The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-13-2002 Planning Commission PacketCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Garakani, Jackman, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe, Zutshi and Chair Barry ABSEi~rr: Commissioner Zutshi STAFF: Planners Livingstone 6~ Vasudevan, and Director Sullivan PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES : Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of January 9 and January 23, 2002 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staf f accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Sta f f. _ REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 7, 2002. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file 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 PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you maybe limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communication should be filed on or before the Monday, a week before the meeting. 1. Application #02-006 (366-35-019) OAK CREEK INVESTMENTS; BRIGHTER FUTURE LEARNING CENTER (tenant), 12175 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road; - Request for a Conditional Use Permit to establish a learning center in an existing 2,626 square foot office space at the Oak Creek Center. The office space is located in the C-V zoning district. (VASUDEVAN) (APPROVED 6-0) 2. DR-O1-046 &t UP-O1-019 (503-24-025) -LEE, 20645 Fourth Street; -Request for Design Review approval to add 283 square feet to the fourth floor and 283 square feet to the fifth floor of The Inn at Saratoga. The Use Permit approval is necessary to allow the expansion of a conditional use. The Inn at Saratoga is located on a 29,807 parcel in the CH-1 zoning district. (VASUDEVAN) (APPROVED 6-0) Application #02-003 (510-O1-046) - NEALE, 15081 Pepper Lane; -Request for Administrative Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approval to add 683 feet to the existing detached two-car garage. The proposed addition will create athree-car garage. The proposed addition will match the existing design and roof pitch of the existing garage. The 22,101 square foot parcel is located in the R-1-20,000 zoning district (LIVINGSTONE) (APPROVED 5-1-0, ROUPE RECUSED) 4. Application #02-007 (Citywide) - Resolution Amending the Zoning Requirements related to Rear Yard Setbacks for Two Story Dwellings; -The Planning Commission has requested that it consider amending the language of the Zoning Ordinance that regulates rear yard setbacks for two story dwellings. Currently the minimum yard requirements differ for lots that have been developed prior to May 15, 1992 vs. vacant lot and lots created after May 15,1992. The ordinance also has different setbacks for single-story and multi-story dwellings. (SULLIVAN) (CONTINUED) DIRECTOR ITEMS COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner's sub-committee reports COMMUNICATIONS - Written- Minutes from Regular Ciry Council Meetings of January 2, 2002 and Minutes from Adjourned Meeting of January 22, 2002. ADJOURNMENT AT 9:45 P.M. TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, February 27, 2002, Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA r~ CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION LAND USE AGENDA DATE: PLACE: TYPE: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 - 3:00 p.m. City Hall Parking Lot, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Land Use Committee SITE VISI I'S WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2002 ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #02-003 2. DR-O1-046 &r UP-O1-019 3. Application #02-006 - NEALE Item 3 15081 Pepper Lane - LEE Item 2 20645 Fourth Street - OAK CREEK INVESTMENTS Item 1 12175 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road LAND USE COMMITTEE The Land Use Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee conducts site visits to properties which are new items on the Planning Commission agenda. The site ~~isits are held Tuesday preceding the Wednesday hearing between 3:00 and 5:00 p.m. It is not necessary for the applicant to be present, but you are invited to join the Committee at the site visit to answer any questions which may arise. Site visits are generally short (5 to 10 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may v~~ish to give should be saved for the public , hearing. Please contact staff Tuesday morning for an estimated time of the site visit. • • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Garakani, Jackman, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe, Zutshi and Chair Barty PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES : Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of January 9 and January 23, 2002 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member o f the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF POSTING AGEIV'DA _ Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 7, 2002. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file 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 PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communication should be filed on or before the Monday, a week before the meeting. 1. Application #02-006 (366-35-019) OAK CREEK INVESTMENTS; BRIGHTER FUTURE LEARNING CENTER (tenant), 12175 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road; - Request for a Conditional Use Permit to establish a learning center in an existing 2,626 square foot office space at the Oak Creek Center. The office space is located in ;! the C-V zoning district. (VASUDEVAN) 2. DR-O1-046 Est UP-O1-019 (503-24-025) -LEE, 20645 Fourth Street; -Request for Design Review approval to add 283 square feet to the fourth floor and 283 square feet to -the fifth floor of The Inn at Saratoga. The Use Permit approval is necessary to allow the expansion of a conditional use. The Inn at Saratoga is located on a 29,807 parcel in the CH-1 zoning district. (VASUDEVAN) 3. Application #02-003 (510-O1-046) - NEALE, 15081 Pepper Lane; -Request for Administrative Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approval to add 683 fee"t to the existing detached two-car garage. The proposed addition will create athree-car garage. The proposed addition will match the existing design and roof pitch of the existing garage. The 22,101 square foot parcel is located in the R-1-20,000 zoning district (LIVINGSTONE) 4. Application #02-007 (Citywide) - Resolution Amending the Zoning Requirements related to Rear Yard Setbacks for Two Story Dwellings; -The Planning Commission has requested that it consider amending the language of the Zoning Ordinance that regulates rear yard setbacks for two story dwellings. Currently the minimum yard requirements differ for lots that have been developed prior to May 15, 1992 vs. vacant lot and lots created after May 15,1992. The ordinance also has different setbacks for single-story and multi-story dwellings. (SULLIVAN) DIRECTOR ITEMS COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner's sub-committee reports CO_ MIvIUNICATIONS~ - Written- Minutes from Regular City Council Meetings of January 2, 2002 and Minutes from Adjourned Meeting of January 22, 2002. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, February 27, 2002, Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA ,~ -- % ~ .~ MINUTES v U/~,I ~t ~ SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ~~ J DATE: Wednesday, January 9, 2002 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA _ TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Barry called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi Absent: Kurasch Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner John Livingstone and Planner Lata Vasudevan APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of December 12, 2001. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the regular Planning Commission minutes of December 12, 2001, were approved with the following modifications: Page 6 -Commissioner Hunter said that retaining walls might become prevalent. Page 7 -Commissioner Hunter said that it is very valid to state that a 4,800 square foot home is a very large house. y^~~*°a ^~~* *"°* °h° ~~~~°~ ;,, ~ z nnn cnnnrn fnn* . Said that she would go for a smaller house on this lot, considerably smaller. Page 9 -remove the first bullet within the motion for approval: Thor=m$ Page 9 -Chair Barry said that Commissioner Garakani is simply suggesting a Study Session be held early on. AAA°rl +~,n+ :f ~h° h.~~l H°r .~..,~~ lhnrn ~xrn,.lr1 h° nn Page 12 -Chair Barry pointed out to Mr. Pridham that the intent of the Ordinance is that folks in the Hillside Residential Zoning District give g;~ up the fenced-in aspect of properties. Page 13 - Gh-ai~ Director Sullivan suggested that the Commission vote on the proposed amendment and then vote on the main motion. Page 14 -Bullet 3 from Associate Planner John Livingstone's report should read: Stated that this applicant has contacted each of his neighbors... AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Kurasch ABSTAIN: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 9, 2002 Page 2 REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 3, 2002. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. *** NON PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 1 GARROD FARMS, 22600 Mount Eden Road (503-10-028): Request for General Plan clarification to allow three new dwelling units on one parcel of land where two dwelling units currently exist. The area is within the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County and is prezoned Hillside Residential. The County requires the project be consistent with the City of SaraStoga's General Plan. (LIVINGSTONE) (CONTINUED FROM 11/14/01) • Associate Planner John Livingston presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicants seek approval for the construction of three new homes on a site with two existing residences. One unit is proposed at 3,000 square feet plus a garage and the two remaining units are proposed at 2,500 square feet plus garages. There will be 1,500 cubic yards of cut and 1,200 cubic yards of fill. • Identified the site as-being located within an unincorporated area of Santa Clara County within Saratoga's sphere of influence. The County requires that this proposal meet the General Plan policies of the City of Saratoga. Following that determination, the County would process Architectural and Site approvals. • Stated that staff finds this proposal to be in conflict with the Hillside Specific Plan. • Recommended that the Commission review this proposal and provide direction to staff and the applicant. Commissioner Roupe sought assurances that public testimony can be taken on a Non Public Hearing Item. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. Chair Barry clarified that the Commission's direction is being requested. Asked about the Open Space Plan proposed. Associate Planner John Livingstone: • Advised that the applicant is proposing a trail dedication to the City to try to meet the Open Space section of the plan, concentrating on the phrase "preferred" instead of "required." • Pointed out that the Commission can take one of four actions including: 1. Find the proposal consistent with the General Plan and Hillside Specific Plan and instruct staff to come back with a Resolution for approval under Consent, including the acceptance of the trail easement proposal. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 9, 2002 Page 3 2. Find the proposed density to be inconsistent and recommend staff to forward that finding to the County. 3. Explore additional revisions to the project to enhance the Open Space to justify the increased density. 4. Applicant could submit an application to amend the Hillside Specific Plan. Commissioner Garakani asked for more of an explanation for Option 3. Director Tom Sullivan restated that this would require enhancements to those options already offered. Commissioner Zutshi asked if this means fewer units. Director Tom Sullivan stated that it means further options to enhance the proposal. Commissioner Jackman said that revisions to the Hillside Specific Plan would require a community vote. Director Tom Sullivan reminded that this parcel is not currently within the City's limits. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:10 p.m. Mr. George Cooper, Property Owner/Applicant, 22701 Mount Eden Road, Saratoga: • Said that he has resided on the property since 1945. • Expressed appreciation for the patience of the staff and Planning Commission. • Advised that the family has retained the law firm of Matteoni, Saxe and O'Laughlin. Said that he would provide a project overview. Pointed out that they seek authorization to construct three new residences on an 11-acre parcel to house family members and staff. The new homes would be single-story ranch style homes consistent with the existing homes on site. They plan to retain the agriculture and landscaping on the property. Describe that the family operates two agriculturaUrecreational businesses on their property, both of which are labor intensive businesses, mainly family operated. Key on-site employees have housing provided. Currently his own daughter drives 65 miles from Pleasanton to work for the family business. The Garrod family has farmed on its property continuously since 1893. The riding stables were established in 1966. The vineyard was planted in 1972. The winery established in 1991. The have achieved a national reputation for their wines, having won numerous awards. Said that the businesses include horse shows, wine tasting and fundraising events. Informed that there are currently eight houses on the entire 120-acre property. Three of the homes house senior family members. The Operations Manager, Wine/Marketing Manager, Stable Manager, Riding Director and Office Manager occupy the five other homes. There are currently three units short of what they need. • Reminded that they have deeded 120 acres of the original 240-acre property to the Mid-Peninsula Open Space Authority. They also propose to provide links to the trails as called for in Saratoga's Master Plan. • Introduced his attorney, Peggy O'Laughlin. Peggy O'Laughlin, Attorney for the Garrod/Cooper Family: • Said that she wanted to put Mr. Cooper's proposal into context. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 9, 2002 Page 4 • Pointed out that the Garrod/Cooper family are not developers but rather they operate a farm. This is a unique use in Saratoga. The family has been in the area for more than 100 years. • Said that she has reviewed the City Attorney's memorandum to the Community Development Director and agrees on the law that applies. • Said that the Commission clearly has the discretion to determine if the proposal is consistent with the General Plan and Hillside Specific Plan. • Reminded that State Law does not require a precise match. • Described a court case out of Oakland where the Court stated that a City can find a proposal is in harmony with the General Plan. • Assured that this proposal is in harmony with Saratoga's General Plan. • Read Policy 7 of the General Plan into the record. • Pointed out that a significant component of the Open Space Element comes from agricultural uses, including the discouragement of early cancellation of Williamson Act lands. The Element also allows additional dwellings on family farm operations. Additionally, a- density bonus can be allowed if a significant investment exists on the property. • Reiterated that these three homes represent necessary housing for this family to continue its farm operations. • Said that the Garrod/Cooper family has shown its commitment in preserving open space, specifically by dedicated 120 acres to Mid-Peninsula Open Space Authority. Additionally, they are offering to deed a trail easement to Saratoga, 1,000 feet in length. This easement will provide a crucial link that Saratoga includes as desirable within its Master Trails Plan. • Said that although City staff finds conflict with this proposal with the Hillside Specific Plan, the plan does not include a mandate but rather a preferred density. • Reminded that this is a Williamson Land Act holding. • Recommended adoption of Alternative 1 as provided by staff. Chair Barry asked Attorney Peggy O'Laughlin if her clients would support a Deed Restriction that requires the property to revert to compliance with existing General Plan Zoning in the event that they opt out of the Williamson Act. Attorney Peggy O'Laughlin: • Advised that she spoke early in the process with Saratoga's City Attorney as well as staff. • Informed that the Garrod/Cooper family has just renewed with the Williamson Act for another 10 years. • Reminded that this is not a subdividable lot. The units cannot be sold outside of the family. • Said that an Agricultural Easement Overlay had been considered in the past but found to be unnecessary. Chair Barry asked if they would object if the Commission were to require an Overlay. Attorney Peggy O'Laughlin replied that it would have to be specific. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the Williamson Act lasts for 10 years and there are no guarantees that it will be renewed after that time. Attorney Peggy O'Laughlin reminded that the family has been on this land since 1892. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 9, 2002 Page 5 Commissioner Roupe suggested that a formal stipulation should be considered as the City may be setting a precedent by stating that this project conforms to the City's General and Hillside Specific Plans. Attorney Peggy O'Laughlin clarified that tonight's request reflects just 11 acres of the entire 120 acre family holding. They might consider a deed restriction on those 11 acres tonight but not the entire 120 acres. The Garrods had previously expressed reluctance to do so.. Commissioner Garakani sought clarification that there are two homes existing on this 11. acres with the proposal to construct and additional three units. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:42 p.m. Mr. Bruce Jensen, 12679 Carneysville, Saratoga: • Expressed his support of this proposal. Ms. Deborah Lang, 13172 Montrose Street, Saratoga: ° • Expressed her support of this proposal. • Pointed out the long-standing commitment to the community demonstrated by the Garrod/Cooper Family. • Said that they represent a part of the past and an ability to maintain farming in the area. • Identified herself as a 4H leader of a group with 90 youth members. • Stated her support for the efforts to maintain the farm operation by providing affordable living units for its employees. Mr. Vince Garrod, Property Owner/Applicant: • Informed the Commission that the Williamson Act contracts last 10 years but are renewed automatically each year for an additional 10-year period. They plan to continue with the Contract and continue the family use of the land for agricultural uses as long as it is economically feasible to do so. • Stated that in 2001, they had 15,000 riders on their trials. • Said that they are also in the fruit business. The community likes grapes and the wine business. • Asked for the Commission's support to allow them to continue their operations. Commissioner Zutshi asked for clarification from Attorney O'Laughlin on the Williamson Act renewal process. Attorney Peggy O'Laughlin said that the Act works just as Mr. Garrod described. It is renewed, . annually. Additionally, the Williamson Act Contract is not easy to cancel and, if cancelled, that cancellation is not effective for 10 years. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that if back taxes are paid, the Williamson Act Contract can be cancelled. Reminded that the purpose of the Act is to lower property taxes for farmland. Attorney Peggy O'Laughlin said that the Garrods are not proposing the cancellation of their Williamson Act Contract. Commissioner Garakani questioned if some sort of guarantee not to cancel can be offered. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 9, 2002 Page 6 Attorney Peggy O'Laughlin said that it is hard to guarantee forever. Added that the Williamson Act first passed in 1971. Director Tom Sullivan proposed that a Condition can be imposed that if any further urbanization of this 120 acres occurs, the owners will be required to process an Annexation of their property into the City of Saratoga's jurisdiction. Chair Barry questioned whether the applicant makes this request for Annexation or the City. Commissioner Roupe sought clarification regarding what Director Sullivan means by the urbanization of the property and whether that means the potential of development of the property. Director Tom Sullivan said that if any further urbanization is proposed, this property should be within the City of Saratoga rather than within County jurisdiction. An agreement to that effect can be processed. Attorney Peggy O'Laughlin said that this possible Condition can be discussed. With the trigger being the cancellation of the Williamson Act, this Condition could be appropriate. Commissioner Roupe asked who initiates this action. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the City, Applicant and County would do it together. The applicants are here today at the request of the County. Chair Barry asked if Attorney O'Laughlin finds this proposal to reflect the family's willingness. Attorney O'Laughlin replied that they can look into the idea. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 8:00 p.m. Commissioner Hunter: • Stated her support for Alternative 1. • Said that the Cooper/Garrod family is an extraordinary family that has been here for more than 100 years. • Said that she is grateful for the 120 acres they have already deeded to Open Space. • Said that they have helped make Saratoga what it is today. • Said that the City can be flexible as there is room here to accommodate this request. • Asked staff to draft a Resolution of approval. Commissioner Roupe: • Said that he shares Commissioner Hunter's view and is also in support of Alternative 1. • Stated that the Commission does have the discretion to support this request. • Pointed out that there is ambiguity in the General Plan with the language reading "preferred" rather than absolute. • Said he is in favor but also intrigued by the proposed Condition to require Annexation if the land comes out of the Williamson Act Contract. This Condition makes sense. . Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 9, 2002 Page 7 Commissioner Jackman: _ - - • Agreed. • Said that this land is important to the history of Saratoga. • Pointed out that the Housing Element demonstrates how difficult affordable housing is to develop. • Supported Alternative 1. • Declared that she would like to see this family farm continue for another 100 years. Commissioner Zutshi: • Stated her support for Alternative 1 with the added Condition requiring Annexation in the event that the Williamson Act Contract is discontinued. Commissioner Garakani: • Stated his support for Alternative 1. • Agreed with the need for housing for agricultural uses. • Supported the Annexation requirement. Director Sullivan said that staff would bring back the Resolution. Chair Barry: • Stated that while the family has farmed this land for 100 plus years, the Commission has to consider that the property may have to be split in the future. • Agrees that the Commission has the discretion to approve this request. • Thanked the family and their attorney and encouraged them to work with the Community Development Director. