • Asked if this is a true statement, as she wants to make sure. Director John Livingstone said that current practice in Code would allow the alteration of a building footprint with a remodel or addition. Commissioner Nagpal said that there is some discrepancy regarding the average proposed heights in this neighborhood. The appellant’s letter says the average is between 11 and 11.5 feet while the staff report says 14 feet. Which is correct? Planner Heather Bradley said that most of the originally designed homes in this neighborhood are approximately 12 feet high. There have been some additions done up to 18 feet and taller. The most recent additions have been between 16 to 17 feet high. Commissioner Nagpal asked how many are above 14 feet in height. Planner Heather Bradley replied that there are approximately five homes out of 25. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the most recent. Planner Heather Bradley explained that the taller additions were done in the 1980’s while the most recent additions have been between 16 and 17 feet in height. Commissioner Nagpal asked staff to verify that there is no single-story overlay in this neighborhood. Planner Heather Bradley replied not in this neighborhood. Commissioner Rodgers wanted it in the record that she is not related to the appellant whose name is also Rodgers with the same unique spelling. Chair Hlava opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 5 Ms. Linda Ho, Appellant & Resident on Montpere Way: • Said that she lives next door to the subject property. • Informed that she finds that some elements of this design do not meet General Plan findings, specifically the Conservation Element Policy to protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga. This design does not meet findings. • Reported that she has prepared pictures of homes in her neighborhood. There are 38 homes of which 34 are between 11 and 11.5 feet in height. All homes have about the same height. Therefore, a 14-foot roof, with 18-foot height in one area at the highest point, will tower over neighboring houses and have a negative impact the neighborhood. • Advised that she has submitted a petition signed by 11 neighbors who don’t want this design approved as proposed. The height should not exceed other homes in the neighborhood. • Thanked the Commission for its time. Commissioner Cappello asked Ms. Linda Ho for the maximum height of the four remaining homes. Ms. Linda Ho replied 14.5 feet. Commissioner Cappello asked if these homes are within the noticing radius of this home. Ms. Linda Ho replied yes. Commissioner Cappello asked how far away they are. Ms. Linda Ho said that some are on the same street, others are not far. Commissioner Cappello asked if they are all located within the 500-foot noticing distance. Ms. Linda Ho said she thought so. Commissioner Cappello asked if this includes additional homes or only those noticed. Ms. Linda Ho replied those homes noticed. Commissioner Kundtz pointed to page three of her photographs and asked about the height of the home at 18506 Montpere Way at the left hand garage incline. Ms. Linda Ho replied 11.5 feet. Commissioner Kundtz said that it seemed significantly higher when seen during the site visit. Commissioner Nagpal asked Ms. Linda Ho to explain the views and privacy impacts this addition would have on her. She pointed out that the Commission must work with the City’s design guidelines when evaluating a design. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 6 Ms. Linda Ho said that there is absolutely an impact as she has two bedrooms adjacent to their lot with lots of windows. Commissioner Nagpal asked if there is not a screening hedge along that side. Ms. Linda Ho replied no. Commissioner Rodgers asked how far from her bathroom window is the new house addition. Ms. Linda Ho replied very close. She added that her lot line is close, probably between 8 and 10 feet. Commissioner Rodgers referred to page two of the photographs where there is a house on a rise and another to the rear. She pointed out that the topography has hills and valleys. The upper houses appear to be taller but are designed with privacy fences. Ms. Linda Ho said that represents another issue in her neighborhood for which privacy lawsuits are pending. Commissioner Zhao asked if there are any houses in this neighborhood that are 18 feet in height. Ms. Linda Ho replied no. Commissioner Zhao said that she saw a house during the site visit that looked pretty tall and had been newly remodeled. Planner Heather Bradley said that that is 18511 Montpere Way, which is 16.5 feet tall per plan. Commissioner Zhao asked Planner Heather Bradley if this is the tallest home in the neighborhood. Planner Heather Bradley replied no, there are some on Quito that are 16.5 feet tall, which is considered the same neighborhood and development. Commissioner Kumar asked Ms. Linda Ho how long ago a house was refused approval at a 14-foot height. Ms. Linda Ho said it was two years ago. Commissioner Kumar said that in the staff report, it says that this occurred in 2001. Commissioner Rodgers said that the decisions are based on architecture itself. This project seems more in character with this neighborhood. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 7 Ms. Linda Ho said that she agrees the design is in character, the concerns are the height and privacy impacts. Commissioner Nagpal cautioned that the focus must be on Design Review. When Ms. Linda Ho looks at the architecture it is fine and in keeping with the area but the concern she has is privacy. Ms. Linda Ho agreed that privacy as well as character are concerns. Commissioner Nagpal asked Ms. Linda Ho to specify her design concerns. Ms. Linda Ho said that another neighbor has concerns but is not here. Commissioner Nagpal reminded Ms. Linda Ho that she is the appellant here. Ms. Linda Ho said that there is an attic located over the closet at the 18-foot height location. There are concerns over that. It does not make sense to the neighbors. Commissioner Nagpal asked if there are any other architectural concerns. Ms. Linda Ho said no, not now. Mr. Hari Sripadanna, Applicant and Property Owner: • Offered a quick presentation on the design. • Said that he can sympathize with neighbors but feels they are misguided and don’t understand the design properly. • Assured that their home would not intrude on anyone’s privacy. • Said that a home design is the outcome of the owner’s wishes. • Advised that this home design took one year to develop and has been balanced too far to the concerns of the neighbor. • Informed that they have made design compromises. The original concern raised was the two-story format. They changed that to a single-story. They hired an Architectural Historian and went before the Heritage Preservation Commission. • Assured that the single-story design has been evaluated carefully during the Administrative Design Review process, input was heard and the approval granted. • Stated that it seems there is no end to the delays for an addition that is just about 683 square feet in size. • Reminded that the footprint of the home is the same. They have reduced the impervious paving. There is no removal of existing vegetation. The Historian has come to the conclusion that there are good bones to this design. It offers a good opportunity to compliment and improve the existing home. It fits well and works well into this neighborhood. • Explained the roof configuration thought process. A north and south orientation allows the winter sun to come in via the clearstory. The overhangs cut off the summer sun. A whole house fan will cool the house so that little air conditioning will be required. They will incorporate radiant heating, insulated panels and a green live roof that will retain rainwater and help the environment. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 8 • Reminded that the peak is located at the middle of the property so that little would be seen from the street. • Assured that they took care to address neighbor concerns. No shadows will be cast on neighboring homes. There is dense vegetation on the west and north sides that offer privacy to adjacent neighbors. The properties on the south and east side are on the same level as his home. Therefore, the single-story addition will not overlook their properties. There is no interruption of their privacy. • Stated that this approval would not represent a precedent, as there are already some homes higher than 18 feet. • Said that the main issue is how the design works with its setbacks and heights. • Said that all buildings are on a slope. • Urged support of the Administrative Design Review decision. • Reiterated that there is no impact and this home would be good for the environment and the community. • Thanked the neighbors for attending. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Hari Sripadanna what screening is in place on the east side to ensure views and privacy. Mr. Hari Sripadanna said that there is an existing 10-foot high vegetation, which is on the west and north sides as well. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the proposed attic over the closet. Mr. Hari Sripadanna explained that this is so that warm air can rise up and exit. It makes the house breathe better. He reminded that the closet space is in an internal portion of the building but it appears that the neighbors are suspicious that he will try to sneak something in. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Hari Sripadanna the height of the space above the closet. Mr. Hari Sripadanna said that it is a maximum of five-feet per Code to allow storage. Commissioner Zhao asked if one could look at the neighbors from this space. Mr. Hari Sripadanna replied no. He added that there is a hallway on the other side of this space. There is no access to the attic except for storage use. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that 85 percent of the house is at the 14-foot maximum height and only a four-foot area is at the 18-foot height. Commissioner Zhao asked if it was possible to obscure the glass of the attic window. Mr. Hari Sripadanna said that, if necessary, that glass could be frosted. Commissioner Kumar asked if the windows and doors on the new addition that look outside on three sides would create any privacy issues. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 9 Mr. Hari Sripadanna assured that none of the openings were to the south side. Commissioner Kumar asked if there would be any views into neighbors’ yards from the new addition. Mr. Hari Sripadanna said no, it is only single-story and there are tall screening trees. Chair Hlava asked if people would see the green on the living roof. Mr. Hari Sripadanna said that the roofing material is four inches thick. The plant material is about 12-inches thick with a 6-inch curb. Therefore approximately 6-inches of the plant material would be visible. Ms. Jo Raney Rodgers: • Said that there are bulk and height compatibility issues. • Reported that her family purchased her lot in 1954 and she watched their house being built. • Said that there are two houses, on Allendale and Quito, that have added attics. However, few houses do. For the most part, this neighborhood has maintained a certain character. Most houses have stayed the same. • Added that her biggest concern is not being overlooked from this house. • Advised that these houses were built as garden homes with orientation toward the backyards. They have a unique architectural style and layout that minimize views of neighbors’ homes. • Reported that she went to City Hall on two occasions and was given two different stories on what she could do as far as modifications to her own home. Mr. Tom Stroupe, Resident on Allendale: • Said that he is to the southwest of the subject property. • Stated his support of the design and structure. • Pointed out that in 2007, change is eminent. • Suggested that people look around the neighborhood. There are changes and remodels occurring. • Assured that the 18-foot height would not adversely affect his yard. This subject property is to the left of his yard where he has a pool. • Reminded that the neighborhood already has homes at 16 and 17-foot heights. • Added that it is not fair to not allow this one. • Recommended approval. Chair Hlava verified that Mr. Tom Stroupe lives behind Mr. Hari Sripadanna’s home. Mr. Stroupe said yes. He added that this addition is a great idea with a great design that will improve the neighborhood. He stated that he likes it. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Tom Stroupe if he could see the story poles. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 10 Mr. Tom Stroupe replied yes. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Tom Stroupe if that bothers him. Mr. Tom Stroupe replied no, it causes no concern at all. Commissioner Zhao asked Mr. Tom Stroupe if he lives within 500 feet of the subject parcel. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out to Commissioner Zhao that Mr. Tom Stroupe shares a fence with the subject property. Mr. Gene Ely, Resident on Leigh Avenue in San Jose: • Identified himself as a licensed architect and friend to Mr. Hari Sripadanna. • Advised that Hari has worked very hard on his home design and has created a project that will be an asset to his neighborhood and community. • Said that while concerns have been raised about privacy impacts and height, one cannot see past the fence from the windows in this new addition. Only a small proportion of the roof height is at 18 feet. • Reminded that this is a home for Hari and his family. • Urged support for this design. Ms. Elizabeth Alameda, Resident on Montpere Way: • Said that she lives across the street. • Stated that this home has a beautiful design and will upgrade the area. • Expressed support for approval of this project. Ms. Cameo Stroupe, Resident on Allendale • Said that she is in favor of the proposed plan. • Pointed out that green design is environmentally friendly. • Called these plans beautiful. • Said the addition would have no view impacts to their swimming pool. • Stated her support for approval. Ms. Trish Seifert, Resident on Montpere Way: • Pointed out that there are houses on Allendale that utilize clearstory windows without 18- foot height. • Suggested that something compatible to that be considered. • Said that it disturbs her that solar heat is not implemented instead of radiant heat. • Reported that a neighbor sought taller than 14-foot height limits in 2001 and was denied that height. His remodel was limited to a maximum height of 14 feet. • Expressed concern that this request can be approved today while others were told no just a few years ago. This height sets bad precedent. • Asked for consistency. • Said that this property has the highest elevation on that street. • Opined that a clearstory could be possible without the 18-foot height. That height might lead to second story additions in the area. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 11 • Added that 16 foot maximum is the current highest height so far and suggested that it stop there. • Cautioned that the flat roof portion could become a deck and asked that it be conditioned that this not happen in the future. • Expressed appreciation for being heard. Commissioner Kumar asked Ms. Trish Seifert if she could elaborate on why her neighbor was denied in 2001. Ms. Trish Seifert said that the neighbor was denied height in excess of 14 feet. She added that consistency in the City’s Planning Department needs to be addressed. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out to Ms. Trish Seifert that the 18-foot height is being used to provide passive solar capability. She asked Ms. Seifert for her impressions on the design. Ms. Trish Seifert said that it was a fine design but this is a planned community and this design does not fit with what was intended and makes sense for this community. Commissioner Rodgers reminded that a mid-Century architect designed this house. She asked Ms. Trish Seifert if she believes it is appropriate to update theses houses at all. Ms. Trish Seifert said that people should be able to do what they want but without hurting surrounding properties. Commissioner Nagpal: • Thanked Ms. Trish Seifert from coming this evening. • Expressed agreement for the need for consistency. • Explained that the Commission is here to evaluate Design Review. • Asked for Ms. Trish Seifert’s perspective on the design as it sounds like she has some respect for the proposed design. Ms. Trish Seifert: • Reminded that a few years ago someone else in this neighborhood had a design refused. • Reiterated that consistency is her main concern. • Expressed appreciation that the applicant addressed the original concerns over the initial two-story design. • Reported that this community has been riled up. Commissioner Kumar asked about Ms. Trish Seifert’s concern about the potential to incorporate a deck on the live roof. Ms. Trish Seifert said that she does not know if it is possible to convert this live roof and asked if that possibility has been addressed. Commissioner Kumar asked if she had asked Mr. Hari Sripadanna. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 12 Ms. Trish Seifert said that solar power is the only way to address energy concerns. Chair Hlava asked staff to clarify why they took the condition out regarding the live roof. Planner Heather Bradley explained that if the live roof were to be converted, it would represent a second-story feature. The Planning Commission would have to approve it via a public hearing process that would be noticed as this meeting was noticed. Mr. Robert Merritt, Resident on Montpere Way: • Advised that this addition does not impact him directly as his home is located down the street. • Said that he does share the concern about the increased heights in this neighborhood. • Reminded that these houses encourage indoor-outdoor living and include floor-to-ceiling windows overlooking the backyards. • Reported that he remodeled in 2001. His architect went to the Planning Office with a plan that included a 15-foot maximum height. The architect was told the maximum allowed would be 13.5 feet. That made sense and they went with that. • Said that his biggest concern about allowing additional height is when does it stop. • Pointed out that this neighborhood has a certain feel. Commissioner Nagpal: • Said that she realizes this has created a difficult neighborhood issue. • Reiterated that the key issue here is design and why a design fits or does not fit. Why is it compatible or not compatible? • Asked Mr. Robert Merritt what he would like to see different. Mr. Robert Merritt said he does not want an intrusion on the skyline. Commissioner Nagpal asked if he could see this addition from his home. Mr. Robert Merritt said no, but he does not want to see precedent established that would change the character of his neighborhood. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Robert Merritt if he considers this to be good design. Mr. Robert Merritt replied that it didn’t strike him as ugly even if he doesn’t care for it personally. Commissioner Rodgers said that some houses in the neighborhood have completely different styles while this one tries to be compatible. Is that not a reason to make an allowance for height? Mr. Robert Merritt replied no, it is still an intrusion of height. Ms. Dana Merritt, Resident on Montpere Way: • Stated that her main concern is the 18-foot height. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 13 • Said that the design appears to run along the lines of the neighborhood and fits fine. • Reminded that this lot is higher than others right next to it. One looks up at it from the street. Commissioner Nagpal asked Ms. Dana Merritt if she saw the story poles. Ms. Dana Merritt: • Said that her main concern is that the 18-foot height would set precedent. • Added that after that things will just get higher and lead to two-story homes. • Said that the design itself is nice. Commissioner Kundtz asked Ms. Dana Merritt if she stood and looked at the height from the cul de sac. Ms. Dana Merritt said that she looked at it from each house. Commissioner Kumar said that it appears Ms. Dana Merritt likes the design but has a specific concern over the 18-foot height even though 80 percent of the house is at 14 feet. Ms. Dana Merritt said that her house is 14 feet and she can’t complain about 14 feet for this one. She reminded that this house does sit at the highest point in the neighborhood. Commissioner Kumar asked Ms. Dana Merritt if she could elaborate on the 2001 denial due to unacceptable height. Ms. Dana Merritt said they needed to add a master bedroom. They ended up having to reduce the roof pitch to reduce the maximum height. Planner Heather Bradley advised that she tried to research that particular project but it appears to have been just a counter discussion with staff. It was a small enough addition. Commissioner Nagpal said a small addition would likely have been handled over the counter. Ms. Susie Lechner, Resident of San Jose: • Advised that she is a colleague of Mr. Hari Sripadanna and is also a licensed architect. • Said that the architect has a responsibility to the environment. They have the moral and ethical responsibility to preserve natural resources and the environment. • Said that this project does this beautifully with use of natural daylight and low sloping roofs. • Added that the thermal chimney must be located at the highest point. The home uses less energy both for light and thermal comfort. The thermal chimney is small and located at the center of the property to minimize impacts. • Stated that this home is beautiful and uses environmentally responsible measures. • Urged approval. Commissioner Rodgers asked Ms. Susie Lechner if she could offer any information on the live roof. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 14 Ms. Susie Lechner said that they couldn’t be walked upon. They require essentially just a little water during dry months using irrigation to keep it fresh and to keep it attractive year round. Commissioner Rodgers asked for verification that it reduces energy load by 25 percent for just the portion of the house directly underneath or the entire house. Ms. Susie Lechner replied the area directly underneath. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the potential for solar. Ms. Susie Lechner said that solar is still an option for this house and can be added at any time. However, it might be visible to neighbors if located on the southern roof. Ms. Cheriel Johnson: • Offered a history of the neighborhood. • Said that at the time, the developer was trying to figure a way to make a single-family neighborhood more useful. • Said that these houses are built so one is diagonal on one lot, perpendicular on the next, to create big backyards with smaller houses. • Stated that there is an obligation when one buys into a neighborhood to remain compatible. • Said that she lives adjacent to this neighbor and along the creek. • Said that if these homes are allowed to be bigger and bigger, it will increase runoff into the creek and increase flooding. • Declared that it is not fair to steal open space from neighbors. • Stated her objection as being the height and loss of garden area that would cause a significant impact to this neighborhood. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that there is no difference from the existing footprint and the applicant is removing area. Planner Heather Bradley clarified that the applicant is removing impervious coverage. Ms. Cheriel Johnson said that they are also increasing building area. She added that the live roof is not compatible at all. Commissioner Nagpal asked staff what the average square footage is in this neighborhood. Planner Heather Bradley said that a guess is about 2,000 square feet counting garages or approximately 1,600 square feet of living space. Ms. Sassy Murphy, Applicant: • Recounted that when she started this process she didn’t know what a setback was. • Said that there is a process to evaluate design and it is important as well as painful and challenging. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 15 • Said that she is really committed to the process. • Stated that when she was originally here in March, she was unprepared. • Added that she later followed up with neighbors regarding their concerns. She called everyone and left drawings. Only one meeting was held with the Merritts. • Reported that there are financial impacts from the delay, which she will not detail, and including late nights away from their kids to attend meetings. • Stated that there are two facts here. One, this is a small addition. Two, this is a beautiful design. • Pointed out that they comply with requirements. • Urged the Commission to support what the Planning Department has already approved. • Assured that they responded to feedbacks and requirements. Commissioner Zhao asked Ms. Sassy Murphy if any feedback was received about the proposed 18-foot height when she dropped plans off with neighbors. Ms. Sassy Murphy replied that she only met personally with Trish and her husband. The other documented feedback was through emails. Commissioner Nagpal asked if there was no direct communication. Ms. Sassy Murphy said a couple of phone calls and the one meeting. She said that privacy has been addressed and this all now comes back to criteria. Commissioner Zhao asked if the notification forms were provided. Ms. Sassy Murphy: • Said those who supported the project signed off but those with concerns found it difficult to address their concerns. • Said that the request was to drop the height. Some wanted a maximum of 14 feet while some could support 16 feet. • Added that it has been difficult to know how to respond to a moving target and it has been a long road. Commissioner Zhao asked about the neighborhood incompatibility issue. Ms. Sassy Murphy: • Stated that she is confused as to the definition of neighborhood. • Added that she thought that Saratoga was the community and that the rules applied to all in Saratoga. • Questioned whether it is her responsibility to make that decision as to when the criterion allows that height. Ms. Margo Neitis, Resident on Montpere Way: • Reported that she got turned town for 14-foot high designs a couple of times in 2002 and 2003. • Said that this request for 18-foot height should be no since she was told no. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 16 • Added that the City has got to stick with it. • Expressed problems with the patio. • Reported that she has always gotten permits and her house looks like everyone else’s’. • Asked why allow this now? Commissioner Kundtz asked Ms. Margo Neitis whether she had considered an appeal when she was told no regarding her proposed addition. Ms. Margo Neitis said that a staff member actually told her that she didn’t have a permit as he could not find any record. However, when she brought the permit and plans to the City, he realized he was the one who had approved her permit and asked if he could take a copy for the permanent record as they didn’t have it on file. She added that it took two years to get permits. Commissioner Kundtz again asked if she had ever considered appealing that action. Ms. Margo Neitis said that she had not. She advised that staff had told her that she could pay the appeal fee but assured her that her request would not be approved so she didn’t bother. Mr. Shaun Kamzanzati, Resident on Montpere: • Stated that he is a 12-year resident of this neighborhood and is an Engineer. • Advised that he went and reviewed the plans. • Said that the plans match the existing buildings in this neighborhood. • Added that if it were still a two-story he would object. • Said that only 15 percent of this building would be at the 18-foot height. • Added that the slope of the pitch of the roof would not create privacy impacts on adjacent neighbors. • Stated that he does not see any problem when looking at the plan, including the concept of the live roof. • Reminded that permits would be necessary for this owner to add or change his property in the future. • Informed that he and his wife both support this project. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Shaun Kamzanzati if he could see the story pole for this project from his front yard. Mr. Shaun Kamzanzati said from his bedroom he could see a small part. He added that he also remodeled in 1995 and the neighbor living across the creek in a two-story house objected. Ms. Annette Rowe, Resident on Montpere Way: • Stated that if only other remodels in this neighborhood could be as nice. • Agreed on the need for consistency. • Pointed out that none of the other homes are half in keeping with this neighborhood as this one is. • Said her home is three doors down and she has no privacy impacts. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 17 • Suggested that this owner should not be punished because others had been denied in the past. • Advised that she can see her neighbor’s house from her rear yard. • Said that if she were ever to want to expand her house due to her growing family, she might actually find that it is time to move as this neighborhood is not welcoming to change. The question might be “is it worth staying in this neighborhood?” • Stated that she is in favor of this project. Mr. Alan Alameda, Resident on Montpere Way: • Advised that he is a 32-year resident. • Stated that this home has a beautiful design and a lot of work went into it. • Said that there are rules and regulations that govern architectural principles. • Added that without ongoing change, people would still be living in caves. • Pointed out that cars are larger today. Things have changed. • Stated that this is a beautiful piece of architecture with aesthetics and beauty in mind. • Reminded that green issues are prevalent today in order to save energy. • Announce that he and his wife, Elizabeth, are totally in favor of this project. Mr. Lee Salin, Resident on Regan Lane: • Identified himself as a former President and Board member of the Santa Clara County Chapter of the AIA (American Institute of Architects). • Said that three issues have been raised including view angle, appropriateness and precedents. • Advised that he can appreciate what he is hearing about height and precedent and can appreciate the concerns. • Said that view angle is relative and needs to be respected. • Added that precedent is a two-edged sword. • Reminded that this project meets the City’s guidelines. If those guidelines are subjectively changed, that is also setting precedent. Chair Hlava asked Mr. Lee Salin to complete his comments. Mr. Lee Salin said that in residential design, each property is unique. This neighborhood is unique. It has character and personality. This project reflects that character and is in keeping with the ideas of the original design while taking modern energy efficiency into account. Ms. Katherine Nomoff, Resident on Montpere Way: • Said that she was here in March. • Stated that this is a close and unusual neighborhood (at least her one block area) that is very culturally and ethnically diverse. There are first and second generation residents. Some send their kids to public school others to private but they play together. • Added that if someone is in trouble, someone else is willing to help. • Advised that a majority on the block do not want to see 18-foot high buildings as proposed with this remodel. • Informed that in her 43.5 years of living here, there has never been a controversy like this one. Only the height is of concern. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 18 • Added that her roof uses white rock and is 15 percent cooler in hot weather. Mr. David Ho, Appellant: • Said that 11 neighbors are against this project. Many have lived here for a long time while he has lived here for two years. • Advised that his family really likes this quiet and peaceful neighborhood and like the architectural design of the homes there. They want to keep this environment as much as possible. • Expressed appreciation for the architects that have come this evening but they have not lived here. • Explained that they enjoy the open space of this small neighborhood. His house is just 1,200 square feet. The neighborhood has definition. • Said that he understands that 18 feet is not the highest building in Saratoga. • Said that 18511 Montpere Way is an example of a remodel that causes problems to adjacent properties. Little kids look down from windows of that remodeled house into his master bedroom. Mr. Tom Rumsey, Resident on Montpere Way: • Advised that he just built. • Added that he wished Hari had been his architect because he has created a beautiful design for his addition that should be approved on its merits. • Stated that City Code is City Code and is intended for the entire City of Saratoga. • Said that he is saddened by this experience. • Said that he finds it offensive that Mr. Ho mentioned his children. It’s ridiculous. He’s never met my children or me. Ms. Linda Ho, Appellant: • Said that she appreciates everyone’s time tonight. • Agreed that the neighborhood has become divided and said that she hopes something can be worked out here. • Said that she wants to come to a solution and not see conflict come between neighbors. • Stated that she respects people’s need to expand their house for a larger family. • Expressed respect for everyone’s comments and reiterated she is here for a solution. • Added that while she respects the comments from the architects, they don’t live in this neighborhood so they don’t understand how we feel. Commissioner Zhao asked Ms. Linda Ho if frosted glass in the attic window would help resolve her privacy concerns. Ms. Linda Ho said that she does not know, as she cannot visualize this. Commissioner Kundtz pointed out that those windows don’t even face Ms. Ho’s direction. Ms. Linda Ho said that she could see the story poles from her bedroom windows and will not have a view any more. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 19 Commissioner Zhao reiterated what Commissioner Kundtz just advised; the window is facing the opposite direction from Ms. Ho’s home. Ms. Linda Ho said that there are windows on her side too. Commissioner Cappello asked if Ms. Ho’s objection is the 18-foot height and privacy issues it imposes on her property. Ms. Linda Ho said the first design was for a two-story. Now she has a different degree of concern. Commissioner Cappello reiterated that the windows at the 18-foot height face the other direction than her home and the windows on her side are at a lower height. He asked Ms. Linda Ho to clarify her point. Commissioner Rodgers asked Ms. Linda Ho to identify what windows cause her concern or is it simply a loss of view of trees and sky. Ms. Linda Ho said that if 18-foot height were allowed now, there would be more 18-foot height in the future. She added that there are privacy concerns as windows from the addition also face her yard. Chair Hlava reminded that story poles are in place right now. She advised that she could not see the 18-foot maximum height of those poles from the street. She asked Ms. Linda Ho if she could see the poles from her bedroom. Ms. Linda Ho said she could see them from her yard and her bathroom. Commissioner Rodgers said that there is the flat roof and no windows as seen from her yard. Ms. Linda Ho said that design and not privacy is her issue. The 18-foot height would affect the whole neighborhood. Commissioner Rodgers said that there are two types of 18-foot homes. Some are large and blocky buildings. This one is not. Should that not make a difference? Ms. Linda Ho said she is still concerned about height. It would appear to be 38-feet as seen from a neighbor’s house that is lower down Montpere. Chair Hlava asked staff if the applicant should be given rebuttal time. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that they could allow that but the appellant is the one who speaks last. Perhaps the rebuttal could be limited to the questions raised. Mr. Hari Sripadanna said that the clearstory window is over 11 feet high and creates no privacy impacts. It is intended to bring in light and sun. He added that there is a 12-foot high row of screening shrubs. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 20 Chair Hlava closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Nagpal: • Said that this is a difficult meeting. • Agreed that this is a wonderful neighborhood and it is obvious that there is lots of heart. • Stated that she does not believe that anyone can set precedent in the community. No decision sets precedent as architectural decisions are based upon Design Review findings. • Added that she is sorry if there appears to be a consistency issue. • Pointed out that the members of this Commission are just members of the community. We are not staff. We sometimes disagree with the staff recommendations. • Advised that she has experienced being an applicant before the Saratoga Planning Commission. • Cautioned that the City cannot establish precedent based on past actions. • Reminded that this applicant came with a two-story design. He listened to the comments of the Commission and the community and redesigned his entire house. • Added that this home has a great design that keeps the original character, indoor-outdoor connection and has energy efficiency features. • Stated that the Commission does not look at square footage but rather at design. • Said that she can make all of the necessary findings to support this application. • Said that she made every effort to ask the appellant to outline her issues but cannot find any unreasonable impact on privacy here. The project has compatible bulk and height. The design makes sense. • Said that she supports staff’s decision and does not find this project to set any precedent. • Added that she hopes this neighborhood heals. • Said that it would be a different process to affect changes to the Code. Right now, Code