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 DR-O1-021, V-010-012 & BSA-Ol-002, HUSTED, Kittrid~e Road: Request for Design Review and Building Site Approval to construct atwo-story craftsman style, single-family residence on a vacant lot. The floor area of the proposed residence and attached two-car garage is 4,810 square feet. The maximum height of the residence will be 26 feet. The site is zoned Hillside Residential (H-R). A variance is requested in order to construct retaining walls in excess of five feet. An exception is also requested to exceed one thousand cubic yards of cut and fill allowed in the H-R Zone. (OOSTERHOUS) THIS ITEM IS REQUESTED TO BE CONTINUED Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report: ; • Informed the Commission that as there are many issues still to be addressed, this item will be renoticed to a future meeting date. *** • PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 UP-O1-018 (381-O1-026) AUGUST PARTNERS II, LLC; DR. KATHLEEN BAN, DDS (tenant), 12132 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road: Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to establish a dental Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of. January 9, 2002 Page 8 office in an existing 1,440 square foot office space in the Park Saratoga Center. The office space is located in the Visitor Commercial (C-V) zoning district. (VASUDEVAN) Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval to establish a general dental practice within a 1,440 square foot office within a Visitor Commercial (C-V) zoning district. This use requires a Use Permit from the Planning Commission. • Stated that the space has been vacant for more than one year. It is easily visible, located close to the main entrance. This use will be beneficial to the Center. • Said that there are 195 parking spaces available. Staff finds parking to be sufficient as this use is not intensifying the former use, a hair salon. Both uses have the same parking requirement. • Informed that necessary findings can be made to recommend approval. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:12 p.m. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:12 p.m. Commissioner Roupe expressed his endorsement since the proposal meets all requirements. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit (UP-O1-018) to allow the establishment of a dental office at 12132 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road: AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi • NOES: None ABSENT: Kurasch ABSTAIN: None Chair Barry advised that there is a 15-day appeal period. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.4 DR-O1-031 & UP-O1-017 (397-05-091) -SAN FILIPPO, Sobey Road: Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,981 square foot two-story residence with 608 square foot basement and 528 square foot cabana on a vacant lot. The Use Permit is necessary to allow the cabana to be 15 feet in height. The maximum height of the residence will be 26 feet. The site is 43,042 square feet and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. (LIVINGSTONE) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval fora 4,500 square foot, two-story residence with a 600 square foot basement, 500 square foot two-car garage and 500 square foot cabana on a vacant lot. Additionally, a Use Permit is required to allow the cabana at 15 feet in height. Without a Use Permit, the height would be limited to 12 feet. • Informed that this project has a history, having come before the Commission and Council before. That proposal was denied. • Said that this is a new application with changes that now meet the five design policies. It will follow the contours of the slope; the landscaping plan includes native trees and shrubs and various Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 9, 2002 Page 9 materials to soften the structure as well as protect privacy for the neighbors; varying roof lines break the elevation; the structure meets design for energy efficiency. The use of solar panels as alternative energy to heat the pool and provide radiant floor heating. • Described the color palette as being dark tan. • Said that the cabana is proposed at 15 feet in height. Zoning allows 12 feet or up to 15 with Planning Commission approval if two findings can be made. One required finding is that the increased height is necessary for architectural compatibility. The second is that the proposal is compatible with the existing neighborhood. Staff finds that these two findings can be made in this case. • Recommended approval. • Advised that the neighbor that had previously expressed concerns is now in support of this revised plan. Commissioner Roupe asked if this application has received partial credit for use of pervious materials. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that they have just a small portion that received credit. The applicant is using the most pervious material available. To receive an additional credit a percolation test would be required. The applicant can do this later. Chair Barry asked staff to identify this material that is the most pervious available. Associate Planner John Livingstone promised to provide samples to the Commission in the future. Commissioner Roupe said that this sample is not necessary as part of this application. Chair Barry agreed but added that it would help with future projects. Commissioner Jackman asked if a side view drawing of the cabana is available. Commissioner Roupe pointed it out to Commissioner Jackman. He added that there appears to be a substantial -slope with a 16-foot drop and asked whether a retaining wall is necessary that will require a variance. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that there are no retaining walls required that exceed Code allowances. Commissioner Roupe asked if there would be plantings to buffer the side of the house. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that there would be a fairly dense landscaping plan. ' Ms. Grace San Filippo, Applicant, Sobey Road, Saratoga: • Said that she is hoping for approval this evening. • Advised that her architect and contractor are available for questions. Commissioner Roupe expressed appreciation for the effort to substantially change this project to address the concerns of the Commission. The applicant has found an middle ground. Thanked Ms. San Filippo for her efforts. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 9, 2002 Page 10 Commissioner Garakani asked about the glass blocks and solar panels. • Mr. Maunce Camargo, Project Architect: • Said that the glass blocks are part of a floor system to allow light into the lower floor. • Said that the solar panels are located on the south facing flat roof area that will be screened by a parapet. Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Camargo if the solar system will provide electricity or radian heat, since the same panel cannot serve both functions. Mr. Maurice replied that these are heat-collecting panels and not electricity generating. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 8:30 p.m. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 8:30 p.m. Commissioner Roupe: • Stated that this new proposal represents a substantial improvement. • Stressed that the applicant's work with the neighbor was important. • Said that the new proposal has addressed the bulk and mass issues, with the rearrangement of the structure's second floor. • Said that a remarkable job has been done in toning down this home. While it will still be imposing since it is on a hill, it also fits within the surrounding community quite nicely. • Stated that the story poles were quite helpful and in this case were a good idea. Commissioner Jackman: • Expressed that she is pleased with the redesign. It fits better. • Agreed that installation of the story poles really told a story. • Said that this home will be a nice addition to the community. Commissioner Roupe: • Added that the step down of the retaining wall helps keep it from being a monolithic structure. A nice job was done in addressing a difficult problem. Commissioner Garakani asked for the maximum retaining wall height for this project. Commissioner Roupe replied five feet. Mr. Maurice Camargo clarified that the highest point is actually four feet and that a planter area is also incorporated. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Camargo if there are plans to install vegetation. Mr. Maurice Camargo replied that the area will be fully landscaped. Commissioner Hunter said that the house looks fine and is very nice. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 9, 2002 Page 11 Commissioner Barry: • Agreed with the comments made by Commissioners Roupe and Jackman. • Said that this is a really nice design and that she is pleased with the changes. • Said that she thinks she will really like this house and that she is glad the issues with the neighbors were resolved. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission approved DR-O1-031 & UP-O1-017 to allow the construction of a new 4,981 square foot, two-story residence (maximum height of 26 feet) with a 608 square foot basement and 528 square foot cabana (maximum height of 15 feet) on property located on Sobey Road: AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Kurasch ABSTAIN: None Chair Barry advised that there is a 15-day appeal period. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. S DR-O1-043 (397-28-005) - FITT, 20461 Walnut Avenue: Request for Design Review approval to add 360 square feet to the first floor, 334 square feet to the second floor and 360 square feet to the basement of the existing 1,800 square foot dwelling. Maximum height of the structure will be 24 feet. The 7,658 square foot parcel is located in the R-1-10,000 zoning district. (SULLIVAN) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval fora 360 square foot first floor addition, 334 square foot second-story addition and 360 square foot basement to an existing home that was constructed in 1906. • Said that the Heritage Preservation Commission researched the list and Ordinance and Walnut was not listed. Staff will be working with the Heritage Preservation Commission to add to the Historic Resources Inventory. • Stated that the addition will match the existing dwelling. Anew roof will be installed. Fire had no requirements. Public Works had no requirements. • Said that new windows will be included on the second story on the south, north and west elevations. There are no privacy impacts with the windows on the south and north elevations. The. windows on the west elevation could have privacy impacts. Staff is recommending the use of either opaque or translucent glass on the west elevation windows to ensure privacy. • Said that staff is pleased with the design.. Consideration of a garage modification had been considered. However, to do so would destroy the existing yard. It was decided to leave the garage alone. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Zutshi asked where the two-foot setbacks are located. Director Tom Sullivan replied only for the garage. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 9, 2002 Page 12 Commissioner Roupe asked if the two-car requirement is being waived for this addition. Director Tom Sullivan said that since the applicant is not adding 50 percent or more to the home, they are not triggering the requirement for compliance with the provision of a two-car garage. Commissioner Hunter: • Advised that it has been-the practice of the City to forward any homes constructed prior to 1950 to the Heritage Preservation Board for review. • Said that she is uncertain when that practice was stopped. • Declared that this is a fabulous 1905 home. • Asked what list Director Sullivan refers. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the Municipal Code sets out the duties and responsibilities and how heritage structures are determined. Staff and the Commission must follow the Code or change it. Commissioner Hunter stated her hope that the list gets updated soon. Director Tom Sullivan assured that it is his intention to have staff update the list. Chair Barry suggested that this matter, as far as potentially changing Code, could be deferred to later in the agenda under Commission Sub-Committee Reports. Commissioner Hunter said that she is grateful for the care the Planning Commission takes in their consideration of each application. It is just as careful as the Heritage Preservation Commission. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5 at 8:50 p.m. Ms. Elsbeth Newfield, Project Architect, 119 Bryan Street, Palo Alto: • Said that she would be available to address any technical questions. Commissioner Roupe asked Ms. Newfield if she could incorporate opaque or translucent glass in the windows on the west elevation. Ms. Karen Fitt, Applicant, 20461 Walnut Avenue, Saratoga: • Agreed that she does not want to look into her neighbor's property. • Pointed out that the windowsill is located at the four-foot level. Commissioner Jackman asked about concerns raised on the site visit regarding the dormer height iti relation to the chimney. Ms. Karen Fitt replied that they would be dropping the height of the dormer. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5 at 8:52 p.m. Commissioner Garakani stated that this project looks good. ,~ Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 9, 2002 Page 13 Commissioner Roupe said that it is a good design that fits into its neighborhood. Said that it is important to ensure the privacy with the bedroom windows and asked staff to work with the applicant on that issue. Director Sullivan said that he would amend Item 5 in the Resolution. Commissioner Hunter said that this is a wonderful house now and will also be wonderful with this addition. Suggested that the current colors look marvelous and that the applicant should consider keeping it the same color. Chair Barry agreed that this will be charming and that the design is appropriate and nice. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Planning Commission approved DR-O1-043 to allow an addition to a home at 20461 Walnut Avenue, with the amendment to Condition 5 regarding the west windows on the second floor. AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Kurasch ABSTAIN: None Chair Barry advised that there is a 15-day appeal period. Chair Barry pointed out that she noticed a lot of different front setbacks along Walnut. Director Tom Sullivan said that in some cities, it is required that front setbacks be staggered. *** DIRECTOR ITEMS Planning Commission Mission Statement: Director Sullivan provided a second draft of the Commission's mission statement for review. Commissioner Roupe said that this is a big improvement and that he liked it. Commissioner Garakani said that it looks good. Chair Barry said that Commissioner Kurasch had wanted to use the term "shared." Other than that, she is happy with the draft. Commissioner Roupe asked whether goals and objectives will be developed down the road. Director Sullivan said that this finishes the exercise for now. Commissioner Hunter said that many people do not know what the Plamm~g Commission does or how it is appointed. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 9, 2002 Page 14 Director Sullivan said that he has prepared a document for the City Clerk to distribute. Promised to provide a copy to the Commission. Chair Barry asked about the status of the Trail Access. Director Sullivan said that he met with Mr. Durland and that work on the Trail Access is proceeding. Commissioner Hunter advised that the Heritage Preservation Commission is sponsoring "A walk through the mustard." The date is Sunday, February 10, from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. and will begin at the Warner Hutton House. Director Sullivan asked for a voice vote on the mission statement. Motion: By consensus, the Commission adopted the mission statement for the Planning Commission. (6-0-1; Commissioner Kurasch was absent) COMMISSION ITEMS Planning Commission Subcommittees Ms. Lata Vasudevan, Planner: • Provided a brief overview on the Basement Policies Subcommittee, led by Commissioner Jackman. • Said that the basic issues included the definition of a light well, clarification of the current definition of a basement. • Read the draft definition of a light well into the record. Commissioner Roupe said that it is important to determine the desirable horizontal distance from the base to grade: Commissioner Garakani said that lots of the basements that come before the Commission include living space. Said why not give these rooms light by limiting to four feet. Director Sullivan pointed out that the current restriction is three feet or else the basement must be counted as floor area and becomes a floor instead of a basement. Chair Barry suggested that basements can help the City achieve its Fair Housing Allotment by creating garden level units as BMR units. Director Sullivan said that the City will need to adopt a rewritten Secondary Dwelling Ordinance by July 2002 as part of the Housing Element Update. Commissioner Jackman suggested leaving the subject of BMR units in the Housing Element instead of within the Basement Guidelines. Said that she wants simple guidelines. Commissioner Garakani said that basements are an enhancement for the whole community and represent a proper use of land. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 9, 2002 Page 15 Commissioner Jackman: • Cautioned that basements can also lead to density problems. • Added that another provision of their draft policies is the requirement that a basement fit beneath the footprint of the main structure and be located no more than 10 feet from any adjacent property line. Commissioner Roupe asked if basement space can be included beneath an attached garage. Commissioner Jackman replied yes. Commissioner Roupe suggested a modification that no excavation occur within six feet of an adjacent property. Director Sullivan said that a Geotechnical Report can be required. Planner Lata Vasudevan clarified that a 10 foot minimum is proposed because sometimes setback requirements are less than 10 feet. Commissioner Garakani questioned the restriction to 10 feet as long as a Geotechnical Report says that it can be safely done. Commissioner Jackman asked staff for the smallest setback. Director Sullivan replied six feet. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that basements cost more than twice as much to construct as above ground construction. Commissioner Hunter stated. that basements are really smart and wonderful to have. They represent an intelligent use of land. Commissioner Roupe said that there is no reason to object to basement space under a cabana. Commissioner Jackman suggested eliminating Requirement No. 5. Commissioner Zutshi asked if there would be different standards for Hillside District basements. Director Sullivan said that at one of his previous cities, there was an impact fee imposed for hauling excessive cut from a site, beyond an established amount, to cover the cost of wear and tear on City roadways. Commissioner Roupe suggested a requirement to designate where the cut is going. Director Sullivan said that it is the policy to prescribe what route has to be used for removal of cut at least through the City's jurisdiction. Commissioner Garakani proposed incentives for energy efficient homes. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 9, 2002 Page 16 Commissioner Jackman pointed out that basement space is actually the most energy efficient space in a house. Chair Barry said that encouraging active solar is a good idea. She commended Commissioner Jackman and Lata Vasudevan for their work on these basement guidelines. Commissioner Roupe asked for clarification on the Joint Planning Commission/Council Session. Director Sullivan advised that the date is Tuesday, January 22nd Commissioner Hunter advised that she will be out of town and cannot attend. Chair Barry advised that she will be out for the February 13th Planning Commission meeting. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communication Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Barry adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, January 23, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • ~~ • MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ;;, L / ~~ ~.: DATE: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Acting Chair Jackman called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garakani, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe Absent: Commissioners Barry, Hunter and Zutshi Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Planner Christy Oosterhouse, Planner Lata Vasudevan and Planner Ann Welsh APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of January 9, 2002. As there was not a quorum present eligible to vote on the January 9, 2002, Planning Minutes, the vote will carry forward to the February 13, 2002 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 17, 2002. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Director Sullivan 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). *** Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2002 PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 1 Page 2 ' DR-O1-034 (503-20-061) - BARKATULLAH, 20520 Verde Vista Lane: Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 2,134 square foot residence and construct a new 4,320 square foot two-story residence with a 1,771 square foot basement. Maximum height of the structure will be 22 feet. The 21,778 square foot parcel is zoned R-1-12,500. (VASUDEVAN) • Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval to demolish an existing 2,134 square foot residence and the construction of a new 4,320 square foot two-story residence with a 1,771 square foot basement. The maximum height will be 22 feet. The property is zoned R-1-12,500. • Described the proposed house as a contemporary style home and distributed a colored elevation and color board. • Informed that this applicant has worked with his neighbors and that a letter of support has been distributed as a table item this evening. • Added that one neighbor originally had concerns about views and privacy impacts but those concerns have since been resolved. • Pointed out that there are a large number of trees on this property. The Arborist's report has been revised and the location of the driveway has been altered to retain tree #30, a coastal redwood. • Said that staff is conditioning a final landscape plan prior to issuance of building permits. • Said that this project complies with design guidelines and is compatible with the neighborhood in style, proportion and height. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Roupe questioned a statement on page five of the staff report that says that the large front setback and mature trees would mitigate the perception of height and bulk. Director Tom Sullivan clarified that the setbacks for this home are larger than the older setback standards used when other homes on the street were built. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the_plans do not identify which of the fireplaces is wood burning and which are gas. Planner Lata Vasudevan assured that a condition will be included that states that only one wood- burning fireplace is allowed by Code. Acting Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:12 p.m. Mr. Gulon Mahzad, Project Architect: • Said that he would be available for any questions. • Said that this contemporary style matches this neighborhood and that they have saved as many of the trees on the property as was possible, following the recommendations of the Arborist. • Added that they have met all setback and height limitations. Commissioner Kurasch stated that she visited this site yesterday and that her main concern is the number of trees proposed for removal. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2002 Page 3 Mr. Gulon Mahzad, Project Architect, said that they had inquired about reducing the front setback in S order to preserve some of the trees but are unable to do so. Commissioner Kurasch said that it might be possible to grant a Variance to the front yard setback. Mr. Gulon Mahzad said that that concern was raised early. Acting Chair Jackman asked what the total number of trees is for this property. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied 32 trees were impacted. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that other homes on the street are located closer to the street. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that the other homes are approximately 25 feet from the front property line. Director Tom Sullivan elaborated by saying that this lot was created in 1999 under ne~v rules for setbacks. Commissioner Garakani expressed concern that this change in setback might actually disturb the look of the neighborhood and asked how many trees would be impacted if the house location were moved. Planner Lata Vasudevan re lied that tree #26 could be retained. However, staff ex lored the ossibilit p P p y of a Variance and was unable to make the necessary findings for support of such a Variance. Director Tom Sullivan added that the shape, topography or some physical condition of the lot is necessary to support such a Variance both per Code and State Law. Commissioner Garakani said that the proper use of land is very important and that having a smaller front setback would give the property owner the use of a larger back yard. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the new house next door also meets the new setback requirement of 44 feet. Commissioner Kurasch asked whether homes that might be remodeled or rebuilt would have to conform to these new setback standards. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the legal- setback requirements are based upon what was in effect at the time a particular lot was created. Commissioner Kurasch sought clarification that when staff refers to trees being "impacted," that means removed. Asked if the pine trees are designated for removal. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that the Arborist has not designated the pine trees for removal however the final landscape plan would be submitted prior to issuance of building permits. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2002 Page 4 Commissioner Kurasch pointed out two balconies on the .plans, one in front of the garage and the second to the rear and said that they provide the potential for privacy impacts. Mr. Azam Barkatullah, Applicant and Property Owner, 20520 Verde Vista Lane, advised that his neighbors to the rear want to have the pines removed and replaced with evergreen trees. They are proposing redwood trees in replacement. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that this house is proposed at the maximum allowable. Acting Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:27 p.m. Commissioner Roupe: • Stated that this is a fine house with a good design. • Said that it is important to make it clear that the landscape plan must be finalized prior to issuance of building permits. • Expressed support for this application. Commissioner Garakani: • Pointed out that a neighbor's letter addresses concern that a walnut tree (#42) could be damaged during construction. Acting Chair Jackman advised that, per the Arborist's report, a protective fence will be placed around tree #42. Commissioner Kurasch: • Reiterated her main concerns as being the appropriateness of the size and design of this house. • Offered that one solution would be the scaling back of the home. • Said that the setback issue is confusing and that she could support moving the house away from the London plane tree. • Commended the applicant for his work with his neighbors. Commissioner Garakani asked staff if the Commission could make findings for support of a Variance to move this house forward on the site. Director Tom Sullivan replied no. Acting Chair Jackman clarified that a Variance does not appear to be in order and that there will be replanted trees on this parcel. Commissioner Kurasch added that there is still potential to scale back this house. Acting Chair Jackman pointed out that the trees slated for removal are located at the center of the available building envelope. Commissioner Garakani added that this house, at only 25 percent lot coverage, is actually a reasonable size for this lot. _ Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2002 Page 5 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission approved DR-O1-034 to allow the construction of a ne~v residence on property located at 20520 Verde Vista Lane as proposed. AYES:Garakani, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe NOES: None ABSENT: Barry, Hunter and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None Acting Chair Jackman advised that there is a 15-day appeal period. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 DR-98-046 & UP 98-015 - AZULE CROSSING, 12340 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road: The applicant requests Planning Commission approval for existing exterior lighting at the residential portion of the Azule Crossing development located at Harvest Lane. (OOSTERHOUS) Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Planning Commission approval for existing exterior lighting at the residential portion of the Azule Crossing development. • Added that the lighting proposal is identical to that reviewed by the Commission for the commercial portion of Azule Crossing. • Said that staff is recommending the removal of one fixture (#51412). • Informed that due to some vandalism, staff provided temporary authorization for this installation until final Planning Commission approval could be secured. • Added that since the lights were turned on a week ago, no complaints have been received. Commissioner Roupe reminded that there had been considerable debate about the commercial lighting plan. Planner Christy Oosterhous said that there was a memo from the planner that outlined the concerns as being scale and frequency and the importance of keeping glare from impacting the adjacent residential uses. Commissioner Roupe remembered that the Commission had deferred the matter back to staff for final approval. Director Tom Sullivan said that this is correct. Commissioner Garakani asked when the temporary approval was issued. Planner Christy Oosterhous advised that staff authorized PG&E to turn the lights on a week ago. Director Tom Sullivan added that the fixtures had already been installed and staff had to advise the applicants that Planning Commission approval would be required. Commissioner Kurasch said that she thought the project had but one owner. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2002 Page 6 _ Planner Christy Oosterhous said that the commercial and residential portions of this project are separately owned. Director Tom Sullivan added that the project was bifurcated. Planner Christy Oosterhous said that the two owners do talk to each other. Commissioner Kurasch asked what the requirements are for glare or coverage. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that staff refers to accepted industry standards and that this installation falls within the acceptable range. Acting Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:41 p.m. Mr. Dave Krasowski, Representative, Classic Communities: • Said that their application was submitted in November 2000 but that most of the planning staff around at that time have since left. • Said that complying with staff's recommendation to remove one fixture is not a problem as long as the fixture on the commercial side is left on all night. If not, the lighting in that area would be inadequate. Commissioner Roupe suggested that it might be better to keep this fixture on the residential side and remove one from the commercial side. Director Tom Sullivan said that alternately the applicant could find another location for this one fixture. Commissioner Kurasch suggested placing this fixture on the corner near the arbor feature. Mr. Dave Krasowski: • Said that they want to ensure that the lights stay on all night. • Added that he can work this out with the commercial property owner. • Stated that taking out a fixture altogether is a lot easier than relocating that fixture. Commissioner Garakani suggested that smaller lighting be placed on the fence. Mr. Dave Krasowski said that staff finds that one fixture to be redundant and that there is not the -need for more light in that area. Commissioner Roupe suggested that the Commission take staff's recommendation to remove the one fixture with the understanding that the light fixture on the commercial portion stays on at night. Director Tom Sullivan said that if no agreement to that condition can be made, staff will leave this one fixture as a matter of public safety. Acting Chair Jackman asked Mr. Krasowski if he would like to see that fixture retained in the interest of public safety. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2002 Page 7 Mr. Dave Krasowski replied yes. Commissioner Garakani asked staff to clarify their reasoning for removal of this one fixture. Planner Christy Oosterhous said that this recommendation is in response to the Commission's previous concern regarding frequency of fixtures, mainly aesthetics. Commissioner Kurasch: • Said that she take issue with- another fixture, #51413, located on Harvest Lane. This light pole is located between Lots 15 and 16. The placement is right outside the windows and is in conflict with the tree. There is no aesthetic logic for this location. • Suggested the move of fixture #51413 to the other side between Lots 14 and 15, outside the garage. Commissioner Roupe suggested moving fixture #51413 across the street. Mr. Dave Krasowski: • Said that the fixtures as placed are evenly distributed. Moving that fixture would lessen the lighting for Lots 6 and 7. • Pointed out that the light being case is down and forward and the placement is such that the impact is less across the street. Commissioner Roupe expressed support with staff's recommendation to remove one fixture. Acting Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:55 p.m. Commissioner Kurasch said that she supports Commissioner Roupe's suggestion to move the fixture across the street. She questioned whether the tree planted near this fixture would adversely impact in the future. Director Tom Sullivan agreed that within 10 years, the tree and lighting fixture might be in conflict as currently placed. Planner Christy Oosterhous offered that she actually thinks that the tree canopy would grow over the light fixture over time. Director Tom Sullivan added that he was not sure the space for this coast oak is large enough to accommodate this tree over time and there is the option to move that tree. Commissioner Kurasch asked if this is within the Commission's purview. Acting Chair Jackman reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:58 p.m. Mr. Dave Krasowski: • Stated that it would not be a better situation if the fixture is moved across the street as it would then be right in front of Lot 5. • Agreed that they could relocate or replace the oak tree. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2002 Page 8 Commissioner Garakani asked about moving two lights. Mr. Dave Krasowski pointed out that there are bedrooms over the garage that would be impacted by the move. Said that the fixtures were placed so as to cast light on the street and away from buildings. Acting Chair Jackman reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8 p.m. Commissioner Garakani expressed support for staff recommendation to remove fixture #51412 as well as the relocation of the oak tree. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Planning Commission approved the existing exterior lighting for the residential Harvest Lane portion of the Azule Crossing development (DR-98-045 & UP-98-015) on property located at 12340 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road with the added Conditions: 1. To remove fixture #51412; 2. To relocate the oak tree behind fixture #51413; and 3. That the applicant work with the commercial property owner to ensure adequate overnight lighting; AYES:Garakani, Jackman and Roupe NOES: Kurasch ABSENT: Barry, Hunter and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None Acting Chair Jackman advised that there is a 15-day appeal period. *~* PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 DR-O1-023 (503-23-016, Lot 1) - SCHUCK, 14221 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Lot 1: Request for Design Review approval to construct cone-story craftsman style single-family residence on a newly established 18,569 square foot parcel. The floor area of the proposed residence and attached three-car garage is 4,206 square feet with a basement area of 994 square feet. The maximum height of the house will be 18 feet. The site is zoned R-1-15,000. (WELSH) Assistant Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval to construct a 4,206 square foot single-story residence with a maximum height of 18 feet and a 994 square foot basement. • Described the lot as 18,560 square feet gross and 18,309 net. • Said that the proposed home is a craftsman style that is compatible with the Julia Morgan home located within this subdivision. The home is L-shaped and includes across-gabled roof and attached garage. The home fronts onto Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. • Outlined the major issues, which include: • anon-conforming rear yard setback of 12 feet; • the requirement fora 43.5 foot front yard setback; • privacy issues for the adjacent neighbor to the north whose home is located six feet and 10 inches from the property line and whose kitchen, bedroom and bathroom windows require measures to ensure privacy; Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2002 Page 9 • the fact that the light wells on the north side fall within the setback for which the City's policy has been not to permit; and • The__need to establish a maintenance agreement for the planted streetscape that was required with the approval of this subdivision. • Advised that staff is recommending approval of this residence with the elimination of the non- - conforming rear yard setback, the assurance of privacy for the neighbors and the conformance of the light wells. Commissioner Roupe: • Agreed that the terrace feature does encroach and needs to be brought into conformance. • Suggested that the house be move forward but questioned whether that would impact trees. • Asked staff how they suggest this project could be brought into conformance. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied that the house would only need to be moved to the east by eight feet. Commissioner Roupe said that there are a lot of beautiful trees. Director Tom Sullivan added that the move of the structure should be subject to review by the Arborist and that the reduction of the terrace should bring the project into compliance. Commissioner Roupe asked about the light well issue. Director Tom Sullivan said that since his tenure as Community Development Director in May 2001, the interpretation of the Codes is such that light wells are no longer permitted within setback areas. Commissioner Roupe suggested either eliminated the light well altogether or moving the house sideways. Commissioner Kurasch: • Asked why the retaining wall is required for the driveway. • Suggested conditioning minimal retaining walls on this project and that the use of retaining walls be eliminated where possible. • Questioned the best way to phrase that condition. Director Tom Sullivan said that the Commission's desire is clear and suggested adding the language "pursuant to the approval of the Public Works Director." Acting Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:17 p.m. Mr. David Britt, Project Architect: • Thanked staff and made himself available for questions. Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Britt how he could bring the terrace into conformance. Mr. David Britt replied that he thought the house could be left as proposed and simply not attach the terrace to the home but rather construct basically a patio instead. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2002 Page 10 Director Tom Sullivan cautioned that if the terrace/patio is above grade it represents a structure within the setback but if it is constructed at grade that it is not an issue. Commissioner Roupe added that steps would be required to access the patio from the house. He asked Mr. Britt how he proposed to deal with the light well issue. Mr. David Britt replied that this is a new issue for them. Added that there is a 12-foot side yard setback and nine feet between the fence and light well which seems a good dimension. Commissioner Kurasch clarified that this light well represents a structure within a setback. Acting Chair Jackman clarified for Mr. Britt that in the past the Code in this respect was not always enforced completely. Suggested that the house be moved forward and angled to solve the problems. Commissioner Roupe questioned whether there was any other area of the basement more appropriate for the light well. Acting Chair Jackman suggested that the basement be placed under the garage with the light well to the right. Mr. David Britt agreed that this would be possible. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out the long look of this home and asked why a second story was not considered in order to create a smaller footprint. Acting Chair Jackman said that this single story design is a good solution to preventing privacy impacts on the neighbor above. Mr. David Britt agreed that this is a key reason for the single-story design and said that there is still plenty of opportunity to relocated the basement to satisfy the setback policy. Director Tom Sullivan said that staff is willing- to work with the applicant to work out the location of the light well. Commissioner Roupe said that the condition could be included that the light well will not be located within the required setback. Mr. David Britt said that the Slight adjustment to the location of the house or the relocation of the basement or a combination of the two would solve these issues. Acting Chair Jackman asked staff for suggestions on how to phrase that condition. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the Commission could direct staff to work these issues out with the applicant. Commissioner Roupe clarified that the issues to be worked out include the terrace, light well and the maintenance agreement for the streetscape. ,~ Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2002 Page 11 Assistant Planner Ann Welsh reminded that 63 feet of frontage for this Lot must be planted with streetscape landscaping. Acting Chair Jackman inquired whether there would be a homeowners association for this project. Mr. Larry Schuck, Property Owner/Applicant: • Promised that the maintenance agreement issue is still to be.worked out. • Listed one possible solution by having each owner responsible for 25 percent. • Said that another option is to have the property owners responsible for any streetscape landscaping in front of their respective lots, specifically Lots 1 and 4, which seems to be the most straightforward. Acting Chair Jackman asked if there is a map that shows all lots. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied no since this evening's hearings are for the Design Review of each individual parcel. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the open space is a common parcel owned by the four lots. Added that it would be necessary to have one single point of contact. Commissioner Kurasch how to ensure the continuity of the streetscape. Director Tom Sullivan replied by conditioning that this occurs prior to issuance of building permits. Commissioner Kurasch suggested that the applicant work with Public Works to eliminate any conflicts with tree #12 and the retaining wall. Mr. Larry Schuck said that he could probably eliminate that retaining wall completely. Commissioner Roupe said that the elimination of that retaining wall should be included in the conditions of approval. Acting Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:38 p.m. Commissioner Roupe said that with the added conditions to deal with the terrace, light well, streetscape maintenance and the elimination of the retaining wall, this is a nicely designed house that fits well and for which he has no other reservations. Commissioner Garakani asked what the neighbors' concerns are and what will solve them. Assistant Planner replied that buffering trees would solve the concerns of the neighbors. Commissioner Garakani suggested moving the house to the east by eight feet because he was very concerned over the fact that the proposed patio is beneath the canopy of a very beautiful tree. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that moving the house that way would place three eight-inch oaks at risk. Added that this still may be a reasonable trade off and that he did not have a problem with that suggestion. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2002 Commissioner Garakani said the house could also be moved forward four to five feet. Commissioner Roupe agreed that this is a good suggestion. Director Tom Sullivan agreed that the 60-inch oak is a rare and majestic tree. Commissioner Kurasch agreed and said that this is a $50,000 tree. Acting Chair Jackman reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:42 p.m. Mr. Larry Schuck said that this proposal might be in conflict with the recorded map. Page 12 ; Commissioner Roupe disagreed and stated that as long as the project meets Code required setbacks there is no conflict. Acting Chair Jackman reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:43 p.m. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the Tentative Map is wrong. Director Tom Sullivan clarified that when the subdivision occurred, conceptual plot plans with measurements for a proposed structure were included but are not cast in stone. They are able to move the proposed structure as long as the structure remains consistent with Code requirements. Commissioner Kurasch: • Agreed that moving the structure would minimize conflict with exceptional trees while the smaller trees now impacted could be replaced if necessary. • Suggested that the elimination of the retaining wall be subject to the Arborist's review. • Said that she would support the move of the house eight feet. to the east, which eliminates the light well conflict. Director Tom Sullivan assured the Commission that staff has the overall direction needed to work with the applicant. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Planning Commission approved a Design Review (DR-O1-023) to allow construction of a new residence on Lot 1 at 14221 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road with the added Conditions: 1. That the house be moved by approximately eight feet to the east and in a . southerly direction to the extent possible to eliminate light welt conflicts with the required setback, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director; 2. That the landscape plan be approved, including the elimination of the retaining wall subject to approval by the Arborist and Public Works Director; 3. That a contract for the streetscape maintenance agreement by finalized prior to issuance of building permits with a single point of contact. AYES:Garakani, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe NOES: None • • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2002 Page 13 ABSENT: Barry, Hunter and Zatshi ABSTAIN: None Acting Chair Jackman advised that there is a 15-day appeal period. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.4 DR-O1-024 (403-23-016, Lot 3) - SCHUCK, 14221 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Lot 3: Request for Design Review approval to construct atwo-story craftsman style single-family residence on a newly subdivided 19,456 square foot parcel. The floor area of the proposed residence and detached two-car garage is 3,891 square feet, with a basement area of 1,140 square feet. The maximum height of the house is 24 feet. The detached garage is proposed at 14 feet, 6 inches in height. The site is zoned R-1- 15,000. (WELSH) Assistant Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval for atwo-story, 3,891 square foot residence with a 1,140 square foot basement and a maximum height of 24 feet. The lot is 19,546 gross square feet and 17,812 net square feet. Included is a 15-foot high, detached garage. • Described the house as a craftsman style structure in keeping with the Julia Morgan home nearby. Architectural features include cobblestone veneer and cedar shake shingles. • Pointed out the major issues which includes the front yard setback and tree #36 which is at issue with the location of the house. The Arborist has suggested that the structure be moved to the south by seven feet. Another issue is the balcony on the second floor at the rear of the house, which could impact privacy of the neighbors. Additionally, the streetscape maintenance issue also applies. • Recommended approval subject to moving the house to the south. Director Tom Sullivan said that even with the clarity to the Zoning Ordinance that must occur to more firmly establish the interpretation for setbacks for two-story homes, this project conforms to both the old and proposed interpretations. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh added unless the house is moved. Director Tom Sullivan said that this could be resolved although it make take an adjustment in the placement of the house. Commissioner Kurasch asked staff how they propose to deal with the privacy impacts from the balcony. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied perhaps landscaping for screening. Commissioner Garakani asked for the height of the balcony from the ground. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied approximately 12 feet. Commissioner Garakam pointed out that it would take a 24-foot high tree to screen this balcony. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2002 Page 14 Acting Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:00 p.m. Mr. David Bntt, Project Architect: Said that he has reviewed staff's recommendations and is happy to move the house. • Pointed out that the 15-foot height for the garage is required to keep the roof pitch consistent with the house. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Britt how he would propose to solve the potential privacy issues resulting from the rear balcony. Mr. David Britt replied that he felt it could be mitigated through landscaping or the installation of a roof over it. Commissioner Roupe said that he would support landscape screening over the elimination of the balcony. Commissioner Kurasch asked for the size of this balcony. Mr. David Britt replied that it is 10 feet wide and three feet deep. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the neighbor has not expressed concern. Suggested that the City, applicant and neighbor meet to resolve issues if there are any. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the process of involving neighbors was incorporated in this project. S Director Tom Sullivan reminded that this is an older application, which did not require the same level of neighbor input as current projects require. Acting Chair Jackman closed the Public hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:05 p.m. Commissioner Kurasch: • Said that with staff's suggestion to move the house to the south, this house fits on the lot well and that she had no objection to the design and, in fact, prefers this one to the one on Lot 1. • Said that she is in favor subject to conditions that include the requirement for the landscape plan and maintenance agreement. Commissioner Garakani agreed that he too was in support of moving the home to the south. Commissioner Roupe asked if the garage height issues are handled. Director Tom Sullivan said that the height of the garage is addressed in the Resolution. Commissioner Garakani said that the height of the lower gable should perhaps be the same as the gable on the garage. Commissioner Kurasch disagreed stating that the proportions are well worked out. - Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2002 Page 15 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission approved a Design Review (DR-O1-024) to allow construction _ of a new residence on Lot 3 at 14221 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road ~i~ith the added Conditions: 1. That the house be moved to the south, per staffs recommendation, to eliminate conflict with protected trees; 2. That a landscape plan, using native species, be finalized prior to issuance of building permits; 3. That a maintenance agreement for the required streetscape landscaping be finalized to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director; and 4. That a meeting be held between the neighbor, applicant and staff to work out any privacy impacts from the balcony, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. AYES:Garakani, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe NOES: None ABSENT: Barry, Hunter and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None Acting Chair Jackman advised that there is a 15-day appeal period. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO.5 DR-O1-025 503-23-016 Lot 4 - SCHUCK 14221 Sarato a-Sunnyvale Road Lot 4: Re nest for Design Review approval to construct aone-story craftsman style single-family residence on a newly subdivided 18,560 square foot parcel. The floor area of the proposed residence and attached three-car garage is 4,016 square feet, with a basement area of 1,344 square feet. The maximum height of the house is 18 feet. The site is zoned R-1-15,000. (WELSH) Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval for a single story, 4,016. square foot house with a 1,344 square foot basement and an attached garage. The maximum height is 18 feet. The lot is 18,560 square feet gross and 18,120 square feet net. • Described the proposed residence as a craftsman style using cobblestone and cedar shingle. • Said that the main issue is the non-conforming roof over the porch, which is within the setback, the inconsistent fencing, light wells within the southern setback and the need for a maintenance agreement for the required frontage streetscape landscaping. Additionally, there is a five-foot pathway with trees and the question remains as to who would maintain that area. Finally, there are potential privacy impacts for the neighbors to the south and west. • Recommended approval with conditions to eliminate the non-conforming rear yard and to assure the neighbors' privacy. Commissioner Kurasch asked about the rear yard non-conformance. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh pointed out that the front yard is inaccurate and the rear yard is non- conforming. The solution is to move the structure to the east toward Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. e Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2002 Page 16 _ Commissioner Roupe asked staff how it determines the height of a retaining wall. • Director Tom Sullivan replied that the wall is measured from the finish grade to the top of the wall. Assured that staff will review the approved grading plan. Acting Chair Jackman asked if the neighbors were contacted Commissioner Garakani asked if permission was received for the retaining walls. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the approved grading permit from the Public Works Department also approved the retaining walls. Added that no materials were conditioned for these walls and the City cannot go backwards to add those conditions now. Acting Chair Jackman restated that the Commission couldn't change that approval now. Commissioner Roupe added that this could be addressed with landscaping. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that the path to the open area is kind of steep and five feet wide and expressed concerns over potential impacts on the surrounding trees. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh said that Barrie Coates has recommended elimination of that path. Commissioner Roupe cautioned that since this provides access to the open space, this path might be required. If eliminated, it may be in conflict with public access to open space. Asked why the trail was needed anyway. Commissioner Kurasch asked staff to clarify the fencing issue. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh said that in one location of the plan, it reads no privacy fencing while in another location on the plan, it reads redwood fence. Acting Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5 at 9:22 p.m. Mr. David Britt, Project Architect: • Stated that this was the most difficult house to design as there were lots of issues. • Said that the best solution for the terrace issue is to eliminate that element from the design and address it as a patio instead rather than moving the house. • Pointed out that they did not want a garage that faces onto the street. Commissioner Kurasch inquired about the privacy issues on the rear and south side property owners. Mr. David Britt advised that the previous project planner, Allison Knapp, requested a fence to deal with privacy issues. Commissioner Garakani asked for the height of the retaining wall on the south side. Mr. Larry Schuck, Applicant and Owner: e Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2002 Page 17 • Said that all retaining walls have akeady been approved as has all site grading. They were all engineered by a licensed civil engineer. • Added that the retaining walls are state of the art. Commissioner Garakani asked for the height as the neighbors should know that fact. Mr. Larry Schuck replied that as shown on the map, the walls are five feet high. Acting Chair Jackman explained to Mr. Schuck that the policy now is to have applicants work closely with neighbors. Mr. Larry Schuck said that this is the third hearing and the neighbors were notified of each. Assured that they have no problems with the neighbors and that he is on the site all the time and available to the neighbors. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that the retaining wall is not yet constructed and asked how they will be buffered and landscaped. Mr. Larry Schuck replied that the first wall is only 18 inches high and the neighbor has asix-foot high fence. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Schuck if he would have a landscape plan. Mr. Larry Schuck replied yes. Commissioner Kurasch asked about the pedestrian walkway. Mr. Larry Schuck reminded that this walkway has been approved via Resolution and he has already bonded for the pathway. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the path represents a walkway to Lot A. Mr. Larry Schuck advised that there is a 20,000 square foot open space area available. A stone walkway, set in soil, will be used to access that space. He added that they would be submitting landscape plans for each lot. Commissioner Kurasch said that these issues are important to her and that she would either like to see the elimination of that pathway or construction at grade per review by the Arborist. Mr. Larry Schuck reminded that this is not part of Lot 4. Commissioner Roupe asked if the purpose of the path is to provide access to the open space for Lot 4. Mr. Larry Schuck added that the access is also for Lots 1, 2 and 3. Commissioner Garakani expressed concern for the 60-inch oak. Mr. Larry Schuck assured that the stone walkway is at grade per the Arborist's recommendation. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2002 Page 18 Acting Chair Jackman reminded that the walkway is a separate lot. Director Tom Sullivan added that it is included on the plans for this parcel. Added that they are due to get a construction landscape plan and will judge the landscape plan against Barrie Coates' requirements. Assured that the guidance is crystal clear to staff. Acting Chair Jackman reminded that the Commission is not approving this walkway tonight. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that the walkway is part of the Commission's purview and that staff had brought it up as an issue for consideration. Director Tom Sullivan clarified that staff brings up any potential issues for consideration. Commissioner Kurasch expressed support for the maintenance agreement for the streetscape frontage and asked about materials for the frontage walls. Mr. Larry Schuck said that this is shown on the Tentative Map. Commissioner Kurasch asked if there would be landscaping for the wall. Mr. Larry Schuck replied that former Director Walgren recommended submitting a landscape elevation plan for a fence to screen this subdivision from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. This was approved in October 2000. Said that he would submit a landscape plan to assure the privacy to the south. Commissioner Garakani asked about the fence and gate. Mr. Larry Schuck replied that former project planner, Allison Knapp, requested that the fence and gate be included with the landscape plan. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that while some of the retaining walls are installed, others are not yet installed. Asked if Mr. Schuck has any problem with using cobblestone facing for the walls. Mr. Larry Schuck replied that lots of ivy would be used. Added that the cost is high to place stone face on walls. However, it could be considered for the portion facing Lot 4 as part of the landscape design work. Acting Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5 at 9:50 p.m. Commissioner Roupe: • Pointed out that the rear porch issue has disappeared with its elimination by the applicant and replaced with a plan to use a patio instead of a terrace feature. • Said that the fencing will be part of the landscape plan. • Said that while he worries about the path it is not a part of this lot and that by taking the Arborist's guidance as absolute directives, he leaves this to the discretion of the Community Development Director. Commissioner Kurasch stressed the importance for the frontage maintenance agreement Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2002 Page 19 Director Tom Sullivan added that one agreement for all frontages is important. Commissioner Kurasch expressed support for the recommendation to incorporate cobblestone facing on the north side wall. Acting Chair Jackman cautioned that this might be fairly expensive. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the applicant has agreed to do the. portion of the wall facing Lot 4. Commissioner Kurasch said that with the elimination of the terrace, the submittal of a landscape and fencing plan and the strong recommendation for a minimal path within the tree drip lines or even the complete elimination of the pathway, she can support this proposal. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the Planning Commission approved a Design Review (DR-O1-025) to allow construction of a new residence on Lot 4 at 14221 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road with. the added Conditions: 1. That the rear terrace be eliminated; 2. That the fencing issue be addressed with the landscape plan prior to issuance of building permits; 3. That the maintenance agreement for the street frontage be a common effort with the other lots; and 4. That the front facing of the retaining wall, as facing into Lot 4, be faced with stone compatible with the architecture of the property. AYES:Garakani, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe NOES: None ABSENT: Barry, Hunter and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None Acting Chair Jackman advised that there is a 15-day appeal period. *** DIRECTOR ITEMS There were no Director Items. COMMISSION ITEMS Planning Commission Subcommittees Acting Chair Jackman distributed revised basement guidelines. Commissioner Roupe suggested that this material be emailed to each Commissioner to allow feedback, as he would be gone for the next meeting on February 13, 2002. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2002 Page 20 COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communication Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Acting Chair Jackman adjourned the meeting at 9:58 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, February 13, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk ~, I• • • ITEM 1 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Location/Application No.: 12175 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road/Application No. 02-006; Conditional Use Permit Applicant/Owner: Brian J. Kelly/Oak Creek Investments; ~v Brighter Future Learning Center (tenant) Staff Planner: Lata Vasudevan, Assistant Planner Date: February 13, 2002 APN: 366-35-019 Department Head: Oak C ~~~ RIB '`, ~% i ;- pAK ~I '; I~~ atog,a Ce ~i / i ~ ~~ ~' ~ ' ~ I ~ ~ ~ r--- ~~ ~ j _~`~ N~ / ~ ~ ~~ ~;> ~ i ^ '~ ~ ~ i ~'- Brighter Future Learning Center - , ( ,. I iii KIRKMONT ~i i ~ ~ ~ I ~~ ~, ~! ~ ~ j ~ITRIUM CIRCL o! ~ i ~ ! I i i I ; . , ~1 ,'"/ v~ ;~ ;- w~ G4~ JULIE LN I ~a ~' -~--- U I ARROYO ~ ~ -j ~ Q ~ Feet ~' ~~ ~ 2 12175 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road 000001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION OU15/02 01/18/02 OU30/02 OU30; 02 OU25; 02 The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to establish a learning and training center for students, called Brighter Future Learning Center, in an existing office space at the Oak Creek at Saratoga Center. The Oak Creek at Saratoga Center is located ~~~ithin the C-V zoning district. The Brighter Future Learning Center will occupy a 2,626 square foot portion of a vacant office space previously occupied by a bank. The Brighter Future Learning Center is categorized as an "institutional facility" per Municipal Code Section [MCS] 15-06.380. Establishment of an institutional facility within the C-V zoning district requires a Conditional Use Permit per MCS 15-19.040. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Conditional Use Permit application with conditions by adopting the Resolution attached to this staff report. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Plans, Exhibit "A" • • 000002 - - - File No. 02-006;12175 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: C-V, Visitor Commercial - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Planned Development MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 77,030 sq. ft. (Oak Creek at Saratoga Center); 2,626 sq. ft. tenant space AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Not applicable GRADING REQUIRED: Not applicable MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED:. No exterior changes are proposed for the subject tenant space. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of the conversion of an existing small structure from one use to another is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 1303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (c) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). • 000003 File No. 02-006;12175 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - _.. PROJECT DISCUSSION The Oak Creek at Saratoga Center consists of three buildings located on Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road and Prospect Road. The tenant, Brighter Future Learning Center ~vill~ occupy a 2,626 square foot portion of a vacant office space previously occupied by a bank in building "1." The subject tenant space is labeled as Unit "B" on the attached exhibit. The Center currently has a good mix of uses such as a restaurant, an architectural firm, a beauty salon, a professional office, a coffee shop and a title company. Uses surrounding the Center consist of residential uses to the west and commercial uses to the north, south and east. Brighter Future Learning Center is a learning and training center for school-aged students in the areas of English composition and mathematics . The subject location will also act as the headquarters for the tenant. In addition to after school instruction of English and mathematics, the tenant proposes to conduct training sessions for licensees wishing to open other learning centers. The Learning Center proposes to have 2 full-time employees and 3 part-time employees. A Learning Centeras a ConditionallyPermitted Use Establishing an institutional facility such as Brighter Future Learning Center in the C-V district requires the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. This process allows the Planning Commission to impose conditions on a project to ensure its compatibility with adjacent land uses. In this case, Brighter Future Learning Center will be in a convenient location, potentially serving nearby residents. The proposed learning center will be easily accessible from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and will have no negative impacts on the surrounding uses. Parking and Circulation Parking for the proposed Brighter Future Learning Center will be provided at the Oak Creek at Saratoga Center. The Oak Creek at Saratoga Center was approved with a parking ratio of 1 space per 200 square feet which is consistent with the current code requirements for retail and office uses. Per MCS 15-35.030(f), an institutional facility requires 1 space for each employee and additional spaces as maybe prescribed by the Planning Commission. Under this section, the applicant will need at least S spaces for the proposed number of employees. This requirement is less than what is actually provided on site at 1 space per 200 square feet, which is 13 spaces. In addition, Staff has observed the site at different times of the day and has determined that there will be sufficient parking. . Economic Development Analysis The proposed Brighter Future Learning Center will occupy a space that is easily visible and close to the main entrance to the Center. This office space has been vacant for approximately a year. Establishment of the learning center will increase the number of • people who will frequent the Oak Creek at Saratoga Center and will be beneficial to all businesses located at and near the Center. ~~~~04 File No. 02-006;1217 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Hours of Operation The applicant is proposing the following hours of operation: Monday through Friday: 9:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Saturday: 10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Sunday: CLOSED The Oak Creek at Saratoga Center does not have any restrictions on the hours of operation. Staff has not placed a condition of approval limiting the hours of operation to those stated above to allow the owner greater flexibility for any future adjustments to the hours of operation. Signage The applicant is proposing a "Brighter Future Learning Center" sign. The applicant is aware that the signage shall comply with the sign program approved by the Planning Commission for the Oak Creek at Saratoga Center. The applicant will submit a sign permit application for review and approval by Staff. Correspondence No correspondence regarding this application has been received to date. Conclusion Staff feels that all of the findings required within Section 15-55.070 of the City Code can be made in the affirmative in that: • The proposed Brighter Future Learning Center meets the objectives of the Saratoga General Plan and the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zoning district in which the site is located, in that the proposed establishment will be mutually beneficial to the surrounding uses, and will be conveniently located to provide a service beneficial to the residents of Saratoga; and • The proposed Brighter Future Learning Center will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that appropriate conditions have been placed on the project to minim~e potential impacts; and • The proposed Brighter Future Learning Center will comply with all other applicable provisions of the Saratoga Municipal Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Conditional Use Permit application 02-006 with conditions by adopting the Resolution attached to this staff report. 0~00~5 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • ooooos ~• File No. 02-006;12175 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Attachment I RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 02-006 CITY OF SAR.ATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA OAK CREEK INVESTMENTSBRIAN .T. KELLY BRIGHTER FUTURE LEARNING CENTER (TENANT) 12175 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD WHEREAS, the City of Sazatoga Planning Commission has received an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the establishment of Brighter Future Learning Center in an existing tenant space at the Oak Creek at Saratoga Center; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the proposed project consisting of the conversion of an existing small structure from one use to another is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (c) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that all of the findings required within Section 15-55.070 of the City Code can be made in the affirmative in that: • The proposed Brighter Future Learning Center meets the objectives of the Saratoga General Plan and the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zoning district in which the site is located, in that the proposed establishment will be appropriately located to provide a service beneficial to the residents of Saratoga and will result in more visitors to the Oak Creek at Sazatoga Center; and • The proposed Brighter Future Learning Center will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that appropriate conditions have been placed on the project to minimize potential impacts; and • The proposed Brighter Future Learning Center will comply with all other applicable provisions of the Saratoga Municipal Code. nnnnn-7 File No. 02-006;12175 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Now, TxExEFOxE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application for a Conditional Use Permit approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: PLANNING The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Conditional Use Permit and may, at any time, modify, delete or impose. any new conditions of the permit to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare. 2. Brighter Future Learning Center shall operate as represented on the plans marked Exhibit "A". 3. Any intensification of this use shall require an amended Conditional Use Permit. 4. Prior to issuance of Building Permits for internal tenant improvements for the proposed Brighter Future Learning Center, detailed construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division for Zoning Clearance to verify consistency with the approved Exhibit "A"plans. The construction drawings shall incorporate a copy of this Resolution as a separate plan page. 5. Prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for the proposed tenant improvements, the owner/applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department verification from the Santa Clara County Health Department showing proof of compliance of the proposed facility with the Health Department's requirements. 6. The proposed use shall at all times operate in compliance with all regulations of the City and/or other agencies having jurisdictional authority over the use pertaining to, but not limited to, health, sanitation, safety, and water quality issues. 7. Applicant shall submit a sign Permit Application and shall comply with the sign program adopted for the Oak Creek at Saratoga Center. 8. The applicant shall obtain a Business License from the City of Saratoga prior to occupying the tenant space. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 9. Review of this development proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and water supply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall make ~~00~8 File No. 02-006;1217 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits. 10. T'he existing fire protection system shall be modified to accommodate the new remodel design. A State of California licensed fire protection contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a completed permit application and appropriate fees to the Santa Clara County Fire Department for review and approval prior to beginning work. 11. At the time of future submittals, the architect shall reflect compliance with the 1997 Uniform Building Code relative to occupancy or area separation, exiting and any fire alarm system requirements as may be necessary dependent upon the proposed educational use. CITY ATTORNEY 12. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 13. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 24 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. • 0000()9 File No. 02-006;12175 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Sazatoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 13th day of February 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • • ~~~Q~~ ~~ m ~i~ +m ~~ ~ Tf. f ~ ei Z Q J Q U U w J w ~ _J QQ zW z Q Qw~ a ~u 4 ~ pwU X ~1 ouW W ~O aw= ~ wW WLL~ ~,n ~~a -N Min' QQ QQQ • /~~.//~O~LOS1b-)'d IN'Zw1IO~±d Iy-,/I'd~ 11'.d~~91 ~0.!/1~~Zi'd5 :.i V /O ~ I~/'~/11~41\~17 v ~O1Y O V 7 `3i..~ V ~ "6NOIl7la163t1 3r1 i0 3~NV:d3~77 3!!1 ~ 3~N30N3 3~~va vl.u2b alruilsrc~ „vne sraour~id:~~e c'n srav',d 3e3'11 nLm l~vlrar ,p;~SV. '37~C7f3md 1fKJM10n '~.1: '7o6SV 3RIVW$1 f11r~ 6klvl."3a' SHDi1C7i~i~3o9 CNJ 9NC,d 3L' Ol 3'.:Il 'O3LI61MJtid S! "1LVd N; aC 3,OMI1 ,:I 'dOti131.1 AW A9 N0:1771T2tId a0 N?17rKY.~ld31 "3M-3i ' <4L 1-~ib618oC1 ~n3 ftL t-lb6 ttipC) ~lal L~mS"py a!r.~tuonOsedcuuec ~ -5 Suruunjd ~p uS:sao Suipjmg S1~I3Wr53/`~N i >433ZJ0->}'d0 ~" "'ns of @:,:~, ,,,863 ~ „~„~ ~~,1 ~,1~„~ ., cav o~rod~d ~ .~nl ~!w~: ao~ alie ~~~~3ds ~+: o: 'JNI '~OSSb' 3Rli~hi~l1~ a~!xus3a 3s ,-rons NJ!iv~cd:>3~S el+v 9,JO',d 363.^.1 do acn aru N z w F Z ~ m Ul ~pU w ~'~m m O ~~m U Q~ ~ Um~ =u~ ~J ~--~ a ~Q° ~ J Q ~Q? ~v N ~ o a o v~ 0 / N ~' ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ v~ c i i % /~ ,.~ --cam c _ // ~ ~ _ !4 4~Z ~ y.~~ ~~ o` y~~~ \ P / ,, ~ % i ~`~", l ~ ~ %`'~ ~-_~ w ~ ~~ ~\ ~~ D \ ~L'~~ Q~~ m ~°~'o~ •+m.~ ~~ N ~~ ~O ~~ ~~ ~° ~z W k ~ --- f m t 1 0 m a ~ U I - _ F r _ u N ~r i 3 - _-~ I Z ~~ ! ~ ~ ~- F ~ ,t_ z. Z~~ Q d' I ! ~ ~ ~' c'~ ~~ ~.~ aNV ~i ~' -~' ~ i _ F`I I I, i F -- !I ' II ~i; ~~ I ~ i~ ~ ~i !;~ ----Y r ~I j i_ I: _~_ .~` i i i. I jI -~- I. a I "- ___-___ li ~; iI ~~ 3 i ___. ~ ._-_ __ -_ _. g ~ _ -_._ l ~ 6 i ^~ - I e ~ } I Z I 4 r i l I t ! Q ~ ~ I y ~ ~ ~L !1J ~ ~ ~ ~ i l Q ~ \ ~ ZI ~' N ~~ i ~ W OI QI , ~% • ai 9i~i~dip0i C_~ a ~. G a Ci ~~ e ui _ ._ _ ___-__ _ ~I~ w • ' 10 i 1 y~ I *i 1 /~ v/~ V ~! ~ ~ O O I I~~ / O ~ "SN01:71t119~J ~!1 i7 37NV1d37?v 3h: yG 37N3a:n3 317va Vi.lRiri 3:fliii6NC7 1?Oh6 6NO:lv7idli"' QN7 T91d 3G3M: Mill" 1JVINCJ ~ __nroa~auewam~.xnrp:dnq i i I ;,iC'. ~h;b lA0vl:xej tCCI-YM16lROti :!a1 ~` A I 0: Uc6 F•~'ESalelec Q i ~ i m i ~ (~`A ~ ~ ~+ C' m 2 I ~ r 0 7 ~ V % . V IIlO / ~L ~3~ /~ a'd02~1 3 ~bI~J.NK~S'd901'dzJ'v`5 SLIZI 70SSV 3RIVid341 r!:4T SN!P.:~ 'P'f16N 3'71~f31e 1f1Dfii Y^ "7Fl! iNCf:C'71tlii3dS CNY Sh`f~el 3+i Cl 31111 'C31i91rn~ed 31 'iTJVO A: 2A: 310MT.Ni'rJOFLL3:.lWA91YJI1v7119f1dLONOI17f1aC0e3J'36~-3M Vann$"PN aIe.~SuuR$-eTO1eR S !ll:~: 8 ~ ~ Suruu°ld'guSrsaQau~yrng I r ~ I O ~ II ~' ~ 0 ~ ~ I 1N3Wi53/~NI ~~~~ >}'d0 43Nd~o~313nA3~c37IWnLIP! ~ ~ ~~~'~:~~ • ' W ~ ~ '~!VI '~OSSF~~IXb~1'311' : I d I ~ ~ I ~a a I a al~ al l le 36#-.i 37 36!I 3hL '..]3:71Li6~1 39 TvMO NO:i771e:~3d6 CM' 6NO o _ , ~ a J Q Q~~ W W nya W~_~ N ~~ ~ _ ,L. ~: _ _ .. i i , ,.,_ ~I J V ~ ~~ Q aD I Z "~. ~ _ I ~ ~ I ~ ' ',WO.~ I `W0. v "`~ ~~ - J n n ~ i " ~ ~, ,, ~ l . < I' i I : I * ~~ i ` 01 1 _ ~I ~...~ m l 1 _ _ I . - ~ rl ~~ I I - i - mi I ~ ~ I ~ _0m ~ .~~a* 09 _ ~. i / ~~ i{ I I i I Z -. ~ Z j... I" I1® JI-L- r~~ e ~ re {3~y z Z W I~ e~ • • ~; ~ ITEM 2 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: DR-O1-046/UP-O1-019; 20645 4`t' Street Applicant/Owner: Kwan M. Lee Staff Planner: Lata Vasudevan, Assistant Planner~l/ Date: February 13, 2002 APN: 503-24-046 Department • ~ ; ~~~ ~ ~ ~, ~,, o ~ / ~~ i~ i ~- ~, . ; ,: ~~ ~ ~~ , ~~~, ~~ i ~~~. ~ ~ ~/ /;~ ~~~ ~~ ;- ; `~ ~ `~~~ ;; ;% ~~~ ~ `, ,` ~~ ;~~ ~, `~ ~ ~ ''~ ~ ,~~' 20645 4`~ Street The Iran at Saratoga 000001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 12/28/01 OU24/02 OU30/02 OU30/02 OU25/02 The applicant is requesting Design Review approval and Conditional Use Permit approval to add 283 square feet to the fourth floor and 283 square feet to the fifth floor of The Inn at Saratoga located in the Village. Design Review approval is required because the applicant is proposing an addition of over 500 square feet to an existing structure, per Municipal Code Section [MCS] 15-46.020(2). A Conditional Use Permit is required because the applicant is proposing to expand a hotel, which is a conditional use in the CH-1 (Historic Commercial) zoning district. The Inn at Saratoga is situated on a 29,807(gross)/ 20,897(net) square foot parcel adjacent to Saratoga Creek. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review and Conditional Use Permit applications with conditions by adopting the Resolution attached to this staff report. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Plans, Exhibit "A" • • • 000002 File No. DR-O1-046/(JP-O1.019;20645 4~'Street STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: CH-1, Historic Commercial GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Retail Commercial MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 29,807 sq.ft.(gross)/20,897 sq.ft.(net) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 18 GRADING REQUIRED: None ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project, consisting of a minor addition to an existing structure, is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301, "Existing Facilities", Class 1 of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption applies to operation, repair, maintenance, or minor interior or exterior alterations to existing structures. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSID: Beige wood siding, brown composition roofing, with warm white trim, and windows with black and rust-colored accents. Colors and materials will match existing structure. • 000003 File No. DR-O1-046/UP-O1-019; 20645 44`'" Street Proposal Code Requirements Lot Coverage: TOTAL (Impervious Surface), 71% 80% (16,717 sq.ft.)1 Including building footprint, Parking area and walkways Size of Hotel: Maximum Allowable: First Floor: 6,635 sq.ft. Second Floor: 6,290 sq.ft. Third Floor: 6,290 sq.ft. (There are no floor area Fourth Floor: 6,463 sq.ft. limits in the CH-1 zoning Fifth Floor: 5,936 sq.ft. distract) TOTAL 31,614 sq.ft. Setbacks: Minimum Requirements: (No setbacks are required in the CH-1 zoning district) Height: Maximum Allowable: Height of building addition 26 ft. 35 ft. ,. ' In the CH-1 zoning district, 80% of the net site area may be covered by structures (not including paved parking and other paved areas). The applicant is proposing 71 % coverage; this figure includes parking and other paved azeas. 000004 -_ ._. . File No. DR-O1-046/UP-O1-019; 20645 4`~ Sheet PROJECT DISCUSSION The Inn at Saratoga, located in the Village, is situated on a sloping lot such that the front elevation overlooking 3~ Street has two stories, and the rear elevation facing Sazatoga Creek has five stories. A Santa Clara Valley Water District easement runs along the rear of the pazcel. The Inn at Saratoga was constructed approximately 15 years ago and has a `country inn' appearance with dark-colored mansard rooflines and light-colored wood siding. The applicant proposes to add to the fronttwo-story elevation of the structure. A 283 squaze foot addition at the lower level will serve as an exercise room and the upper level 283 square foot addition will have a maintenance room and a business office for use by guests of the hotel. Design Review Requirement Design Review approval is required because the applicant is proposing to add more than 500 square feet to an existing structure in a commercial zoning district. The applicant proposes to match all existing materials and colors. Staff feels that the proposal is consistent with the design criteria contained in MCS 15-46.040 in that: • The colors of the walls and roofing materials of the building addition will match the existing structure and blend with the natural landscape and will not be reflective. • Composition roofing is proposed and will match the existing roofing. • The proposed addition will be compatible in terms of height, bulk and design with other structures in the immediate azea. The building addition will not negatively affect the charming `country inn' character of the existing structure and will therefore be consistent with the Saratoga VillageDesign Guidelines. Use Permit Requirement A hotel in the CH-1 zoning district is a conditionally permitted use. Expansion of a conditionally permitted use requires a Conditional Use Permit approval from the Planning Commission. This process allows the Planning Commission to impose conditions on a project to ensure its compatibility with adjacent land uses. In this case, the applicant "" ' proposes to make building additions that will house an exercise room and a business office for hotel guests. The applicant hopes to attract more hotel guests by adding these desired amenities. An increase in the number of hotel guests will be beneficial to all businesses in the Saratoga Village. All of the findings required to grant a Conditional Use Permit contained in MCS 15-55.070 can be made in the affirmative in that: ~Q0~~5 File No. DR 01-046/UP-O1-019; 20645 4~' Sheet • The proposed building addition to The Inn at Saratoga meets the objectives of the Saratoga General Plan and the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zoning district in which the site is located, in that the proposed building addition will provide desired amenities that will make the hotel more appealing, and will generate more guests for the hotel and in turn more visitors to the Saratoga Village. • The proposed building additions will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or v~~elfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that appropriate conditions have been placed on the project to minimise potential impacts; and • The proposed building additions will comply with all other applicable provisions of the Saratoga Municipal Code. Parking and Circulation Additional parking is not required because the zoning requirements are one space for each guest room or for each two beds, whichever is greater. The applicant is not proposing to add any hotel rooms or beds. Trees I~?o protected trees will be impacted by the construction of the building addition. Correspondence No correspondence regarding this application has been received to date. Conclusion The proposed building addition to The Inn at Saratoga complies with the applicable design criteria contained in MCS 15-46.040 and the Saratoga Village Design Guidelines. In addition, all of the findings required to grant a Conditional Use Permit approval can be made in the affirmative. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve DR-O1-046 and UP-O1-019 with conditions by adopting the Resolution attached to , this staff report. • ooooos File No. DR-O1-046/UP-O1-019;206454~'Street Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. Application No. DR-O1-046/LJP-Ol-019 CITY OF SAR.ATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA KWAN M. LEE - 20645 4TH STREET; THE INN AT SARATOGA WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review and a Conditional Use Permit to allow a building addition to The Inn at Saratoga; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the proposed project consisting of a minor addition to an existing structure, is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to. Section 15301, "Existing Facilities", Class 1 of the Public Resources Code (CEQA); and WxER~~S, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed building addition complies with the Saratoga Village Design Guidelines and that all of the findings required within Section 15-46.040 of the City Code can be made in that: • The colors of the walls and roofing materials of the building addition will match the existing structure and blend with the natural landscape and will not be reflective. • Composition roofing is proposed and will match the existing roofing. • The proposed addition will be compatible in terms of height, bulk and design with other structures in the immediate area. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that all of the findings required within Section 15-55.070 of the City Code can be made in the affirmative in that: The proposed building addition to The Inn at Saratoga meets the objectives of the Saratoga General Plan and the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zoning district in which the site is located, in that the proposed building addition will provide desired amenities, and will generate more guests for the hotel, and in turn more visitors to the Saratoga Village. • The proposed building additions will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in ooooo~ File No. DR-O1-046/UP-01.019; 20645 4`!' Street that appropriate conditions have been placed on the project to nLnimi7e potential impacts; and • The proposed building additions will comply with all other applicable provisions of the Saratoga Municipal Code. Now, TxEREFOxE, the Planning Commission of the City of Sazatoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application for Design Review approval and Conditional Use Permit approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: PLANNING The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" incorporated by reference. 2. The proposed building addition shall match the colors and materials of the existing structure. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division prior to issuance of Building Permits. 4. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide written certification that the proposed addition is per the approved plans. 6. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Conditional Use Permit and may, at any time, modify, delete or impose any new conditions of the permit to preserve the public health, safety, and welfaze. 7. Any intensification of this use shall require an amended Conditional Use Permit. 8. The proposed use shall at all times operate in compliance with all regulations of the Ciry and/or other agencies having jurisdictional authority over the use pertaining to, but not limited to, health, sanitation, safety, and water quality issues. • ~~0~~8 File No. DR-O1-046/LJP-Ol-019; 20645 4~ Street FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 9. Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class A prepared or built-up roofing. Re-roofing less than 10 % shall be exempt. (Ref. Uniform Fire Code Appendix 3, City of Saratoga Code 16-20:210.) NOTE: MAINTAIN EXISTING CLASS B ROOF AS NOTED. 10. Eazly Warning Fire Alarm system shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions, City of Saratoga Code Article 16-60. (alternative requirements, sprinkler systems,16-60-E) NOTE: MAINTAIN EXISTING EWAS 11. Automatic sprinklers aze required for the building addition. Recalculate existing sprinkler system for the addition. Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. The sprinkler system must be installed by a licensed contractor. CITY ATTORNEY 12. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 13. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 24 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. C7 000009 _.____v__`_ -- _ -- -- -- . :. ._____. r File No. DR-O1-046/LTP-Ol-019; 20645 4~ Street PASSED AND ADOPTID by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 13th day of February 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions v`nthin. the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date 000010 ~ _ ~ 5 v ~ < ~ ~~ ____ :_- nJ ~~~ ~ - ~ r ~~ T T ~' v ~ ~; ~ ~ o _ \, ~ .. _ e~ ~ , Y .\~ ~. ~ S ~ ~ L v ' .i ... ~.uw ww~iwwwlww ~w .J- w C C C ~.~ N ~~~ . hPmo~m~ nv ~~° ~ . v a .~q n ~ ,n yna> ~.z _ NI,,.,,~ n mn~`R ~I°oNOI~-, 4 N h e~ ~.o ~nln n .... ~~ :~ L c G N ~ O W N. ~ L .-. U ~ N .+ C 4 v ~~ ~+ O N W- G U C^ C ~1 T+ O U N -~ O Y O O n C O O r. .^. U a ' 4 P 4. .1 H Q7:.. ev.F > ~?. a '~~ Lc~. ir.c ~ o o (v coo :, " . ~ .. G-C d U d O 3 O N ~ X 'O O .y > P _._~.. .irvz. -a 4m _, ~ e... Y,y ., - -__'a-suv'a_w_-_v_c_~___.__..~____.____ __.-_.. ~.-~. J L I I, i I I I C _. __ - _..___ i_ ~ tec-`~_ ~ \ 1~~ p r i ' ~ ~~ ^ ` 1Q; ,; 1 ~ ~ -~' ,~ ' r ~ „` , ,L~ b- ( ~ . ~_ F _ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ r~. ~ {. ~~ ~ ~ ' ~- I "~' ~ ~ j 'o Q--F- i i, ~f t~ ~` ~ ~~ ~ . ~«; ± z ~ ~ ~ +. ~ 1 9 ~ l . c- ~, ~ ~ ~ ' , (~ I ~ ~ i ~+ 7 d: 1 ~ ~ _ ~~ .~ l 1 i J~ a ~! ~ ~,_ ~, _ T O~ _ O ~- s ~ r - -~ p J \~ ~ ~ - D ~ Q G f' r ~ o o ~ m' 1JJ :~ I u= `~ I 1 I ~~ I ~ i I___ __ _ -- _.-i I i ~; J! S. 4: a ~~ ,n,` J ~' ~~ h Q f / ~: ~~ ~-o :.~a,£,~ ~~ _~~- :J.6 ~I ^ II Q ~ Ili ~ ~: ~_ ;j '4 ,,, I , ~ r ~ u ~~ ~ ~-~- ~ Q I Z ~I ,~ • • • S(~ Q i U~~ ~ ~ " _ - - ~ ~ ~ 3L __:=_~ U ~ `f` w~ J }l V `~ N v ~ tc ` ~ ,~ Di ~\~ ~~ ~- ~C.~ -~? I i ;' ~ojt J. ~, .a; I Y II ai ~~ ' ~, ~. ~ r 1' '! ~~, s; , L~-JI I . ~-- -- 1':1 P: ':~ I J. I.~ '~i O ~ v ~ I ', 1 ~ ~ Y 1 l I 1 ~ ~ ~ I ~ ! / ~~ ~- ,i; ~ i ; V ~, ~,I ~" nl .~. I ~ ~c ,I ;. ..I A;. ~j i a -I- -Z- "--- .^~ i ~.J v~ al ~~ I I ~ ~; ~ '--~ ~1- I ~~~ ~_; ~~ i ui r ` J V~ Y ~' 1~ i4 ~IQI. ,~~ v z i a T! y ! \q ~ ~~ I i e! i 3 a ~ 3 7 ~ - d I \ ~- --- - - - -- v Y: n ii 11 I. i ~ '~ ~'~~ I~ I Z ;~ ~ Z~ ~ ~_ ~4 i~` _. ~~; 'i i! i._-__ d; l ;, 0 ~; c vi ! i p t • • c Q S~ __ ` V U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- _ a ~ c 5 ~ U ~ ~ v V - ~: :y ~ o • • I Q ~~ _ ~ .. ~ ~~ - < y ~L =- r ~ ~J R.'- _ 'T ~ , ~ - ~ O .~.' `' .~ ~ v ~•, ~ ~ s ~; . _..~ - ~. , ~~ S ~ ~ ^` L ~i i T i ii '; I ' ~ u ' I t ii I _ ~ I I ~ i . _._i ~. > . > _ 1(~ . a it i I i ~ I ~. . ~ ~ j ~ Q ' J~ j a ~~ ' 7 I '~ ~ I ~ i kl ~ I ~ --! ----YY ~~ '~' I S ~ ~~ I ~I ~ ~ Qij . ~ a ~ "~ ' . , o; a ~ ! it ° I " ~' ;•' f i .N Cli ..i c '~ lil I ~ . • • • Q G -~ ~, e~, -r.- ~~ ~ 1 ~ O _ti' ':~. ~. GL S ~~ 5 ~ ~ >v ~ ___ - ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~" v - - J ~ - ~~ - ~,_~ - _ '`~; ~ ~ _ . . U, I ~' ~I ~' F ~I ,~ U ~I~ SI 6 ~ ~ r ly I i , -, ~ i ; 3' _ ~I _ ,. J j ~- 1D ~ )U ~ I J i J ~~ ' 1. ~-; ~: ~~ i , -o; ~' G ~' n y ~; ~ 8 ~~ ~; `i`'1 I '~ L~ ~ i . . ~ J 7 ~/ LL I ~" ~ I ` -~ I ~ I I it ~ ~ I~ .I I. I I-~~ j i I __ _- Y Ic ,. I I .. I i ---- - 1~':~ ~ ~ ref. ~ ~ ------ ~ - ~- ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ =~ r ~ i o ~ I ~ fo I I; ~ I ~ 1 ' ' ~!I e ~ = ®-g~~ I -II3 i' Iji~~ ( ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ _L- L~ 1 I ~- I ~ ~} L .v ~ IL ~` _ - _ - - - --- / II G ii. ~ i ~ ~~. u rt ~ ~ ~ ~ y : : I ~ --- ;. t ~ . I Ly iI I ~$ ~ ,l ~ ~;>; rl~ Z, ~r l r- N ~ Q i. `. TI Oi: - ~' i-- j :~~ I i ~~ ~ ~;: r= ,}~i~ Cat ~ r~`"~~ ~: ~ -- . _,~ 1~ ~:- -.` ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n1 ti~ ~ s C v v - .~ I :I a v~ ~I 1~! }t! 6 h! ~. ~ , ~ s G a ~ t ~ N O = ~ o al S! ~ ~~ JI ~ >gi ~: ~f ~i j/'' ~' nt ~i I .: --. it 1 4 ' ~~ ~ : ai e. i- ~. ~ i --- ----, i Vii: ,. l~ ~ ' ! O ~~ :` ;I _~ I I ~, I. v, -. li I is ,. ~ j ~ - - i ~~ . i ~ is i i I 2 ~. i Ij '~ ~ , ~: ~ i; ~ ~ is ~~ ~ +i it V I I ~, I' Z , li , ~ i _! ~ I I~. ~. I: ~! _ . ~ ; s I! ~! ~: ,~ i i~ = I , I' ~I~ I ~~ ~ ~' `: ~+I ~~ 1 r, ; I, ~' ~l `i ` r i `~ I i ~ F I~ T_ n ;> i ~i -~\ , L~ t:- V It ~_ A ~~ -~`~ ~~ • • t ~ n, ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ,~, ~ _~ _ K `z a __ c, ~ 1 T ` ~C ~ ~ j i (R ~ T ~ N` ~ _ C; ~ ~ ~ s ~~-~ ~ ti - z = ~ s. ~ - ~~ ~ ~ ~~ - T T _ ` ~~ - ~1 a -~~ ~a j` ~-: a _ ' -" Q ~_ Q Q d~ (' . c ~. ~. --~„~_-~ ' °; ~ ; _ - -~ :: 1 L aQl~dL~ i I _ ~ ~ - ~ T ~~ ~ ~L~y o ~. ~ ~ d ~ ~~ ~ /' ~ 01 ~ ~ ~ ; z ~; >L L o = i= a- 1 - -._ - - - - ~ - -- ,/- _ rj~'" it z= ~$ ~~ ~ ; ~~~s~ ~ i V ~ ~ < :/ -~ , ;. . i N ? ... ° _. _ -- - . d, ._ _ _ ___ --__ - J~ ,~~ t u = ~ _ I ~ ,~ ~ ~! i i ; ~ -" ; - " ~ ~lg ~, ,~ ~_ _~ ~~ i ! ~-~ ' -, dl, -._. ~ ___ _...... -- _ ~ ~ y `v~ r ~ I a ~ ~ f II _ li H ~ w ~ l k ~ ~' i ` _i. I n _r a_t L.: ~ ~~ i~~ I ~ . ,.e , _. _ - - ___ \~ ~ r 9 _~~` -_ i ~ ~ .._ ~,~'~. _ ~ ._. • ~ ti ~. '~- = ` ~~ ~ °- _ ,~ v d T~ ~ N n ~'~ -~ ~~ e, ~~ ~~ .i ~ ~ ~: • "~0 ~I ~ I ~ I ~ l ~ t. ; I I.ss2 ~u ~ ~~~= h I ~ i ~; I' i 1 ~~$ I i. z~ -~ J z 4 3 ~-- ~.~ ~_ t ~a , t ~~'n ia~-~ I -may , ~~ a` ~ / ~1 y Gi -„ . '~- / -- - v ~. ~ i ti= ~:~" i y ~ I ~, ~ t S ) I ~,t i~ tai ,o _ ~ ~-~~, ;. ~ ; / o ~ - T9' i-~E,,---k---- - - - - - --; °---I-t- ~ /_/_-~ -b~- ~ Rio- / - W ~ - - - --- -- - -- -- - -~ - ~ - _~ - I - ~ I i ~ I ~ J 9 ~ - • ^1ir ~ -- ~ - N i.> V l 1 i I /I r ~ ~I I j~ ,~ ~/ S~ ~I v1 ~ ~..--'- ~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ / I ~ ~ ~ ~` \ `, ii J it f ' I ~,~~'' ~ , ,' 1 ~ -;~ ~~ ~ ~, !' it ~~ ~ ~~~/_~,% /~ SIR ~I j ~ T ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~ m `~ ~ ///,xrr I / ~ ~ Y~1'i \ CQ ~-." ~ - of / / // '~ / iii , 'E ~F~ ~ i. ~ .-i / tv _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~' ~+. ;'~, ors: k ~ ~ - ~ ~/ -- i- / - ~Y: i /~ " _ E -r-----.._.--- -- // p --------~Y+-- _ ~--- -$_ a .. ...i r.~l~j,: ~ Y / / ~ / ,~"~ I 1G n.~ / / ~ ~~ ~~\ ` _' I i yi~y Y~ rl ~4 I -Y ~~ \.\ 1 ~, ~~~~ r. ~ A) :. -. -._ . , ~ ~ c v ~- • • • a 0. 1-N ~' ~*1 1J evee~~.vo ~ ,~eaa a~a~.,~v ;_ .. ,., :.e ~: ~~ e~ a ~I i._ {. a ~, , __ _ .. ~Yta~ '~lp.,~~ a Cdj~R xa2 'oti i I 1 ~ ,- , - -- _ r _ ~ o -~ ~ ~ •~{ =~,arq rya ~ xN~-~n~- hti ~.,~11n~°~ ~ ~ = d ~p ~. I a i ~, \ r-- \ ~~. a: ' ~ ~ I (; r ;r a ' ~ , \ ~ ~ , I ~ 3 ~l ~ I ~ \ A, ~ I_ A' I ~ ~ _ I ~ ~; . I J ~ / , I a / " / /' / ~ b `~ ~ '~~ t , ~y~ a' ~ ~ ~ i N~ I I III v t T '/ ~ `~ ~'-~ .~ ~T ~-'l ~ d I~~ ~j1 - ~ ~t I ~ nnn~~~ I {9 0. I { i ~ ~, i ~ U Li ~ ~z~~, ; J r. - -- ___~ 1 , _ i a. ~ ' i~ -r-6`- a _ \ _II~~ P 1 v ~ ~ i f! ,~~ ~ a ~ o 1 ~ ~_ ~ ::n ~ I 1 i > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' L ~ 3 , 1 ~ _ i I tp `~ t Y Z Y Y I ~t ;, -; `V Y C ~ ~ '~ lK _ ~~~ k. F ~ ~j ~. ---- 4 c~ .c _v q4 d F \~ ri,,\i ~ I I L , fl i a, N _ 7i.Q ~ I ~~ Y -: h ~.w.iwl ~~ ~~i I~~ • ~ ~r ~ ~ '~ _~ ' ~., ~ , ~ Imo' _{ ~ ~~~{ ;' l , ;~ , ~ ~~ 4~ ~ o ` ~ ~ I j ~ ~ i . ~ U~ 1 ,+ (. 1 - ~ - L, '• ~ ~ 1 .-.-fin ~- ~ ..~ , ~ ~ . ~~ r' > ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ I II ~ ~' 1 I i ~ , a ~ __ ~ ~ - ~ - --- ------- -- -- - ` ~. Y 1 ~. r - 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ 9*+IOYO'1 p - ~ , ~. ' M I ~-` \ 1 F.. , f ~ ~ ` 14 ~ _ I .~ IY r ~ % I C ~: c~ at ~ 1 + I ~ \ 1 _---__ _ ~ ~ r F / ~ ~ I f ~ ~ I /" , ~ / ~~ \ v ~ ~ ~± lMl 1 ' V1 - m ~ ;~'`~` . N ~-~ I I T \' ~ i ; ~: ~tt~ ~ - V j - .,./ ~ ~ ~ ".. vF~ '. ~~ I ( C p\ 1~ \\ 1 a~7, \ ~ ~~ I ~. ~ ' i ~ . I i ~ ~~ ,j Y - - 6j P- - _ -.. - ~` ~ a , 1~ S ~s ~- ~ ~ l~ -J r~ - J ~22Zz -'!'.~~. -q l.. ~ ~ I nl 4 a- ',C a ~ 1' uI =- --f~-- ?~ • _ ~ a 9 s - ,r., I ~ $ o~ c ~ r t . ~ ~ ~~ `~ ,, , \_ 1 ~, \ .. e • • • ITEM 3 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: L5081 Pepper Lane/App. No. 02-003 Administrative Design Review/Conditional Use Permit Applicant/Owner: David and Anne Neale Staff Planner: John F. Livingstone, Associate Planner ~~~~ Date: February 13, 2002 APN: 510-O1-046 Department Head: 1J VV11 Y~./{JY/ LVLI L\r 000001 STAFF ANALYSIS . ZONING: R-1-20,000 (Single Family Residential) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RLD (Residential Low Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 22,101 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 4.13% GRADING REQUIRED: The applicant is proposing only minunal grading for the garage foundation and driveway. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of construction of an addition to an existing garage is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "Ne~~ Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. CASE HISTORY Application filed: 4/23/01 Application complete: OU30/02 Notice published: OU30/02 Mailing completed: OU25/02 Posting completed: 12/28/02 MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The proposed exterior finish will be light gray color stucco to match the existing color. The garage door, windows and trim will be painted white. The roof will be a dark gray color to match the existing color and material. PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting Administrative Design Review approval to add 683 square feet to an existing two-car detached garage. The addition would add three new parking stalls , to the existing garage and convert the existing two spaces to a pool house. The Use Permit approval is necessary to allow the garage addition to be 15-feet in height. The maximum height allowed without Commission review is 12-feet. The applicant has worked extensively with staff to preserve the existing design of the garage and its relationship with the existing house. The applicant had proposed a design that incorporated a 12-foot high garage that did not require a Conditional Use Permit and ~~0~~2 . Appl. No. 02-003;15081 Pepper Lane Planning Commission Review. Working with staff the applicant revised the design to match the existing roof height preserving the architectural style of the original garage. Proposal Code Requirements Lot Coverage: Floor Area: Setbacks: Height: Design Review Maximum Allowable 40.5% 45% Buildings Footprints 3,444 sq. ft. Driveways 5,515 sq. ft. Patios, and Pool TOTAL (Impervious Surface) 8,959 sq. ft. 9,945 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable First Floor 2,188 sq. ft. Attic Floor ~ 874 sq. ft. Existing Garage 560 sq. ft. Proposed addition to Garage 683 sq. ft. TOTAL 4,305 sq. ft. 4,674 sq. ft Minimum Requirement Front (To building face) 75 ft. 30 ft. Rear 15 ft. 15 ft. Left Side (Street side) 25 ft. 25 ft. Right Side 25 ft. 15 ft. Maximum Allowable Residence 26 ft. 26 ft. Detached Garage Proposed Addition 15 ft. Existing Garage 15 ft. 6 inches The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Guidelines policies. • Policy 1,"Minimize Perception of Bulh" The project meets this policy in that the proposed garage will have varying rooflines that will break up the elevation of the building. The roof will be a dark material that will blend in with-the existing mature trees around the site. 8 • Policy 2, "Integrate Structures with the Environment" The proposed garage meets this policy in that the applicant has chosen a light gray color which will help the proposed structure blend in with the trees around the site. C:\My Lbcumencs\John L\Peppa Lane 15081 SRda 000003 Appl. No. 02-003;15081 PepperLane • Policy 3, `Avoid_Interference with Privan~" The proposed garage addition will have tvvo small windows, one on each side of the garage. The garage is located 15-feet from the nearest property line and should not have any negative impacts on the neighbors privacy. • Policy 4, "Preserve Views and Access to Views° The proposed garage is not in a view corridor and will not have an adverse affect on neighbors views. • Policy 5, "Design for Energy Efficiency" The existing garage which is being converted to the pool house will meet the State Energy Guidelines. The proposed project also meets the Design Review Findings as stated in Section 15-45.080 of the Zoning Code as follows: 1. "Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy" The proposed garage is not located in a s~iew corridor and should not have any negative impacts on the neighbors privacy. 2. "Preserve the natural landscape" The applicant is proposing to remove one non- protected six-inch fruit tree. All of the other trees on the site will be maintained. 3. "Minimi.Ze perception of excessive bulk" The addition to the existing detached garage will have a varying roof pitch and front elevation that will act to reduce the bulk of the structure. 4. "Compatible bulk and height" The proposed addition will match the existing roofline and height. 5. "Current grading and erosion control techniques" The applicant is proposing only minimal grading for the garage foundation and driveway. Conditional Use Perrrut The applicant is proposing a garage with a height of approximately 15-feet. The Zoning Ordinance allows a height of 12-feet, or up to 15-feet with Planning Commission approval if the following findings can be made: 1. The additional height is necessary in order to establish architectural compatibility with the main structure on the site; and 2. The accessory structure will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff feels the proposed accessory structure meets the above findings in that the proposed style and pitch of the roof will match the existing garage and help it relate to the main structure. C:4'Ny Lbcuments\John L~Pepper Iane 15081SRdoc o~0004 Appl. No. 02-003;15081 Pepperlane i Parking The- Saratoga City Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces within a garage. The proposed addition will provide athree-car garage. Trees The applicant is proposing to remove one non-protected six-inch fruit tree. The City Arborist Report contains recommendations for the protection of existing trees on the site. All of the Arborist recommendations in the report dated September 11, 2001 have been made a condition of project approval. Correspondence The applicant has provided a letter to the Ciry stating that each neighbor has approved of the proposed garage addition. Conclusion The proposed garage is designed to conform to the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook and to satisfy all of the findings required within Section 15- 45.080 of the City Code. The garage does not interfere with views or privacy, preserves the natural landscape to the extent feasible, and will minimise the perception of bulk so that it is compatible with the neighborhood. The proposal further satisfies all other zoning regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Administrative Design Review and Conditional Use Permit applications with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution with conditions 2. City Arborist Report 3. Plans, Exhibit 'A' • C:~Iviy UocumrnCS\John L~Peppcr Lane 15061SRdoc OoOOOa.~ • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • 000006 Attachment 1 • RESOLUTION NO. APPLICATION NO. 02-003 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA David and Anne Neale; 15081 Pepper Lane WHEREAS, the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for an Administrative Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approval -for an addition of 683 square feet to an existing detached garage. The Conditional Use Permit approval is necessary to allow the garage to be 15-feet in height; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and Whereas the proposed project consisting of an addition to an existing garage is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Administrative Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: • Polity 1,"Minimi.Ze Perception of Bulh" The project meets this policy in that the proposed garage will have varying rooflines that will break up the elevation of the building. The roof will be a dark material that will blend in with the existing mature trees around the site. • Policy 2, "Integrate Structures with the Environment" The proposed garage meets this policy in that the applicant has chosen a light gray color which will help the proposed structure blend in with the trees around the site. • Policy 3, "Avoid Interference with Privacy" The proposed garage addition will have two small windows, one on each side of the garage. The garage is located 15-feet from the nearest property line and should not have any negative impacts on the neighbors privacy. • Policy 4, "Preserve Views and Access to Views" The proposed garage is not in a view comdor and will not have an adverse affect on neighbors views. • Policy ~, "Design for Energy Efficiency" The existing garage which is being converted to the poolroom will meet the State Energy Guidelines. ~~0~~~ WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: 1. "Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy" The proposed garage is not located in a view corridor and should not have any negative impacts on the neighbors privacy. 2. "Preserve the natural landscape" The applicant is proposing to remove one non-protected six- inchfruit tree. 3. "Minimize perception of excr_ssive bulk" The addition to the existing detached garage will have a varying roof pitch and front elevation that will act to reduce the bulk of the structure. 4. "Compatible bulk and height" The proposed addition will match the existing roofline and height. 5. "Current grading and erosion control techniques" The applicant is proposing only minimal grading for the garage foundation and driveway. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Conditional Use Permit approval, and the following findings have been determined: The applicant is proposing a garage with a height of approximately 15-feet. The Zoning Ordinance allows a height of 12-feet, or up to 15-feet with Planning Commission approval if the following findings can be made: 1. The additional height is necessary in order to establish architectural compatibility u,~ith the main structure on the site; and 2. -The accessory structure will be compatible vt~ith the surrounding neighborhood. Staff feels the -proposed accessory structure meets the above findings in that the proposed style and pitch of the roof will match the existing garage and help it relate to the main structure. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of David and Anne ; Neale for Administrative Design Review and Use Permit approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. .The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit 'A' incorporated • by reference. 0~~~~8 2. The following shall be included on the plans submitted to the Building Division for the building permit plan check review process: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: b. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor and identify the construction staging area on the plan. c. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 3. Prior to issuance of the building permit or demolition permit the grading and construction drawings shall be reviewed by the City Arborist. 4. No kitchen or cooking facility will be allowed in the pool house unless a Conditional Use Permit for a secondary dwelling unit is approved. CITY ARBORIST 5. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Report dated September 11, 2001 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to: a. The Arborist Re ort shall be inco orated as a se arate lan a e to the P rP ~ P P Pg~ construction plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans. b: Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan as recommended by the Arborist with a note "to remain in place throughout construction." The fencing shall be inspected by staff prior to issuance of a Building Permit. c. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. 6. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount ; recommended by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of ' trees on the subject site. 7. Prior to Building Final approval, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance .with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and, any replacement trees having been planted, the bond shall be released • 000009 FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Garage Fire sprinkler System Required: An approved, automatic fire sprinkler system designed per National Fire Protection Association Standard #13D and local ordinances, shall be provided for the garage. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat horizontal ceiling. This requirement is for both the garage and the conversion area as well. 9. A State of California licensed fire protection contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a completed permit application and appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to begirming work. The submission of fire sprinkler plans may occur following the building permit issuance, however, the applicant shall acknov~~ledge the fire sprinkler requirement on the building permit application submittal. CITY ATTORNEY 10. Applicant agrees to hold Ciry harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of Ciry in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the Ciry's action with respect to the applicant's project. • 11. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. • 000010 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 13th day of February 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Properry Owner or Authorized Agent Date 000011 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 000012 • ,-~ BARRIE D. COATS AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 Fax (408) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 Attachment 2 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO TREES DURING CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED GARAGE AT TIC NEALE PROPERTY, 15081 PEPPER LANE SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of Community Planning Dept. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 • Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist September 11, 2001 Job # 03-99-051-01 Plan Received: 9-10-01 Plan Due: 10-10-01 D ~~~~d~ OCT 1 1 2001 CITY Of ~~ANQ~13 ~'(144~1i UNITY (1~Vrl nn~~r.~~T .~ i ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO TREES DURING CONSTRUCTION OF A PnJPOSED GARAGE AT THE NEALE PROPERTY,1508I PEPPER LANE, SARATOGA Assignment At the request of the Planning Department, City of Saratoga this report reviews the proposal to remodel the existing garage located at the Neale residence, 15081 Pepper Lane, Saratoga in the context of potential damage to or the removal of existing trees. This report further provides information about the health and structure of the trees on site, and makes recommendations by which damage to them can be restricted to prevent significant decline. Summary This proposal exposes six trees to some level of risk by construction. No trees are to be removed by this design. Procedures aze suggested to mitigate the damage that would be expected to the retained trees. A bond equal to 25% the value of the six trees is suggested in accordance with the levels of the expected risks. Observations There ~aze five trees adjacent to the garage or adjacent to the driveway that are at risk of damage by proposed construction. The attached map shows the locations of these trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. These trees were evaluated in a report by this office dated Mazch 16, 1999. The metallic labels that were used to assign numbers to these trees are still attached and visible. No new labels are used for this evaluation, and I have used the same number assignments for this report. The five trees are classified as follows: Tree #26 Coast Live Oak (Quercvs agrifol~a) Trees #27, 28, 29, 30 Deodaz Cedar (Cedrus deodara) The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (Excellent - Poor) on the data sheets that follow this text. Please note that each trees' structure is distinguished from health. The structure rating is a visual evaluation of each tree's ability to remain standing and to maintain its branching without breaking or splitting apart. Damage of this nature can occur despite exceptional health. Also, structure is not an aesthetic focus. A tree that has an excellent structure may not necessarily be aesthetically pleasing. Because the various combinations of health and structure sometimes require interpretation, the combination of health and structure ratings for the trees aze converted to individual descriptive ratings as follows: PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST SEPTEMBER I I, 2001 Pa~2of7 • • • nrinn~ ~ ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO TREES DURING CONSTRUCTION OF A Pn.~POSED GARAGE AT THE NEALE PROPERTY, 1508] PEPPER LANE, SARATOGA • ~~ `....~ Exceptional Fine S ecimens S cimens 21 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 Exceptional specimens must be retained at any cost and whatever procedures are needed to retain them in their current condition must be used. Fine specimens must be:retained if possible but without major design revisions. Mitigation procedures recommended here aze intended to limit damage within accepted horticultural standards in order to prevent decline. All of these trees as well as all of the trees located on the east side of the property now have shrub spray irrigation heads for the planter beds, in which these trees exist. This is a recent installation. Landscaping is currently in progress in the frontyard and spray heads are being installed. The problem with this is that the spray from the shrub heads strikes the trunks of virtually all of the existing trees including the large Deodar cedar (tree #36) located in the frontyard and including tree #21, located adjacent to the south boundary property fence. Irrigation spray that strikes the trunks of these trees exposes them to serious diseases of the root collar. One of the common diseases that pervades trees with these conditions is oak root fungus (Armrllaria mellea). The Deodar cedar species is very susceptible to oak root fungus. This is potentially a very serious problem that could kill many of the trees at the site over time. This can be resolved by converting the spray heads to drip heads to irrigate the adjacent shrubs and groundcovers. One of the drip type heads that works very well for this purpose and is used at many commercial sites is called an Octa-Bubbler made by Pepco. The conversion is quite easy and certainly much less difficult than other drip systems because of the fact that Octa-Bubblers' are made to operate with the same water pressure as spray heads. It may be useful to note, and I observed one spray head directed towazd the house, in which the spray appears to strike the foundation vent. This may expose a section of the foundation adjacent tb this vent to dry rot, a common wood decay fungus disease in trees. I suggest that this and possibly other locations be considered for modification of the irrigation equipment The stump of tree #35 (see map) a California pepper tree (Schinus mope), still exists. It was cut down because of its hazard and structure subsequent to the previous evaluation (March of 1999) at my recommendation. This tree had a serious fungus disease that would without a doubt bring about the trees failure. Although the tree was removed, the stump remains along with the fungus disease, which is still alive and producing spores that could spread to the other healthy trees. The spores are carried by the wind. The rust colored "dust" azound the remaining stump aze the ' Octa-Bubblers PREPARED B Y: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST SEPTEMBER 1 I, 2001 Page 3 of 7 nnnn~ c ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO TREES DURING CONS'rRUCTiON OF A P~cJPOSED GARAGE AT THE NEALE PROPERTY, 15081 PEPPER LANE, SARATOGA spore production. There is no treatment for this disease once a tree has contracted it. i I highly recommend that the stump be ground out to 2 feet below ground. Impact of Proposed Construction Trees #26, 27, 28, and 29 would all suffer root loss as a result of trenching for the construction of the foundation of the proposed garage. Tree #28 would suffer the greatest root loss, but it should survive in good condition provided the face of the trench on the side where the trees exist (north side) does not extend more than 6-8 inches beyond the foundation at the proposed location. However, the trench for the foundation as proposed is at the maximum that can be safely allowed. Thus, no additional trenches may be dug such as for drainage. If a subsurface drain is required, the drain line must be put in the same trench as the foundation and directly adjacent to the foundation. There must not be a swble cut for surface drainage because of the proximity of trees #26-29. This is to avoid a cut of even 3-4 inches to create a swble. Fill soil may be used, provided the fill is of no greater depth than 6-8 inches and contains 10% or less of clay. This implies that the elevation of the garage floor may have to be raised to assure that the drainage away from the foundation does not require a cut, even for a swble. If the driveway is to be excavated for the installation of pavers or for a stable roadbed, trees #29 and 30 may suffer significant root loss. Since cedars are so sensitive to absorbing root damage, there must be no soil cuts within 12 feet of the trunks of trees #20 and 30. Presently a 6 foot wood fence provides some protection for tree #21. This fence extends- south from the southwest comer of the existing garage. This leaves about half of the canopy and the root system of tree #21 unprotected in the area that is a storage area, which presently contains stored building materials, a tractor, and garbage cans. Nevertheless, the total area under the canopy of tree #21 (as shown on the attached map) must be protected during construction of the garage addition. This means that materials and equipment must not be stored inside the dripline. I recommend to the owner that this protection continue after construction is completed. Tree #21 presently shows no ill effects of the soil compaction that has occurred inside its dripline. However, this is no indication that the tree would not decline should additional soil compaction occur, during construction or thereafter. If any underground utilities must be upgraded, the locations of the trenches must be planned in advance of construction and must not be left up to the contractor or to the utility companies. In addition to the specific risks noted, the retained trees may be subjected to one or more of the following damaging events that are common to construction sites: 1. The stockpiling of materials or the storage of equipment under the canopies. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTIIVG ARBORIST SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 Page 4 of 7 n~~~~ ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO TREES DURING CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED GARAGE AT THE NEALE PROPERTY, 15081 PEPPER LANE, SARATOGA • 2. The dumping of construction materials, especially waste materials, such as painting products, mortar, concrete, etc.) under the canopies. 3. The construction traffic, including foot traffic across the root systems, and the parking of vehicles or construction equipment under the canopies. 4. The trenching across root zones for new utilities or for landscape irrigation. 5. The grading of the surface soil resulting in the removal of quantities of absorbing root tips. 6. Broken branches or bark injuries as a result of construction equipment passing too close. 7. Landscaping, including incompatible plant species, trenching across tree root zones for irrigation, excessive soil disturbance of tree root zones, grading to create contours, etc. Virtually any landscape feature inside a tree's root zone results in a percentage of root damage. If the percentage is significant the affected trees will decline or die. Recommendations The following mitigation suggestions are intended to reduce the extent of construction damage to acceptable levels, so that retained trees can reasonably be assured of survival without decline. If any changes to these plans occur during construction, the following may require alteration. 1. I recommend that the cut face of the trench for the foundation footing be a minimum of 8 feet from the trunk of tree #28 and a minimum of 10 feet from the trunk of tree #29. 2. There must be no excavations, trenching, or surface grading to construct the driveway within 12 feet of the trunks of trees #29 and 30. 3. There must not be a drainage Swale on the north side of the proposed garage addition. 4. If a drain line is installed, the drainpipe on the north side of the proposed garage addition must be within 12 inches of the foundation footing. S. If any underground utilities must be upgraded or if new utilities must be added: a. all trenching must meet the same requirements as stated in Recommendations # 1 and 2. In this event, a 2 foot section of each trench adjacent to any tree must be left exposed for final inspection by the city arborist, b. or proposed trenches or excavations must be reviewed and approved by the city arborist. 6. I suggest that construction period fencing be provided and located as noted on the • attached map. Fencing must be of chainlink a minimum height of 5 feet, mounted on steel posts driven 1$-inches into the ground. Fencing must be in place prior to the arrival of any other materials or equipment and must remain in PREPARED BY: IvIICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST SEPTE[u03ER I I, 2001 Page 5 of 7 0~0~1 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO TREES DURING CONSTRUCTION OF A PkuPOSED GARAGE AT THE NEALE PROPERTY, 15081 PEPPER LANE, SARATOGA place until all construction is completed and given final approval. The protective S fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. 7. A platform buffer must be placed between construction of the garage and the trunks of trees #26-29: A platform buffer consists of 4 full inches of coarse bazk chips (shredded redwood is not acceptable for this propose due to its compressibility) be spread over the existing grade, which must immediately be covered by 1 inch plywood (full sheets), tied together, and secured to prevent slippage. This platform is sufficient for workers on foot using hand carried tools. This platform must cover the entire exposed root zone azea adjacent to construction. 8. Any old irrigation lines, sewer lines, drain lines, etc. under the canopies of existing trees, if unused must be cut off at grade and left in the ground. 9. Excavated soil may not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of trees. 10. Any pruning must be done by an International Society of Arboricultural certified arborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standards, 1988. 11. Landscape pathways and other amenities that aze constructed under the canopies of trees must be constructed completely on-grade without excavation. I2. I recommend that the irrigation system be modified so that no irrigation spray strike within 3 feet of the trunks of existing trees. This includes the trees that have been surveyed for this report and those trees that have not. 13. If landscape plants aze to be installed within the root zone of an oak tree it should be planted only .with compatible plants. A publication about compatible plants .can be obtained from the California Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland 94612. 14.. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bazk, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be directly in contact with the bazk of a tree due to the risk of disease. 15. Drain dissipators or downspouts must be relocated, if trees are in the path of discharge. The discharge must be directed a minimum of 15 feet to the side of the .trunk of any tree. 16. Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped under the driplines of trees, or buried on site. Any excess materials (including mortar, concrete, paint produces, etc.) must be removed from site. PREPARED BY:1vIICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 Pagc 6 oC7 ~~~~~Q ASSESSMENT OF POTENTL4L DAMAGE TO TREES DURING CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED GARAGE AT THE NEALE PROPERTY, 15081 PEPPER LANE, SARATOGA • Value Assessment The value of the trees are addressed according to ISA Standards, Seventh Edition, 1992. No trees are to be removed by this design. The combined value of the six trees (#21, 26-30) is $21,333. I suggest a bond equal to 25% ($5,333) of the their total value be retained to assure their protection. Respectfully$ub_~ d, ..a,i Michael L Bench, A~ociat~ B .Coate, Principal • C7 MLB/sl Enclosures: Glossary of Terms Tree Data Accumulation Charts Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction Protective Fencing Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies Platform Buffer Map PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST SEPTEMBER l 1, 2001 Page 7 of 7 04409 F-•- .~ 0 + r-I tri 0 i Q1 Q~ + M O 0 ~. a it a a v r~ N 00 O N i.l '~ Q O ~~ a~ v z it O I lcN ulaolad ~vnowaa 1 9 + E ~VAOW3a CN3WW003a m v m ~ m m m > ~ a, ~ ~ a, ~ ~ E - ro a3Zillla3~ Sd33N y ~ w ~ y b~ ~ b~' w ~ w b' ~ ~ ~ ---- (S-t) a31VM Sd33N u a u n ++ a cS-L) 3SV3Sld arno~ loos ~ ~ ~ o 0 0 r m r m m co m (s-t) d3a3no~ avi-lo~ loos ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a »_ X x X X x X 0 »M_»~»»». a` (S-t)AV03d ~Nnal m lS-t) DOOM OV3d N m ~ co o ~ + m a (S-L) 3SF13SId NMOaO 33x1 _~_____ ______ ~ ~ ~ ~ h r, lS-L) S103SN1 ~+ n n n n u (S-L) JWaOlad JNINnad Oc 0 o ii ii ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ D # d3d33N S318H0 --------------------- m Z o 1HJ13M-dN3 3/~OW3a ----------------- x x x x x x c ~ ~JNISIHa NMOaO v _~______________~_~~_ _ a S NOIlVNOlS3a NMOaO °D c »~ ______»_ '_-_ ~ N r ~ O ~ _ »---- O ~ i O °' +JNINNIHl NMOaO ~ ~ ~ N `JNINt/3l0 NMOaO ++ +~ n a n u (B-£) °JNI1Va daFRVH °o °o »» _ (OL-Z) JNIlVa NOWUNOO +" W ~ ~ +"~ ~ v ~ ~» ~ ~ » ~ c _~»----»»_~_____ t3 u u v - c~ _»w cZ c ° t, _ is-t) 3anl~nals y N tl) N M f7 W f7 y C7 N X X X X X X tS-L) H1lV3H dM3ads N ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ r ___~ ~___»»__ N aD aD Q C +[~ 1HJI3 H O ~ +o ~ ,y +A v ~ O co w O n w O +n w O ~ w c m 133 Z® a313WMd n +~ n u n +~ ~ ~~ m u °.°_ +~ E -'-- c c c c » c -- c H8d m ~ N N N N ~ HEd u S w w b 9 _»_~ X X X X X X w3lsASylinw » apeJ6 an°ge ,UL-4 ~ H8d O N v O ' ~, O O : O ~ O +n ~ ^ O +c o N n N + , ~ .- N c c c c c c ~ ~ ~ F 0~~.~~ ~ U V ~ ' N ~ Z ~ W V ! 8 eMn ~ _ $ ~ ~ 4. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m G 'C O N > ~ U a $ U $ U ~ U 2 ~ ~ ~~ 7 U ~ 7 ~ 3 ~ Q Q O ~ Y _ N N N N N ~ 0 i•- r- 0 r. ~~ ec 3 tl ~+~, un W II • ~ N ~ a h h h ' Q p p x xpp W 0`dD ~ .G ~~` N u~~~n 11 x x W ~~~~ ~i Jf N ~ ~ (100020 I ' i `- ~ i I s , X I Qj i I m ~ G I i C `~ u I C '- ~ v I ~ O - ~ ~ ~ _T I `^ i ~ ~ F p a J ~ I J I ~` c U S ` 1 t ` L Q i e `a d ^~ u V tC A ~ ~ 7r h 4 ` ~ J ~ 1 V C ~ ~ I ~I ~ < o' o ~ v ^~ ~ ~ v ~ C an ~ ~ J ~"' Q~ J ..v ~ '~ '~ ~ v I ~ Q, C v-n 3 Ooc d ,,, o < ~ ~ Q x~ ~ ` 1 J~ %~ w ~ m t ~ ~ 4 Z v ti ~ 1 - es - J F J ~ I ~ Z ~ v O x / \ ~ q w H z w ~ N` . c ~ X w w DC e p yy C ~ O . ~ O U .Q 0 C y $~ ~~ t c U ~ ate., rn c . ~ 4. ~' H w U X / a °' ~ c .£ a ~ 'v m ~ f- Q id ~ ~ _ / F- ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ \ W O _~ ~ ~ ~' / ~ ~ ~ ~O ~ ~ N- N f i N ~ L' Oc ., ~ ._ ~~ N N i _ O ~ Q ~ ~ ~` F- / ~ Z ~ _, S wC~~o~C ~ Z'w ~ S ~; ~~ o~ 1 ~, w _ ~ Q;~ - ~ ~ ~ i . ~~ r .~ o ~ o v `' 00, 00 OsN p w ~ ~Z z ~ w ~. I • • NN ` , L (.-.. r, v i~ i ~,6 s_ `~ . i . ~ I/ r nnnn~~+ ~~ • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ' • • r~nn~~2 ~ ~ L S(6 ~ ~ C1 c ~ ~- ~ ~ S i1 ~ ~ N (6 ~" O ~ '~ ~ ~ z ~ d' ~ ~ ~ 6 S ~ (6 V ~ ~ -~ o~,~~, N > ,,~ ~ fl ~ G ~' z ~ rn V p N ~ ~ ~;~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ cn0 o +~ N ~ ~`~ ~ ~ ~~'~ ~ s- L +~ i ei 0-~ ~°~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ s ~ S L J ~ ~ ail ~ ~ ~ ~ "~ .. _ ~ L ~~ ~ U1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ • n a~ a ~~d~ 666 • ,9S~98Z M „OO,S~•99 S -~-=-6 - 3,-~99NC~ - - __ _ - ` __ • 0 _--- N O O (V Z •~ W • U z OS N W Z N N X Z SOS W U Q 7 ^O ,~v v/ v ~~ ti Z ~ ~ 9 w Z ~ W Zpt~_-Z p~3~ Q~wsfl= D w p J F OKOQnC tL w ~ Q ~ Z O~jFZ-~Q o~=W¢d ~~,NQ~w ~ W ~ ~ Q o ui F O 1=- m 0[ u oC ~ 1L O }- w w w >i ZLiKUNG W l7z Z W H ~ N N W OL I t~ • W U lL ui o ~ ~ N A'$ W O O u Z • L ~ L ~ ~ O Z ~ ~ 4' W ` ~ 1 L OQ` dW ~^ ~ ~• ^. W x ~ O O ~~_' SZ ~ wC~vtY SpS W o FF <~~~ 3~wo~t • Q ~ ~°dx3 O uZ ~ ;wZ~> ~u ~ ~ C9 o°~w > z?°u~o 2 ~. `~ ° N .00'0O~ ' N Y L ~ , 3` ~~~ ~~ ~6N w ~ ~ 90s ~ ~ / ~ ~ N ~ X ~ ~ W N O Zu w3 ~ U W O W , Q fY / C ~ i ~ i n ~q o ~ w + NOc~~ ~ O ~g19s00 w< O ~in~9~. z w ~ J Z ~ II ~ ' II w ~ z ¢ ~ ~ ~ ~ w~~0 Q cnwC~o[< <~~~ ~~o[wOON ~ ~~n~~~ w~O OO~~p~ p V ~ QOM tQ> ~~ O~°~wN~ ~- ~ ~~~ ~~ww Z O KN~N w o~[zZQLL ~ Nj~ ' ~ ~ ~ w ~ N - ;_ ~ F- J In N m t- H _ !1. ~ W ~Z~N 3 0X x~O O W OC>F lll Zocwc?N O W wwQ~ Na[F-¢O ~ pZinZF ~ N ~lLtt)W F- ~o3'x00 ~ to ,~ (n GQOwQ~ Q . • • • No~Th Q s~ 'U ~ ~ Q - ~ .~~~±sfi~~ e z ~ v ~ ,U ~ ~U ~~ 5 ~*k~~~?,~~ Cpj ~ ~ m ~ Z s ~' ~ S N .~ ors ~ ~ 3_=~~e 00 fl bQ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~~ ~~ ~ ~4 F~`~~~~ z~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l(~ ~ L Cl O (~ ~ ~ ~ k~o 3 b 5 ~'' S A Od '~' ~ N ~~ I I I I I I I I I L__ _ I ~ I I o I I I _ _-- I I r--~ I ~ I _ ~ I ------ ~ I I I I I I I I I L-----~ I I I I I I I z a u 4 z X U i O F ~u J ~ U a p p n u~ f ~ Z Q r M = r f _ a pin < n ~ o ~ r z ~ U`i U Zt1- J U ~ Z~u -~ - -- ---- ~ - r n~Y < FUp aC z~~ ~ 00~ u='~ ~ ~~~ 0~~9 ~u n~i= i i ~ O rfO i<~- ? K rpu 0 e u UI O'i, ..- • • • ~ ~ Q Q 3 0 ;; <;~~~~~g ~ u~ S~ S1 ~ N~ ~~ r EP '~`~~€ 3 ~ ~ v ~ ~ h c S ~ 1] ~1n ] !E ~ S'~' S5 a~9 ~ L 1..~ ~~ Z ~ a`. U ~ MM ~ ~~T ~~ k ~m3?3?s~~ ~ ~ ~Jv .^ O ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~~ ~ 1 L ~ i ~6 ~ O~ ~~ 1 ~E3~€~kr~ ~ ss~s~~3~~ ~~ ~ ~U~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ li ~ > OZS ~6 ~ ~ x ~ N ,i w , .O-~b I .O-.SZ ~\ - . - . - . - . - Z o I W LL W Q Z a Y O O ~ N m 3 W w ~ 3 z~ ~ w u z w -~ .9-.6 I -~ .9-, I Z (~ F X , W Z O n ~ w w Z 0 N a \ Q N/E5T ELEVATION v Q O Q = 0 u ~ ~ z o ~ o zw ~ $ Z~ o LL W .J } ~' g a Z r w ~ ~ o = ~- ~; ~ ~ ~ ~ w o~ ~ - 00 ~ O Z 4l UO z z O ~ N z ~ vz O ~ ~ < =w NvNv3L a OZOZO3 u ~pUppO ~NF~30 d ~~zrp~ v 0~~-U1z0 3 Z Q N w w ~- N w .- ~ ~ • Q L S~ 3 ~ '.. ~~sxg3~g ~ SS Z u S ~ Q Q ~ ~ ~ ~~ : k~~t~=A ~~ 83 k`3 KO O U U ~ ~ z C g9 N ~ N ~ ~~ ~ ~ ss~~ u ~ v V ,U O v T ~ ~ ~ c 3c c 4 >~ ey^~: 3 ~` O ~ ~~ ~ ~ V L N ~ ~ e~ L ~ ~ `°p C ,~ ~ ~e~~s ~' ~.- ~ " ~ ~ om ~ °a O ~ g ~` Z O t- .+ ~ II ~ z 0 w W I F Z ~' FIB I , ~' ~C~I ,~ ,lll u~i w Z ~ w W \ f w ~ ~ W r < ~ ~ O w ° Z - < I N LL YS ~----' D ~ ,A-5l '1~H 9NLLSIX3 ' Z O H U W N d' Z O H W _ - - - J w W E f ~ N .. - w Q w W w _ o ~ z 2 0 N E_ Z p `~ d Q Z F N W z Q J L O OC ~~ ~~~ ~ • • NOlld/,313 1Sd3 r • NIINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 2, 2002 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session, Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 6:00 p.m. Conference With Legal Counsel -Existing Litigation: (Government Code section 54956.9(a)) Name of case: Saratoga Fire Protection District v. City of Saratoga (Santa Clara County Superior Court No. CV-803540) Name of case: Arnett v. California Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) (LTS District Court Northern District of California No. C-953022 CRB) Name of case: Tsung-Chin Wu, Yuh-Ning Chen v. Parker Ranch Homeowners Association (Santa Clara County Superior Court No. CV-707015) • MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 Mayor Streit reported there was Council discussion but no action was taken. Mayor Streit called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and requested Dave Anderson, City Manager, to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Stan Bogosian, John Mehaffey Ann Waltonsmith, Vice Mayor Evan Baker, Mayor Nick Streit ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Jesse Baloca, Administrative Services Director John Cherbone, Director of Public Works REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR JANUARY 2, 2002 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of January 2, 2002 was properly posted on December 28 2001. City Council Minutes 1 January 2, 2002 COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The following person requested to speak at tonight's meeting: Ed Ferrell, 20877 Kittridge Road, noted that at a recent Fire Commission meeting the acquisition of the ladder truck that is mandated by the Boundary Drop Agreement is at risk. Mr. Ferrell explained that because the ladder truck will not fit into the current fire station, the truck would have to be bought and stored offsite. Because of this issue, Mr. Ferrell stated, Commissioner Jay Geddes suggested that the Boundary Drop Agreement be terminated. COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF None CEREMONIAL ITEMS 1 A. OATH OF OFFICE OF ART COMMISSION MEMBER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Administer Oath of Office Mayor Streit invited Mary Lou Taylor to come forward and directed the City Clerk to administer the Oath of Office. Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, administered the Oath of Office to Mary Lou Taylor. CONSENT CALENDAR " 2A. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register. WALTONSMITH/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO APPROVE THE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 5-0. City Council Minutes 2 January 2, 2002 2B. OCTOBER & NOVEMBER FIN_ ANCL4L REPORTS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept reports. WALTONSMITH/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO ACCEPT OCTOBER & NOVEMBER FINANCIAL REPORTS. MOTION PASSED 5-0 2C. CLAIM OF PATRICK LEUNG; CLAIM NO. GL-0053005 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Reject claim. Councilmember Bogosian requested that Item 2C be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Bogosian strongly stated that he would like to know what staff member was responsible for this error and requested that this item be removed from the Consent Calendar and continued to the meeting of January 16, 2002. Councilmember Mehaffey concurred with Councilmember Bogosai to continue this item to January 16, 2002. Councilmember Mehaffey requested that staff explain how Mr. Leung incurred the $680.00. Consensus of the City Council to continued the claim of Patrick Leung to January 16, 2001. OLD BUSINESS None Mayor Streit noted that it was not the appropriate time to begin the public hearing so he requested that Council move to Item 4. Consensus of the City Council to move to Item 4. NEW BUSINESS 4. PROPOSAL FOR ON-CALL PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF SARATOGA'S NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND MUNICIPAL TRAFFIC ENGINEERING STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve proposal from Fehr & Peers Associates and authorize City Manager to execute a Professional Consulting Agreement. John Cherbone, Director of Public Works, presented staff report. Director Cherbone explained that the Neighborhood Traffic Management program (NTMP) process was developed to identify strategies to mitigate negative traffic impacts. The neighborhoods, Sheriff s Office staff, NTMP Traffic Engineer, and City Council Minutes 3 January 2, 2002 city administrative staff will work together on solutions to traffic related issues. Director Cherbone noted that a Request for Proposals (RFP) describing the Citty's needs was sent to 27-Bay Area traffic Consulting firms and the City received four responses from the following firms: • Abrams Associates • Fehr & Peers Associates • CCS Planning and Engineering • Higgins Associates Director Cherbone noted that the deadline for submissions was on Friday, December 7, 2001. The assistant City manager, a member of the Public Safety Commission and the Public Works Director interviewed the firms on December 19, 2001. Director Cherbone noted that staff recommends Fehr & Peers Associates be approved as the City's on-call Traffic Consultant. Fehr & Peers thorough knowledge of the traffic conditions in Saratoga and their strong ability to work with the public makes them the ideal candidate for the NTMP process. The successful completion of the update of the City's Circulation Element and the numerous traffic studies they have prepared for Saratoga schools will enable them to shorten their learning curve concerning Saratoga traffic issues. Additionally, Sohrab Rashid will be the lead consultant to the City. Director Cherbone noted that Mr. Rashid has a proven ability to work with the public and has an established relationship with the City. Councilmember Bogosian asked if Fehr & Peers Associates were ever employed by the Mt. Winery. Attorney Taylor responded that Fehr & Peers worked for the City of Saratoga performing traffic studies in connection with the Mt. Winery. Vice Mayor Baker noted that Fehr & Peers Associates submitted the highest bid. Director Cherbone reiterated that staff and the Public Safety Commission thought because of the delicate nature of the NTMP Program, the City should have the best and most qualified traffic consultants to be dedicated to the NTMP process. Director Cherbone noted that although their bid was higher, Saratoga would save money in the long run because of the familiarity of Saratoga. Mayor Streit noted he supports staff's recommendation. Councilmember Mehaffey noted he has been very happy with the previous work performed for the City by Fehr & Peers. Councilmember Mehaffey requested that in the future all of the bidders ranges be made part of the report. Councilmember Bogosian asked if all four consultants were interviewed. City Council Minutes 4 January 2, 2002 Director Cherbone responded yes. Pricilla Ho, 12790 Woodmont Drive, questioned why Fehr & Peers is so much more qualified than the other firms. Ms. Ho suggested that before the Council approves the contract the Council should ask Fehr & Peers if they are willing to negotiate their fees. Preston Babb, 19923 Via Escuala, suggested that Fehr & Peers Associates be paid per project not at an hourly fee. City Manager Anderson explained that the NTMP comes into effect when a resident contacts the Public Safety Commission with a specific safety concern in their neighborhood. The issues and the size of the project vary; all neighborhoods are different. For that reason the City and any consultant cannot set a standardize price. Sohrab Rashid, Project Manager/Fehr and Peers and Associates, commented that during the interview process he was asked why Fehr & Peers rates were higher. Mr. Rashid explained that Fehr & Peers retains quality people to do the technical work while he does the neighborhood outreach and attends the Public Safety Commission meetings. Mr. Rashid stated that he is willing to negotiate a lower rate for his services. Councilmember Bogosian noted that in the future the staff report should show why we should select the highest bidder and what other firms fell short of compared to the preferred bidder. Director Cherbone stated that Fehr & Peers is the top consultant for the NTMP, particularly their staff who would be assigned to the City. City Manager Anderson noted that Fehr & peers have proven themselves with the City. - Director Cherbone noted that Fehr & Peers hourly rate maybe higher but per project they are lower. Director Cherbone sited the traffic signal project on Seagull Avenue as an example. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE PROPOSAL FROM FEHR & PEERS ASSOCIATES FOR ON CALL TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES. MOTION PASSED $-0. BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH FEHR & PEERS. MOTION PASSED 5-0. • City Council Minutes $ January 2, 2002 Vice Mayor Streit noted that it was the appropriate time to begin the Public Hearings and requested to move to Item 3. Consensus of the Council to move to Item 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. RESOLUTION ORDERING THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC .NUISANCE BY REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS WEEDS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Open Public Hearing; Close Public Hearing; Adopt Resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 02-001 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ORDERING ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE BY REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS WEEDS Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, presented staff report. City Clerk Boyer stated that the resolution before the City Council tonight represents the second step in Saratoga's weed abatement program administered by the County Fire Marshall. The County has sent owners of the parcels requiring weed abatement notices informing them that the weeds must be abated, either by the owners or by the County. The notice also informed them that they may present objections at tonight's public hearing: amity Clerk Boyer noted that Marty Hicks of the County Fire Marshall's Office was present and available to answer any questions Councilmembers may have on this topic. Mayor Streit opened the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. and invited any public comments. Marty Hick, County Fire Marshall's Office, noted that he had no comments but was available to answer questions that the Council may have. Councilmember Baker -asked Mr. Hicks if property owners are responding better to the County's notices and abating their weeds. Mr. Hicks noted that the number of parcels has decreased slightly. Mr. Hicks noted that several of the parcels on the list are parcels owned by public utility companies. Mr. Hicks explained that PG& E has requested to be on the abatement list, it is easier for the County to abate their property. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked if the County charges less for abatement than if the property hired a contractor. Mr. Hicks responded that the County actually charges 60 % more due to the fact that administrative fees need to be recovered. City Council Minutes 6 January 2, 2002 Councilmember Mehaffey noted that he does not approve of PG& E passing along the cost to abate their weeds to the taxpayers. Mayor Streit closed the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. MEHAFFEY/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION ORDERING THE ABATEMENT OF WEEDS. MOTION PASSED 5-0. AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Councilmember Mehaffey had no reportable information. Mayor Streit had no reportable information. Vice Mayor Baker stated that he has seen a noticeable difference at KSAR since the new Executive Director, Carolyn de los Santos, took over. Councilmember Baker noted that the programs are more informative and less boring. The board and staff have many good ideas and plans to improve the whole operation. Councilmember Bogosian requested a current list of the KSAR Board be provided to the Council. Vice Mayor Baker noted that due to the fact that Councilmember Bogosian was out of town, he attended the recent Silicon Valley Animal Control JPA meeting. Vice Mayor Baker stated that he was astonished by the progress they have made in just one year. Vice Mayor Baker noted that the JPA formed the Silicon Valley Animal Control from the ground up. Councilmember Bogosian stated that Assistant City Manager Tinfow should be thanked because she sits on the Technical Advisory Committee. Councilmember Bogosian noted that the Animal JPA should be completely up and running in 2003. Councilmember Waltonsmith reported the following information: • Chamber of Commerce -2002 Directory is complete • Sister City -planning their trip to Italy CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Bogosian noted that he recently attended the League of California Cities Annual Conference. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he had lunch with the members of the League's Peninsula division and had the opportunity to meet Saratoga's Grassroots Network Representative. Councilmember Bogosian suggested that the City invite Saratoga's Grassroots Representative to a future City Council meeting. City Council Minutes '] January 2, 2002 ,. Councilmember Waltonsmith expressed her concern with the excessive speeding through the Village. Councilmember Waltonsmith requested that the Public Safety Commission investigate this issue and asked if staff has addressed Dr. Gordon's concerns. Councilmember Mehaffey stated he supports Councihnember Waltonsmith request. Councilmember Bogosian noted that not only is speeding a problem but also driving under the influence. OTHER Mayor Streit announced that anAdjourned- Joint Meeting with the City Council, Youth Commission and the Library Commission is scheduled d for January 8, 2002. Mayor Streit briefly explained a few items that are scheduled for the January 16`'' City Council meeting. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager Anderson noted that he and his wife, Nita, had a wonderful vacation. City Manager Anderson noted that the three City Center Master Plan alternatives were on display in the Theater lobby. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Streit adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk • • City Council Minutes $ January 2, 2002 i MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL _ ADJOURNED MEETING JOINT SESSION HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2002 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in a scheduled Adjourned City Council Meeting on January 22, 2002 at the Adult Care Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue. Mayor Streit called the Adjourned City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and requested Dave Anderson, City Manager, to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. R(IT.T. C'AT.T. PRESENT: Councilmembers John Mehaffey (arrived after roll call was taken), Ann Waltonsmith, Vice Mayor Evan Baker, Mayor Nick Streit ABSENT: Councilmember Stan Bogosian ALSO Dave Anderson, City Manager PRESENT: Lori Tinfow, Assistant City Manager Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Tom Sullivan, Director of Community Development John Livingstone, Associate Planner/HPC Liaison John Cherbone, Public Works Director - Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR JANUARY 22, 2002 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of January 22, 2002 was properly posted on January 18, 2002. COMMUNICATIONS FROM PUBLIC The following person spoke at tonight's meeting: Kevin Schott, 19036 Saratoga Glen Place, noted that the F.A.C.T. Committee still supports the unification of the fire districts. Mr. Schott reported that the Saratoga Fire District is using the ladder truck storage issue as a reason to back out of the Boundary Drop Agreement. Mr. Schott noted that any control the City thought they had over the Saratoga Fire District is now in the hands of a judge. On behalf of the F.A.C.T. Committee Mr. Schott requested that the City Council participate with them in the LAFCO process. COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF None • JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNING COMMISSION Mayor Streit welcomed the Planning Commission. INTRODUCTION Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director introduced the following Planning Commissioners: Chair Cynthia Barry, Mike Garakani, Erna Jackman, Lisa Kurasch, George Roupe. Director Sullivan noted that Commissioners Jill Hunter and Ruchi Zutshi were unable to attend tonight's meeting. 2. HOUSING ELEMENT STATUS REPORT Director Sullivan noted that he would like to brief the Council on the status of the final issues of the Housing Element. Director Sullivan noted that after the City Council meeting on December 5, 2001 staff was directed to identify parcels that could be identified as mixed-use projects as requested by the state. Staff has Identified several areas in commercial zones that could be converted to mixed-use projects. Director Sullivan briefly cited the following areas that staff has identified as possible mixed use areas: • East side of Saratoga-Sunnyvale • West side ofSaratoga-Sunnyvale • West of Saratoga -South of Prospect • Cox -East of Saratoga Avenue • Blauer near Saratoga-Sunnyvale • South of Cox -West of Saratoga Director Sullivan noted that the Regional Housing Needs Determination is requiring the City of Saratoga to have 539 affordable housing units. 415 of those units have been accounted for, leaving 124 units that need to be planned for in the next five years. Due to the fact that Villa Montalvo does not use income as part of their selection criteria, the ten artist studios that were listed in the Housing Element as low income had to be moved to above moderate housing. Vice Mayor Baker noted that the City should protest that change. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that ten years ago the City Council tried an amnesty program. It did not work; not many people were interested because of the possibility of increased property taxes. Director Sullivan responded that only new additions are taxed. The original house is not reassessed. City Council Meeting 2 January 22, 2002 In regards to secondary units, Director Sullivan noted that the ordinance the City currently has is very onerous. Director Sullivan noted that after staff re-examined the potential sites, came up with the following options: • Option 1 - Identify as many potential sites for mixed use projects as possible • Option 2 -Identify one piece of property for amixed-use project that contains 42 apartment units of which 16 would have to be below market rate • Option 3 -Identify potential sites for mixed-use projects in the Gateway Area • Option 4 -Identify five contiguous pieces of property on the East Side of Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road that are most likely to convert in the next 5 years Director Sullivan noted that he recently had discussions with Mr. who was very open for a mixed-use development. Unfortunately, the property is zoned for office, so the City might want to only look into a zone change. Vice Mayor Baker pointed out that not one single property was identified South of Highway 85, and stated that none of the parcels identified were within the Saratoga School District. Vice Mayor Baker noted that he finds this hard to believe that not one single property within the Saratoga School District and North of Highway 85, would qualify for a mixed-use project. Director Sullivan responded that the only commercial area he left out of the mix, was the Village. Vice Mayor Baker pointed out that the Neale's Hollow, the Village, and all of the other properties adjacent to the Village, were all left out. Director Sullivan noted that staff could revisit the Village but cannot revisit property for the purpose of mixed use areas that are general planned for residential, due to Measure. G. Director Sullivan added that the parcels zoned CH-1 and CH-2 that make up the Village could be included, but there are not many opportunities when the City has the desire to save existing structures. Director Sullivan referred to the draft "Mixed Use Standards" handout he provided in the , packet. Director Sullivan briefly explained some of the proposed standards. Mayor Streit noted that perhaps the Mixed Use Standards could be used as an incentive to get property owners to redevelop. Mayor Streit suggested that property owners, in all possible areas, be asked if they would be interested in mixed-use projects. Mayor Streit noted that perhaps using this approach the City might get enough property owners willing to participate in mixed-use projects, that the City might avoid upsetting several other property owners. Ciry Council Meeting 3 January 22, 2002 Councilmember Mehaffey noted that he thinks resistance would not come from the . landowners, but from the property owners that abut against property lines of parcels that maybe identified as amixed-use project. Commissioner Jackman asked if there were any assistant programs to help fund the projects for low-income housing. Director Sullivan noted that Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) could be utilized, and other funding sources are available. City Manager Anderson added that the City recently contributed to the Housing Trust Fund. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that the City is not picking the places that must have low-cost housing. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that the City should look at the Housing Element as an exercise and question what is it going to do to the Saratoga constituency. Councihnember Waltonsmith noted that she supports spreading out the numbers throughout the entire city. Director Sullivan responded that this was an exercise to get the Housing Element approved. Commissioner Kurasch commented that she agreed with Vice Mayor Baker to include the Village. Commissioner Kurasch noted that there are several under utilized areas in the Village and noted that other cities are converting parking lots into mixed use projects on the upper levels and underground parking. Commissioner Jackman suggested the City come up with a plan to approach builders and offer funds if they would be willing to build low-income housing. Commissioner Roupe noted that he supports Option 1, but wonders if the state would think it is too broad. Director Sullivan noted that the state reviewer might ask the City to narrow the list down, but if the City could support the property identified, the state might accept Option 1. Chair Barry stated that it is the City's job to look at the zoning requirements that would permit low cost housing, but not to guarantee that they would get built. Chair Barry noted that the way she has looked at the Housing Element was how could it best serve the serve the residents and the needs of the city. • Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that identifying several properties in the City of Saratoga instead of pinpointing a few, is the better way to go. Vice Mayor Baker strongly stated that he disagrees with Chair Barry. Vice Mayor Baker stated that all of the material he has read on this issue, in the last ninety days, clearly indicates that in the next ten years, the state will dictate the cities do whatever is required to build the identified units m cities Housing Elements. City Council Meeting L~ January 22, 2002 Commissioner Roupe noted that the City's primary objective is to get the Housing Element approved; putting the least amount of constraints on the City, and worry about the • consequences in the future. Vice Mayor Baker noted that the City should separate what we are trying do and what the state has already done. Councilmember Baker noted that the City should inform the citizens of Saratoga what the state has done, so the City is not to blame. Vice Mayor Baker stated that every city in the state of California will have ahigh-density area for low cost housing, no matter what. Norman Kopernik, PO Box 2308, referred to a chart in the draft Housing Element that shows new secondary units. Mr. Kopernik suggested that the square footage of a secondary unit be in addition to the main house. Director Sullivan responded that the City's code regarding secondary units is unclear. Councihnember Mehaffey directed staff to be very clear in the notice that will be sent out to property owners, that the City is not targeting them, but identifying properties that are most likely to change in the next five years. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that the new Measure G is coming to an end in March, and her fear is that property owners in the Village might approach the city requesting to build above-market rate housing. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that the City could not prevent property owners from building, because there are no sites in the Village identified in the Housing Element as low-income housing. Director Sullivan concurred with Councilmember Waltonsmith and suggested that the Council adopt an interim ordinance and implement design standards until the City develops anew ordinance. Mayor Mehaffey noted that before Measure G expires, the City Council should agendize it for discussion. Director Sullivan reviewed staff direction as follows: • Add Neale's Hallow and the Village • Notice all property owners that will be identified on the Housing Element map and and surrounding residents around an identified parcel. 3. LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE ISSUES Director Sullivan showed the Council a Land Use Element map and pointed out the commercial properties and quasi-public properties. Director Sullivan stated that 98% of the city, as far as land use planning, planning has already been accomplished. Director Sullivan explained that the City's efforts will be to clean up the language of the narrative part of the old land use element, clearly state the policies that deal with 98% of the city, and focus our efforts on the other 2%. City Council Meeting 5 January 22, 2002 Director Sullivan explained that after staff and the Planning Commission draft a Land Use Element, he hopes to bring to Council for approval a clear; easy to understand Land Use Element. Director Sullivan added that after the Land Use Element is revised, he hopes to revise the Zoning Map so it is consistent with the General Plan. Vice Mayor Baker asked what zoning designations schools have. Director Sullivan responded that they are general planned as school property, but also have a variety of residential zoning. Vice Mayor Baker noted that the City should change the zoning so that if a school district wanted to sell the property, they cannot sell it for anything other than a school. Vice Mayor Baker noted that the City has lost too many schools in the past, to houses. Commissioner Roupe asked what the remaining 2% was on the Land Use Element map. Director Sullivan responded that remaining 2% was designated commercial. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the proposed single story overlay would affect the Land Use Element. Director Sullivan noted the proposed overlay would be n amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. Councilmember Waltonsmith referred to the Union Pacific Railroad Trail that she and Analyst Bloomquist have been working on. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked how to prevent developers from building on the land if the Railroad ever decides to sell it. Director Sullivan noted that the land should have been adopted as part of the Circulation Element, which in turn would be designated in the Land User Element. Mayor Streit thanked the Planning Commission for attending tonight's meeting. Mayor Streit declared a recess at 8:15 p.m. Mayor Streit reconvened the meeting at 8:20 p.m. JOINT MEETING WITH HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION INTRODUCTION John Livingstone, Associate Plaruier/Staff Liaison HPC, introduced the following Heritage Preservation Commissioners: Dora Grens, Chair Norman Koepernik, Willys Peck, and Robert Peepari. Planner Livingstone noted that Commissioners Phylis Ballingall and Carolyn King were unable to attend tonight's meeting. City Council Meeting 6 January 22, 2002 2. GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE COMMISSION - _ Chair Koepernik explained the current projects that the Heritage Preservation Commission were working on: • Heritage Calendar • Austin Way- Heritage Lane designation • Heritage Orchard signage • Heritage Orchard kiosk • Mustard Walk on February 10, 2002 Chair Koepernik explained the following future projects: • Continue heritage house tours Re-establishing the Blossom Festival Chair Koepernik explained the following continuing projects: • Heritage Orchard educational programs • Continue to identify heritage houses Councilmember Waltonsmith asked if the HPC reproduced or updated the inventory book. Planner Livingstone responded that staff was able to reproduce the book in house, and the book is available to the public. Vice Mayor Baker suggested that the HPC contact Carolyn de los Santos, Executive Director of KSAR,:and see if the HPC could collaborate with her to air historical videos on Saratoga. Commissioner Peck noted that the Saratoga Historical Foundation is currently working with Ms. de los Santos on a video of historical facts of Saratoga. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked if the upcoming "Mustard Walk" would be videotaped. Planner Livingstone responded that the Economic Development Coordinator would be taping various aspects of the event. Mayor Streit noted that he is looking forward to the Heritage Orchard educational programs. 3. DISCUSSION ON THE CURRENT HEIGHT LIMIT OF 26 FEET FOR RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES Chair Koepernik noted that at the last Joint Meeting with the City Council and the Heritage Preservation Commission, a discussion took place regarding the possibility of City Council Meeting changing the height limitation of 26 feet for residential structures. 7 January 22, 2002 Chair Koepernik suggested that the increase in height should not be limited to just historic structures, but also for any structure. Chair Koepernik noted that there are isolated cases where you could go over the 26 feet. Chair Koepernik noted that he believes the City would see better architecture. Vice Mayor Baker asked if the rest of the Commission agreed with his suggestion. Chair Koepernik responded that the HPC agrees that the height limitation should be removed from historic houses. Mayor Streit commented that the Planning Commission already waives the height limitation with the use of variances. Mayor Streit noted that if there is a consensus amongst the Commission, guidelines should be drafted and presented to the Planning Commission. Mayor Streit suggested that the HPC agendize this issue for a future HPC meeting, and come back to Council with the Commission's recommendation. Mayor Streit thanked the HPC for coming to tonight's meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR 3A. APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING -JANUARY 8, 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve meeting minutes. WALTONSMITH/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 8, 2002. MOTION 4-0 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. NEW BUSINESS 4. ADOPT RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE ROBERTI-Z'BERG-HARRIS URBANIZED AREA NEEDS-BASIS GRANT APPLICATION FOR THE AZULE PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 02-005 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR THE ROBERTI-Z'BERG-HARRIS URBAN OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PROGRAM UNDER THE SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, AND COASTAL PROTECTION BOND ACT OF 2000 Cary Bloomqu>st, Adm><mstrative Analyst, presented staff report. City Council Meeting 8 January 22, 2002 Analyst Bloomquist explained that Staff filed an application for the Roberti-Z'Berg-Harris Urbanized Area Competitive Grant on November 1, 2001. The grant is offered through the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation and is directly connected to the passage of the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000. This particular grant requires a local match of 30% from non-state monies. Analyst Bloomquist noted that the City applied for the maximum grant amount allowable, $250,000, with a local match amount of $107,143. As part of the 5-year Capital Improvement Budget, Council approved $880,000 for the Azule Park Project. If the grant application is approved, the $107,143 local match will come from this budget. Analyst Bloomquist stated that the attached resolution in support of the grant application is due February 1, 2002. Staff is requesting Council adopt this resolution in order to complete the grant application process. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked if staff used the City's contracted grant writer. Analyst Bloomquist responded he completed the grant application himself. WALTONSMITH/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE. GRANT APPLICATION FOR THE ROBERT-Z'BERG-HARRIS URBAN OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PROGRAM. MOTION PASSED 4-0 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. 5. CONGRESS SPRINGS GRAND OPENING STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Set date. Consensus of the City Council to set the date for the grand opening ceremony for Congress Springs Park for February 9, 2002 in conjunction with the opening day of the Saratoga Little League. Council's direction to staff was to inform the Parks and Recreation Commission of the date and contact Saratoga Little League. 6. DISCUSSION NTMP/STCP STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Informational only. Lori Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report. Assistant City Manager Tinfow stated in preparation for the joint study session with school officials on February 12, 2002 copies of both the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program and the School Traffic Calming Program were attached to Council's staff reports. Assistant Manager Tinfow noted that she was available to answer any questions. City Council Meeting 9 January 22, 2002 Mayor Streit stated that it is important that the Council familiarize themselves with the two programs, because they are the main topics for the joint meeting on February 12, 2002. Mayor Streit noted that if the Council had any questions prior to the joint meeting to contact Assistant City Manager Tinfow or Public Safety Commissioner Bridgett Ballingall. Assistant City Manager Tinfow commented that she would be holding the first NTMP on Thursday, January 24, 2002 with the Village Green neighborhood. 7. APPOINTMENT OF MAYOR NICK STREIT AS THE 3RD ALTERNATE ON THE SOLID WASTE JOINT POWERS ASSOCIATION. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve appointment. Mayor Streit noted that due to conflicting schedules, the Councilmembers assigned to represent the City at the JPA meeting on January 30, 2002, are not able to attend. Mayor Streit noted that he is available to attend the meeting. WALTONSMITH/MEHAFFEY MOVED TO APPOINT MAYOR NICK STREIT AS San ALTERNATE TO THE SOLID WASTE JOINT POWERS ASSOCIATION. MOTION PASSED 4-0 WITH BOGOSIAN ABSENT. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Waltonsmith requested an update on the meeting concerning the Norton Road fire access road. Vice Mayor Baker responded that Councilmember Bogosian walked the fire road leading up above the City road across the undeveloped property that would connect the artist studios that would feed into the already existing road at Villa Montalvo. Vice Mayor Baker reported that Councilmember Bogosian also walked down the canyon, known as Wild Cat Road, that Villa Montalvo has requested that the City assist them in establishing it so it would connect the artist residences down the canyon to the bottom, making it a third egress/ingress road. Vice Mayor Baker noted that Councilmember Bogosian reported that it is feasible to build a fire escape road on upper Norton Road that would connect into the roadway to the artist residences, but developing Wild Cat Road is out of the question. Councilmember Waltonsmith requested that a complete cost summary of the Congress Springs Park Renovation Project be given to the City Council. OTHER None C, City Council Meeting 1 ~ ~ January 22, 2002 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT i City Manager Anderson noted that Mike Evanhoe from VTA would be attending the next West Valley Mayor/Manager meeting to discuss the noise mitigation efforts on Highway 85. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p'.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk • City Council Meeting 11 January 22, 2002