allows this 18-foot height. • Assured that the Commission looks at each application for its unique merits. • Stated that she would support denial of this appeal action. Commissioner Cappello: • Stated his concurrence with Commissioner Nagpal’s comments. • Said that this project has good design in terms of its compatibility with its neighborhood. This home fits extremely well in the neighborhood. It fits as far as character. An exceptional job was done with the design. • Advised that he wants to be proud of what he approves as a member of this Planning Commission. He said he is extremely proud that this project incorporates so many green elements. This home will be a gem for this charming neighborhood. • Said that he hopes the neighbors can be proud as well and this project should move forward. Commissioner Kundtz said that there are issues of consistency in procedure versus results. They cannot be confused. He said that procedural consistency indicates that everyone has the right to appeal a decision once. Commissioner Zhao: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 21 • Said that she also agrees with Commissioner Nagpal. • Said that since the attic window is of concern she would like to see that window frosted to prevent any future privacy impacts should this house change ownership. • Stated that this is a fine design with an architectural style that is in keeping with this neighborhood. • Advised that she can make the Design Review findings if the window would be frosted. • Reminded that there is no Code that prevents this 18-foot height so she cannot support the appellant’s argument. Commissioner Rodgers: • Expressed her agreement that this neighborhood represents a different and wonderful pocket neighborhood that the neighbors want to maintain in the same feel. • Stated that this design is fantastic and adds to and enhances the qualities of this mid- Century contemporary house. It keeps the character and adds energy efficiency. It has unique features. • Said that it is difficult to deny this project based on hearsay evidence of past counter experiences. • Stated that the City encourages good architecture in Saratoga. • Said that she is confident that in the future this house will be added to the list of homes with unique architecture. • Said that although there are no privacy impacts from the 11-foot clearstory window she can support the use of frosted glass. Commissioner Kumar: • Stated that this is a very special neighborhood that is a close-knit community. • Expressed appreciation for the neighbors’ attendance this evening to express their views. • Said that the focus must be on the Design Review findings. • Stated his agreement with the staff recommendation. • Said he would uphold the staff action and deny the appeal. • Complimented Mr. Hari Sripadanna’s new design and efforts. He said he loves the design and hopes the style is duplicated in Saratoga. Chair Hlava: • Stated that the applicant went through a long process. • Said that she looked at the Design Review findings and while the design is not to her taste it fits in beautifully within this neighborhood. There is no interference with views or privacy. There is no perception of bulk from the street. • Reminded that most of this home is at the 14-foot height with a small element at 18 feet. • Advised that she can make the findings but feels the use of frosted glass is not necessary. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission DENIED an appeal and upheld the Administrative Design Review approval for a remodel with partial demolition and addition to the existing one-story home located at 18524 Montpere Way, with conditions as amended by staff and the City Attorney and with the requirement that the clearstory window glass be frosted. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 22 Commissioner Cappello questioned the basis for requiring frosted glass. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission withdrew the original motion. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission DENIED an appeal and upheld the Administrative Design Review approval for a remodel with partial demolition and addition to the existing one-story home located at 18524 Montpere Way, with conditions as amended by staff and the City Attorney, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal and Rodgers NOES: Zhao ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chair Hlava advised that the appeal has been denied and the applicant can now build their home. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3 Application #06-118 (503-28-008) Hashemich/Sarnevesh, 20951 Canyon View: Application for Design Review and Variance approvals to construct an approximately 3,635 square foot two-story home with a daylight basement on a vacant lot at 20951 Canyon View Drive. The average slope of the lot is 39.7 percent sloping downward toward Canyon View Drive. Pursuant to City Code Section 15-12.061, the average slope beneath a structure shall not exceed 30 percent slope. Therefore, in addition to Design Review approval, the applicant is requesting approval of a Variance as specified in City Code Section 15-12.061(b). (Heather Bradley) Contract Planner Heather Bradley presented the staff report as follows: • Informed that the applicant is seeking Design Review and Variance approvals to allow the construction of a new 3,635 square foot residence on a vacant parcel. • Advised that the Variance is required to allow construction on a 40 percent slope. Additionally, a second Variance is necessary to allow the construction of a pool on the same slope. • Reported that this applicant has been working on a design for one year. The original submittal, a Mediterranean-style home, was reviewed at a Study Session in October 2006. The Commission directed the applicant to redesign the home to be more in keeping with this neighborhood. The new design is a Craftsman-style home that includes a smaller footprint. It was reviewed at a Study Session in July 2007. Significant improvements were found and the Commission encouraged the applicant to proceed with their submittal. • Described the home as consisting of a split-level design that is cut into the steep hillside and contours the site. The Craftsman architecture includes horizontal siding, wood Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 23 columns, decorative rafters, gable roof forms and wooden garage doors. The color board is available this evening. • Explained that one neighbor had concerns over potential loss of privacy. • Said that the Arborist is supportive of the removal of nine trees with full value replacements. • Stated the project can be determined Categorically Exempt under CEQA and the required Design Review findings can be made for the house. The Variance findings can be made for the house but not for the pool. • Recommended that the Commission grant Design Review and Variance approvals for the residence but deny the Variance for the pool. Chair Hlava opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Roger Griffin, Project Architect: • Said that this home is considerably different from the original design. • Expressed appreciation for the two Study Sessions held. • Agreed that this current design blends into this neighborhood. It runs along the contours of the hillside and is a thin as possible. It has terraced levels with greater setbacks at each level. • Reported that the pool has been relocated and reduced in size. He added that he believes the pool location is appropriate. • Advised that there are other pools nearby on the same hillside. • Added that they are using permeable pavers for the driveway. There is a list of sustainable features including green roof areas on or around the deck. Two-thirds of the rear and sides of home are below grade and blend into the site. There will be plant material around the retaining walls to partially obscure them while allowing the character of the wall to remain a feature. • Said that there is a provision to limit tree heights on their shared property line to a maximum of 15-feet to satisfy that neighbor’s request. • Requested approval of the home and pool. Commissioner Cappello asked if the pools at any of the other nearby homes are on grades in excess of 30 percent slope. Mr. Roger Griffin replied yes. Commissioner Nagpal asked if a Variance was issued for that/those pool(s). Mr. Roger Griffin said that they probably were installed prior to the requirement for such a Variance. Commissioner Cappello asked for the address. Mr. Roger Griffin said it is located at 21215 Stone Drive. Ms. Julie Hashemich, Applicant and Property Owner: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 24 • Said she wants to be a Commissioner as there are lots of things she wants to change. • Informed that building a house in Saratoga is very hard. • Pointed out that this is a free country. She is an American by choice and is very proud of that. • Said that the first item on this evening’s agenda surprised her. • Reported that her daughter is a competitive swimmer who has received a college scholarship. • Assured that allowing this pool would not represent a special privilege since there are others in the neighborhood under similar circumstances. • Added that the pool would not be that large at 700 square feet. Mr. Roger Griffin clarified that the area of paving is 700 square feet not the pool itself. Commissioner Zhao asked about the flat roof above the entrance and why it was not sloped instead. Mr. Roger Griffin clarified that there is a pitched roof over the entry and what she is looking at is a terrace located above the entrance that is accessible by the upper floor. Commissioner Zhao said that the three-level retaining wall looks massive. Mr. Roger Griffin pointed out that there is no parking on the street. They wanted sufficient area for cars to park off the street. He added that each home on the other side has the same curved driveways to allow off-street parking for residents and their guests. He advised that there are five or more feet in distance between each wall. Commissioner Zhao said she is trying to image it but it seems massive. Mr. Roger Griffin said that is the reason they are using stone and plant material to soften the edges of stone without completely obscuring it. Commissioner Nagpal said that she was also concerned and asked if there are other alternatives such as wood siding for these walls. Mr. Roger Griffin reminded that this is a curved element so it would be difficult to use wood to form this curved element. Commissioner Rodgers asked if stone is a facing for the retaining walls. Mr. Roger Griffin replied correct. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Roger Griffin how he could be sure that water doesn’t pop the stone off. Mr. Roger Griffin said that there would be drains in the wall to prevent that from happening. Commissioner Rodgers said that the story pole furthest uphill appeared short. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 25 Mr. Roger Griffin said that the rear post was to represent the back wall. The orange was the peak or high point. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the center core of the house would have some way to be closed off with separate thermostat to allow energy conservation. Mr. Roger Griffin said that there are lanai doors to close off that area. They are double glazed glass with wood frames. Chair Hlava opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Bruce Shafer, Resident on Sullivan Way: • Asked if the plans include both the house and the Variance. Planner Heather Bradley said that there is a Variance for the house and a second Variance required for the pool. Mr. Bruce Shafer asked about retaining walls. Planner Heather Bradley said there are retaining walls at the rear of the house, close to the house itself. The project has received clearance from the geotechnical consultant. Mr. Jim Solomon, Resident on Sullivan Way: • Said that he has no objection to what is proposed. • Added that he found the lady’s remarks to be touching about property rights. Chair Hlava asked about the pool on Sullivan Way. Mr. Jim Solomon said he thinks it’s his neighbor’s. Chair Hlava said that the staff recommendation is for approval of the Variance for the house but not the Variance for the pool. She asked if Mr. Jim Solomon could tell the Commission anything about the four houses in the neighborhood with pools. Mr. Jim Solomon said that his immediate neighbor has a pool on a severe slope. Mr. Roger Griffin said that in addition to the retaining wall there would also be a valley gutter on the high side of the wall to intercept water. Commissioner Nagpal asked staff if they could confirm whether a Variance has ever been issued for a pool on a slope greater than 30 percent. Planner Heather Bradley said that she researched the issue but did not find any. She also did a Google-Earth search and saw that there are several pools in the immediate area. It is unclear when they were put in. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 26 Chair Hlava closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Cappello: • Said that he has no issue with the Variance for the house or Design Review approval. • Said that he is proud of this design versus the previous. • Added that he knows it is not easy. • Stated that he has an issue with the Variance for the pool and would like to hear the opinions of the others. • Advised that he understands the staff position but it is hard to determine if allowing this Variance would or would not be a special privilege, or it is consistent or inconsistent. Commissioner Kundtz: • Echoed Commissioner Cappello’s comments. • Complimented Julie for her passion and flexibility as well as the project architect. • Asked staff if there is any geotechnical rational for not recommending the Variance for the pool. Planner Heather Bradley replied no, just precedent. There are a few homes with pools in this neighborhood. Most properties do have slope in this neighborhood. Chair Hlava said that at one time one didn’t have to have such stringent rules on grading. In the old days you could create a level pad for pools by cutting into a slope. Commissioner Rodgers: • Thanked the applicant for the design changes to better reflect the community values and to fit better into this Hillside. • Stated that she has a problem with pools on a steep hillside. • Added that she is more conservative and considers this pool to be a special privilege on a hillside. • Said that while she is concerned about a Variance for the pool, she can support the Variance for the house. • Asked if traffic control measures would be implemented during construction as traffic moves fast as demonstrated during their site visit. Commissioner Kundtz asked if the pool area was investigated for geologic conditions. Mr. Roger Griffin replied yes, the proposed area for the pool was evaluated and it is bedrock. Commissioner Zhao: • Stated that she could make the Variance findings for the house. • Added that since a pool is geologically allowed and there are already pools on sloped properties this would not set precedent. She said if there is no safety hazard she is okay with the pool Variance. • Said that this Commission just approved another Variance to allow construction on a slope for the Sam Cloud building a couple of weeks ago. There are a lot of buildings built before Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 27 Variances were required so this is not a privilege so she can support the pool Variance as well. Commissioner Rodgers cautioned that this could be the reason Variances were made a requirement. She added that she is not sure that precedent is relevant. Commissioner Zhao asked if there is geotechnical clearance for the pool. Planner Heather Bradley replied yes, it was reviewed along with the house by the geotechnical consultant. Commissioner Zhao asked whom the consultant worked for. Planner Heather Bradley said that the applicant hired this consultant. His report was peer- reviewed by the City’s geotechnical consultant. Commissioner Nagpal: • Reminded that Variances are few and far between. • Added that she is okay with the Variance for the house. • Advised that Variance findings are more onerous than findings for Design Review approval. • Reiterated that she can make the findings for the house but cannot for the pool. • Added that it is difficult to grant the Variance for the pool with the information available. • Reported that she is touched that this property owner’s daughter is a competitive swimmer. • Asked the City attorney of all three findings for the Variance must be made. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer replied yes. Commissioner Nagpal said she couldn’t make all three. She expressed appreciation to the architect and property owner for their work on this design. Reiterated that she supports the Design Review and Variance approvals for the house but not the Variance for the pool. Commissioner Kumar agreed with Commissioner Nagpal as far as supporting the Design Review and Variance for the house but not the Variance for the pool. Chair Hlava: • Said that she can make the Variance findings for the house. • Pointed out that this site is across the street from a Councilmember. • Said that she has a hard time approving the Variance for the pool but the fact that there are no geotechnical issues is also pretty persuasive to her. Besides, it seems to her that there are other pools in this neighborhood so this is not a special privilege so she can probably make the Variance findings for the pool as well. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out Finding A that states that denial would be an undue hardship and deny privileges enjoyed by others. She said she couldn’t make the finding for undue hardship. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 28 Commissioner Nagpal offered an example. If one property has a tennis court and the adjacent property can’t get one, does that property owner get a Variance for that tennis court just because their neighbor has one? Commissioner Cappello said that there are other homes with similar slope that have pools. Commissioner Nagpal said that they were possibly allowed prior to a requirement for a Variance. Commissioner Cappello: • Said he doesn’t know but staff states that pools are only allowed on properties with level ground. The Commission does not have information on other properties. • Stated his agreement with Commissioner Nagpal and said he cannot make the findings for the pool. It may open a huge can of worms. Commissioner Zhao suggested that we find out more about the other pools on sloped lots. It might make a difference. Commissioner Nagpal suggested bifurcating the application or having the applicant apply for the pool separately from the house. Planner Heather Bradley said it was possible to do that. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said another option would be to deny the Variance for the pool without prejudice or continue the hearing on the issue of the pool Variance. Commissioner Cappello said he was not sure if these options would help this applicant. Commissioner Kundtz agreed that they likely need a yes or no response. Chair Hlava said that the house could be approved tonight while the Variance for the pool could be continued to a future meeting. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that staff is recommending the approvals for the house and denial of the pool. She suggested that the draft resolution be approved and the applicant can appeal the denial of the pool. Commissioner Kundtz said he would rather continue the pool rather than put this applicant into the appeals process. Commissioner Cappello expressed support for bifurcating the home from the pool. Commissioner Kumar suggested asking the applicant for their preferred action. Mr. Roger Griffin said that they would like the opportunity to present adequate information on the slope of pools on those four properties at a future meeting while proceeding with the Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 29 approvals for the house tonight. He asked if the continuance would be to a date certain or uncertain. Director John Livingstone said either was possible. Ms. Julie Hashemich: • Said that it is really difficult to do grading on her property. It will be almost impossible later on. • Said that if there were any risk, the geotechnical engineer would not have approved the site for a pool. • Reminded that there are four pools in the immediate area on sloped properties. Commissioner Nagpal asked the applicant if she would like a decision today. Commissioner Zhao cautioned that if she goes for a decision today, that decision would be a denial of her request for the pool. Ms. Julie Hashemich reiterated that it would be difficult to add the pool later on. Commissioner Kundtz: • Clarified that the decision of the Commission right now for the pool is a denial. • Said that by continuing consideration of the pool. The house could be approved tonight and the applicant could bring more information on pools to argue for her pool. • Reminded that two of the Commissioners do not feel that they have enough information right now to approve the pool. Ms. Julie Hashemich said that she was just trying to change their minds tonight. Director John Livingstone said that the quickest action would be a continuance to a date certain. Chair Hlava asked what that date would be. Commissioner Kundtz said November 14th or December 12th. Director John Livingstone said November 28th. Commissioner Kundtz said that there is currently nothing set for the meeting of November 28th. Chair Hlava added that because Thanksgiving occurs the week before, there would be insufficient packet preparation time for a meeting on November 28th. There had originally been talk of bringing the Blight Ordinance to that meeting. Commissioner Nagpal asked if that means no meeting on November 28th. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 30 Chair Hlava said that since it occurs the Wednesday after Thanksgiving and City Hall is closed the Thursday and Friday prior, packets would be due on Wednesday, November 20th, which would be a burden on staff. Commissioner Kundtz said that December 12th would be more appropriate. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission granted Design Review and Variance approvals to construct an approximately 3,635 square foot two-story home with a daylight basement on a vacant lot at 20951 Canyon View Drive, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission CONTINUED TO ITS MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2007, consideration of a Variance request to allow the construction of a swimming pool on a property with greater than 30 percent slope located at 20951 Canyon View Drive, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 4 Application #07-307 (386-37-005) Praveen Narayan, 19819 Colby Court: The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a 1,041 square foot second-story addition to an existing 3,057 square foot one-story single-family residence. The residence will not exceed 26 feet in height. The net lot size is approximately 15,681 square feet. The site is zoned R-1- 10,000. (Chris Riordan) Senior Planner Chris Riordan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval to allow a 1,041 square foot second-story addition to an existing single-story single-family residence. • Described the property as being zoned R-1-10,000. The maximum proposed height is 23.5 feet. • Said that project materials include stucco and composition shingle roofing to match the existing structure. • Reported that the adjacent neighbors have been notified and forms were collected. No negative comments were received. • Said that this project is consistent and Design Review findings can be made. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 31 • Recommended that the project be found Categorically Exempt under CEQA and the Commission adopt the resolution approving this request. Chair Hlava asked if the same garage would be used and if the garage door would be replaced. Planner Chris Riordan said that staff suggested a number of times that the garage door be replaced but the owners want to keep their existing door. Chair Hlava asked if the requirement to replace the garage door is included in the conditions. Planner Chris Riordan replied no, since this is just a second-story addition and there is no change to the existing house or garage doors. Chair Hlava opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Mr. Narayan, Applicant and Property Owner: • Thanked the Commission for being here. • Advised that this is his birthday. • Thanked Planner Chris Riordan for his patience with him in working on this project. • Said that he has three kids and is new to Saratoga for only 1.5 years. • Said that their family needs four bedrooms. His mother-in-law has joined his household. They need a bigger home with two additional bedrooms. • Added that if the need for a new garage door is required, he could be convinced to change his garage door later. Right now, he wants to keep the work to a minimum, just the second-story addition, with as little demolition of the first floor as is possible. • Said that receiving approval this evening would be a good birthday gift. Commissioner Cappello advised Mr. Narayan that this Commission requests carriage style garage doors for applications such as this one pretty consistently. He asked Mr. Narayan if he is open to that requirement. He added that he appreciates the need to keep costs to a minimum. Mr. Narayan said that if the garage door were to be a requirement, he would be willing to put one in at a later point of time. He can also do it now if that is necessary. Chair Hlava asked Mr. Narayan if his current garage door is wood or metal. Mr. Narayan said his garage door is fiberglass. Commissioner Kundtz asked Mr. Narayan if his existing garage and front doors are compatible in design. Mr. Narayan said he would be changing the windows to be consistent but leaving the front door as it is now. Chair Hlava closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 32 Commissioner Zhao said she could make the findings for the second-story, as there are others in the neighborhood. Commissioner Nagpal said she is fine with the required Design Review findings. Commissioner Rodgers said that she is too. She said that the addition of wood carriage-style garage doors has become the standard for remodels. Commissioner Cappello agreed. He said it costs a little but makes a big difference to the façade since the garage door represents a big part of the home’s street frontage. He said he is sensitive to the additional cost but it pays off quite a bit. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that there must be a nexus between this project and the requirement for a new garage and front door. Chair Hlava asked if the Commission couldn’t just routinely require this. Commissioner Kumar said that while this might be okay with a complete remodel, what about just a kitchen or bathroom remodel. Would that condition be imposed for a small remodel like that. Director John Livingstone said that such a small remodel is not a discretionary project. He said that the nexus must be, is the City asking over and above what can be considered a relationship to the project. If the addition is larger, there is the nexus to add the requirement for a new garage door. Commissioner Kundtz asked for clarification that staff asks for new garage doors for over the counter permits. Director John Livingstone said that staff does not have the authority to require a new garage door but can recommend that action to the applicant’s discretion but cannot mandate it. Commissioner Kumar clarified that the staff recommendation is not binding on the property owner. Director John Livingstone replied absolutely not. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the project could be asked to match doors on a garage to relate to windows on the house and front door. Director John Livingstone said not to that level just the compatibility of the garage door to the entire house. Commissioner Kundtz asked if the garage is considered incompatible with the front door. Commissioner Nagpal asked why the owner declined to install a new garage door. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 33 Planners Chris Riordan said that during plan check staff recommended an update to the garage door but the owner declined to do so. He assured that staff usually asks for that upgrade. Director John Livingstone said that the request is not specifically for a carriage-style door but just to an upgraded wood garage door. Commissioner Zhao said that the Commission tends to ask for carriage-style garage doors. She asked where this requirement is located within the Design Review findings. She said it is hard to require that if it is not included in the requirements. Director John Livingstone said that the recommendation is not just for carriage-style garage doors just higher end garage doors. It is a similar standard to asking for wood windows over aluminum. There is nothing in the guidelines for that. These are just find details that the Planning Commission considers. Another example is a preference for brown versus orange toned clay roof tiles. Commissioner Zhao said that this is done on a case-by-case review. Director John Livingstone said that when staff gets specific standards from the Planning Commission, we recommend it to applicants. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that these garage door upgrades could be considered a feature to reduce the perception of bulk and height. That would be a reasonable determination by this Commission. It can be found to be more consistent with design policies and techniques. Director John Livingstone said that a standard aluminum garage door might cost about $1,000, custom wood garage doors can range between $4,000 and $6,000. Chair Hlava reminded that this applicant is doing nothing to the garage. She said she did not want to impose the requirement for a new garage door. She added that she personally hates wood garage doors and does not see a nexus for requiring a new garage door with this second story addition. Commissioner Kumar suggesting polling the Commission on this issue. Commissioner Nagpal said she generally supports a higher-level garage door. In this case, she is okay without that requirement but she does not want to take away staff’s ability to recommend this upgrade. She suggested asking this applicant to look into an upgrade as there is not a large difference in cost. Commissioner Cappello said either way, he supports this project. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 34 Commissioner Rodgers said she would not deny it for that reason but the garage door represents one-third of this home’s frontage when viewed from the street. A new garage door would enhance the value of this home. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kundtz, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission granted Design Review approval to construct a 1,041 square foot second-story addition to an existing 3,057 square foot one-story single-family residence on property located at 19819 Colby Court, with the recommendation that the owner consider the replacement of the garage door, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 5 Application #07-288 (517-14-003) Campagna, 15261 Bohlman Road: The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new two-story single-family residence and Variance approval for the retaining wall to exceed the five-foot maximum height limitation. The total floor area of the proposed residence and garage will be approximately 6,010 square feet. The net lot size is approximately 1.05 acres. The site is zoned HR (Hillside Residential). (Chris Riordan) Senior Planner Chris Riordan presented the staff report as follows: • Distributed a book on Tuscan architecture that has been provided by the applicant. • Said that the applicant is seeking Design Review and Variance approvals to allow the construction of a new 6,010 square foot, two-story single-family residence on a vacant lot. • Reported that the Variance is required for the inclusion of retaining walls in excess of five feet in height. • Said that the maximum height of the home would be 23.9 feet. • Advised that there is a Fire requirement for a 14-foot all weather driveway as well as a 40 by 48 foot level staging area. • Informed that Code limits retaining walls to five feet without issuance of a Variance. The proposed maximum height of the retaining walls on this property is 14 feet. • Said that the new home is Tuscan in architectural style. It incorporates tan stucco with wood accents, wrought iron railings and recycled roof tiles. • Said that the retaining walls are necessary to meet the Fire requirements. • Said this project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA and recommended approval. Commissioner Nagpal asked about traffic controls during construction. Planner Chris Riordan said that while he made no adjustments to the staff report following the site visit, it would be easy to add conditions following this evening’s discussion. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 35 Director John Livingstone said that a construction meeting is held with the Building staff prior to construction. They typically use flag persons when deliveries are made to the site. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the retaining wall materials would blend into the hillside. Planner Chris Riordan said that they are using a more rustic cobblestone style on the upslope to match the home. The lower slope will allow more native plants to get a hold and help obscure the wall. Commissioner Rodgers asked if that plant material would lead to maintenance difficulties. Planner Chris Riordan deferred to the applicant to respond. Chair Hlava opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. Mr. Jeff Reid, Project Architect: • Thanked Planner Chris Riordan for his help in getting this project finessed. • Said that he hopes it will be approved tonight. • Stated he would welcome any questions. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Jeff Reid about his roofing material choice, as antique roofs are beautiful but also fragile. Why was this material selected? Is there anything available in this country rather than the proposed imported tiles? Mr. Jeff Reid said that there are other materials available. This tile helps preserve the Old World look. However, there are a myriad of solutions, both American and California-based, that could easily be explored as an alternative to that. He said the color of the tile was paramount. Commissioner Kundtz counted four chimneys. Mr. Jeff Reid said there were three. Commissioner Kundtz asked which chimney is wood burning as only one can be. Mr. Jeff Reid said that has not yet been decided. Chair Hlava asked Mr. Reid to think about using all gas fireplaces, taking into account the recent fires in Southern California. That is just is suggestion. Commissioner Rodgers said that most people want at least one wood-burning fireplace because they want the larger sized fireplace for its appearance. However, these days you can have a more elaborate fireplace system that is still gas burning. Mr. Jeff Reid said he is aware that inserts have come a long way. Commissioner Nagpal said she too counts four chimneys on the plans. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 36 Chair Hlava asked the height of the retaining wall behind the house. Mr. Jeff Reid said it is five feet tall. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the upper story would look out onto the road and would headlights become a problem as seen from within the house. Mr. Jeff Reid said that the house is located below the road and there is no opportunity for headlights to encroach on the residence. Chair Hlava closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. Commissioner Cappello said he likes this design and can make the Design Review and Variance findings. It is a pretty tough lot to build upon. Commissioner Rodgers said she could make the findings for approval. Chair Rodgers said that she likes the use of natural materials. This is a pretty house and this owner is brave to build on that lot. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Cappello, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission granted Design Review approval to construct a new two-story single-family residence and Variance approval for the retaining walls to exceed the five-foot maximum height limitation on property located at 15261 Bohlman Road, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Property Owner, Mr. Campagna, took a moment to recognize the work of Planner Chris Riordan and commended his help in bringing this project along in the process. *** DIRECTOR’S ITEMS There were no Director’s Items. COMMISSION ITEMS Chair Hlava verified that there would be no meeting on November 28th. Director John Livingstone said that meeting is now officially cancelled. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the review of the Blight Ordinance would be changed from the Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for October 24, 2007 Page 37 cancelled Planning Commission meeting of November 28th to the following Planning Commission meeting date of December 12, 2007. AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer cautioned that the Ordinance is now called the Neglected Property Ordinance (rather than Blight Ordinance). Commissioner Zhao and Nagpal both reported ongoing problems accessing their City emails and asked that this not be used as the only means of communication until it is operational for everyone. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Cappello, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, Chair Hlava adjourned the meeting at approximately 11:33 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk