HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-09-2004 Planning Commission Minutes
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, June 9, 2004
PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Chair Garakani called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Hunter, Garakani, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Zutshi
Absent: Commissioner Uhl
Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner John Livingstone, Associate Planner Christy
Oosterhous and Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of May 26, 2004.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the
Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of May 26, 2004, were
adopted as submitted with a minor correction to page 3. (6-0-1; Commissioner Uhl
was absent)
ORAL COMMUNICATION
There were no Oral Communications.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this
meeting was properly posted on June 3, 2004.
REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS
Director Tom 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).
CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar Items.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 2
***
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1
APPLICATION #04-019 (397-09-009) GUDAPATI AND MEKA, 19170 Monte Vista Drive: The
applicants request Design Review Approval to demolish the existing structures on the lot and construct
a new one-story 6,156 square foot home with a 2,434 square foot basement. The maximum height of
the proposed residence will not exceed 26 feet. The net lot size is 49,840 square feet and the property is
zoned R-1-40,000. (LATA VASUDEVAN)
Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicant is seeking approval to demolish existing structures on site and construct a
6,156 square foot, one-story home with a 2,434 square foot basement.
• Described the architectural style as Early Californian Spanish eclectic incorporating two-piece clay
tile and beige stucco. A round tower element breaks the horizontal elements of the façade. The
maximum height will be 26 feet.
• Added that varying roof heights result in only a small portion of the house being 26 feet tall. There
is a 14-foot tall entry gate element.
• Said that the home is proposed for the center of the site and includes a three-car garage at a side
façade. The home represents a pleasing style that will blend in well with this neighborhood.
• Informed that the applicant has shown the plans to neighbors and that no negative comments were
received.
• Stated that the across-the-street neighbor (at 19135 Monte Vista Drive) has verbally indicated
concern regarding the placement and final growth height of the replacement trees.
• Said that the applicant is willing to plant trees not to exceed 24 feet in height at maturity as a result
of that neighbor’s concerns over loss of view of the hillside if taller trees were to be planted. This
condition has been included in the draft resolution.
• Recommended that this condition actually be amended slightly so as to allow one tree that is taller
than 24 feet in height at maturity to be planted at the northwest corner of the site. The tree species
and sizes would be subject to staff approval.
• Informed that the Arborist had recommended revisions to the house plan to protect Tree #4 (Oak)
and #8, #9 and #13 (Cedar). However, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and
decided that Tree #4 could be removed.
• Said that the applicant has included a Tree Preservation Plan and proposes to remove Tree #4.
• Stated that an added condition is proposed requiring the Arborist to review plans prior to issuance
of building permits.
• Said that the necessary findings to support this proposal can be made and that staff recommends
approval of the project with the revision to the conditions to allow one 24-foot plus tall tree while
the rest of the replacement trees would be no taller than 24 feet tall at maturity.
Commissioner Hunter asked if staff is comfortable with the 24-foot height limitation when the neighbor
wants an 18-foot maximum height for the replacement trees.
Planner Lata Vasudevan said that one neighbor, Judge John McInerney, wants the 18-foot limitation.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 3
Commissioner Nagpal asked if staff is proposing any height limitation for the one tree that is greater
than 24-feet tall at maturity.
Planner Lata Vasudevan replied no.
Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1.
Mr. Marty Oakley, Project Designer and Builder:
• Said that staff has clearly outlined the proposal.
• Added that he is available for any questions.
Commissioner Hunter said that the home is very presentable.
Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Marty Oakley if he has seen the letter requesting an 18-foot tree height
limitation at full maturity of the trees and what he thinks of that request.
Mr. Marty Oakley said he would defer this to the property owner, Mr. Gudapati.
Judge John McInerney, Monte Vista Drive, Saratoga:
• Apologized to the Commission for the late filing of his letter.
• Advised that he and his wife reside across the street.
• Assured that he has no objection to the proposed home.
• Admitted that he had thought that a separate hearing would occur later regarding the issue of
landscaping.
• Expressed concern about the proposal for four new Oak trees along the drive as this species of tree
grows too tall and said there is no need for four large trees along Monte Vista Drive, which would
destroy his view of the mountains.
• Said that this is already a heavily forested property. The northwest corner already has three very
large Cypress trees that have been there a long time.
• Expressed concern about the idea of adding another large tree there.
• Mentioned that he has two large magnolias on his own property. There had once been three but one
was removed to allow a view of the mountains.
• Explained that his home was constructed in 1952.
Commissioner Hunter reported that the Commission had occasion to make two long visits to this site.
Judge John McInerney said that 24-foot tall trees are higher than necessary and that 18-foot tall trees
would be more than adequate. He asked the Commission to impose a 18-foot maximum height
limitation for these replacement trees as failure to do so would impact him and his family in future
years as it would obstruct the views of the mountains that they appreciate.
Commissioner Hunter asked Judge McInerney if he has any suggestions and would he be willing to
work with the applicants to select something acceptable to all.
Judge John McInerney assured that this is not an adversarial situation here. He knows Mrs. Gudapati
better than Mr. Gudapati but is simply asking them to select low-lying trees like the others along Monte
Vista. The height of 18 feet maximum was proposed because that is the height of the utility wires.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 4
Dr. O’Donnell, 19135 Monte Vista Drive, Saratoga:
• Said that he resides across the street from this proposed new residence.
• Said that he is surprised by the proposed tree height of 24-feet.
• Said that Mrs. Gudapati has been very cooperative.
• Advised that he has no problems with the plans for this home.
• Stated that the view of the mountains is very important. They have panoramic views of the hills
from his home.
• Said that he has spoken with Planner Lata Vasudevan regarding having the replacement trees no
higher than the lowest utility wire when the tree reaches full maturity and that he has no problem
with that height.
• Added that whatever tree species the Gudapatis want to choose is fine but that the proposed Coastal
Live Oaks would be a disaster to his view.
• Reiterated his preferences for trees that do not exceed 18 feet in height and that he is fine with the
proposed home.
Mr. Marty Oakley said that in order to be allowed to remove Tree #4, replacement trees are required by
the City’s Tree Ordinance. Said that they are recommending four 36-inch box trees to satisfy that
requirement.
Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Marty Oakley if the Arborist has specifically required replacement
trees.
Planner Lata Vasudevan advised that in the draft resolution is the requirement to have the Arborist
review the grading and landscaping plans. She added that other trees would also be removed from the
site to accommodate this new home.
Commissioner Hunter pointed out that when an Oak tree is removed, a property owner is generally
asked to plan a replacement Oak somewhere else on the property.
Mr. Marty Oakley said that they propose four replacement Oak trees for the removal of Tree #4 and
three 24-inch box Redwood trees along the eastern property line. He questioned if those are no longer
considered necessary.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if it is he who suggested replacing Tree #4 with four new trees.
Mr. Marty Oakley replied yes, based upon previous experience in the City.
Planner Lata Vasudevan said that it is not required that the replacement trees be located at the front of
this property.
Mr. Marty Oakley said that they picked the front to place these trees because there is no room for them
at the rear of the property.
Chair Garakani disagreed, saying that there is room on this site to plant 100 new trees.
Mr. Marty Oakley clarified that they want to retain a useable yard space.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 5
Chair Garakani asked how the property owners feel about the 18-foot maximum height limitation for
the replacement trees.
Mr. Gudapati, Property Owner and Applicant, 19170 Monte Vista Drive, Saratoga:
• Expressed appreciation for his neighbors’ attendance and the fact that they like his proposed new
home.
• Said it is not his intent to upset his neighbors.
• Explained that the 24-foot proposed maximum height was decided upon because Dr. O’Donnell had
indicated that he was okay as long as the new trees fell below the wire heights at maturity. The
lowest wire is 21 feet and the next above it is 24 feet, hence the 24-foot proposal.
• Pointed out that the northwest corner of the property has tall cedar trees that are already 65 to 70
feet tall but that there is space for one more, located 40 feet away from Tree #1 and 50 feet away
from Tree #3. He is suggesting that they place a tree there. This doesn’t obstruct anything from the
neighbors.
Chair Garakani suggested that something other than Oaks be considered.
Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Gudapati if he would be willing to comply with the 18-foot maximum
height for these replacement trees.
Mr. Gudapati replied yes.
Commissioner Hunter agreed that placing one more tree near the Cedars would not cause a problem.
Judge John McInerney said that the view is already blocked by the existing trees so why block them
more with additional trees.
Commissioner Hunter suggested that no tall trees be added to the left of the Cedars.
Judge John McInerney said that this area is less of a priority since there are already three tall trees there.
Mr. Gudapati said that he had believed that the Judge was okay with one additional tree near the
Cedars.
Chair Garakani said that this represents a unique situation, as usually more trees are wanted.
Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1.
Commissioner Hunter:
• Stated that the house design is very nice.
• Expressed appreciation for the opportunity to visit the site twice.
• Said that she appreciates people who love trees but understands that the neighbors across the way
want to see the hills.
• Suggested that trees about the same height as the existing oleanders or a bit higher would be very
workable for all involved.
• Declared that this will be a lovely home.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 6
Commissioner Rodgers said that there are a nice variety of trees on this property and some flexibility to
allow the owners to plant trees than enhance the property should be allowed.
Commissioner Nagpal:
• Said that this home has a beautiful design.
• Pointed out that there is already a lot of screening on this property.
• Supported the placement of Oaks elsewhere on the property or lowering the maximum height if
planted at the front of the property.
Chair Garakani:
• Said he too appreciates the natural hills and can understand that the neighbors enjoy their views.
• Said that it is a good suggestion to select lower growing trees for the front of this property.
• Stated that he does not want to see a loss of views of the hills for either the Gudapatis or their
neighbors.
Commissioner Zutshi:
• Stated that this will be a beautiful house.
• Said that she is flexible on the number of replacement trees, as the front appears to have enough
screening as it is.
Chair Garakani said if the owners choose to add some trees, they should maintain the 18-foot maximum
height.
Commissioner Hunter said that when the oleanders are removed that area would be bare. She suggested
the retention of these oleanders.
Commissioner Nagpal asked what the suggestion is for the northwest front corner.
Commissioner Schallop said that it should be clarified if the recommendations in the Arborist’s report
are being altered.
Chair Garakani said that using the height of the utility wires is a good idea whereby the maximum
height of these new trees is not to exceed the lowest wire height.
Director Tom Sullivan assured that the number and species of replacement trees could be worked out
between the staff, Arborist and applicants.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the
Planning Commission approved a Design Review request to demolish existing
structures on a lot and construct a new one-story 6,156 square foot home with a
2,434 square foot basement on property located at 19170 Monte Vista Drive with
the added condition that the replacement trees in the northwest portion of the
property are not to exceed the height of the bottom telephone wires or a maximum
of 18 to 20 feet in height, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Uhl
ABSTAIN: None
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 7
***
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2
APPLICATION #03-132 (510-01-004) – KIM, 19870 Mendelsohn Lane: Request Design Review
Approval to demolish and rebuild a significant portion of the existing house and add 904 square feet to
the existing 3,429 square foot house for a total floor area of 4,333 square feet. The height of the
structure will not exceed 21 feet. The gross lot size is 18,750 square feet and zoned R-1-20,000.
(JOHN LIVINGSTONE)
Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to demolish and rebuild a significant
portion of an existing house and add 904 square feet for a total of 4,333 square feet and a maximum
height of 21 feet.
• Added that the gross lot is 18,750 square feet and the zoning is R-1-20,000.
• Said that the demolition represents about 44 percent of the existing exterior walls.
• Stated that staff had recommended that this applicant apply for an administrative Design Review
approval but that the increased roof height to 21 feet required Planning Commission approval.
Residential structures less than 18 feet in height are handled over the counter.
• Explained that the architectural styles vary in this neighborhood.
• Described the building materials as stucco and stone in light beige with a grey slate roof.
• Advised that this proposal is consistent with Design Review findings and that there are no view
impacts. The home is proposed as a one-story home with a maximum height of 21 feet. Existing
mature trees will remain. No trees are proposed for removal.
• Said that there are varying roof lines and the stone façade adds character and interest. The home
sits far into the lot and that no negative correspondence has been received.
• Informed that this proposed is consistent with the General Plan and the City’s Residential Design
Handbook.
• Recommended approval and advised that the applicant is here this evening.
Chair Garakani asked about the proposal for four chimneys on this home.
Director Tom Sullivan said that some of these elements are skylights.
Associate Planner John Livingstone said that per code only one fireplace would be wood burning. Any
others would be gas.
Commissioner Zutshi asked if there are a total of three chimneys proposed.
Chair Garakani said that there is one existing chimney.
Associate Planner John Livingstone said that the applicant could discuss the design concept.
Commissioner Zutshi said that this is almost like rebuilding a new house. She asked if the setbacks stay
as they are.
Associate Planner John Livingstone replied yes.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 8
Commissioner Nagpal asked if any Variances are required.
Associate Planner John Livingstone said no, adding that if the home were to be completely demolished,
they would have to bring the structure back. However, it is staying intact.
Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2.
Mr. Hubert Larga, Project Architect:
• Explained that they are expanding the house from the front side and that there are no changes from
the back and sides.
• Advised that there is one existing wood burning fireplace and they are proposing three new gas
fireplaces. Two are located side by side for the living and family rooms. The third new fireplace is
for the master bedroom.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if it is possible to have one stack to serve both the living and family room
fireplaces.
Mr. Hubert Larga replied if necessary.
Commissioner Nagpal sought clarification that the proposal currently includes four fireplace stacks.
Mr. Hubert Larga replied yes.
Director Tom Sullivan advised the Commission that it appears that two different sets of plans have been
distributed. One set of plans has the fireplaces back to back to serve the family room and living room.
Another set of plans has the fireplaces more separated and requiring separate chimney stacks.
Chair Garakani said he would prefer to see the home limited to three chimneys rather than four.
Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2.
Commissioner Zutshi:
• Said that she is fine with the project.
• Said that she supports the proposal to have the two fireplaces placed back to back to share a
chimney stack.
• Reminded that one stack is also required for kitchen exhaust.
Commissioner Hunter asked if there is a restriction in the number of stacks a home could have.
Director Tom Sullivan replied no. There is only a restriction for a single wood-burning fireplace per
structure.
Commissioner Nagpal said that she would like to see just three stacks.
Director Tom Sullivan clarified that the kitchen exhaust would simply be a vent and not a chimney.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 9
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Zutshi, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the
Planning Commission granted a Design Review Approval to demolish and rebuild a
significant portion of the existing house and add 904 square feet for a total floor
area of 4,333 square feet on property located at 19870 Mendelsohn Lane, with the
added condition that the fireplaces for the living a family rooms be placed back-to-
back in order to share a chimney stack, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Uhl
ABSTAIN: None
***
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3
APPLICATION #03-245 (517-22-073) MASSIE, 15301 Peach Hill Road: The applicant is requesting
Design Review Approval for a detached secondary dwelling unit. Design review is required because
the allowable floor area on the site exceeds 6,000 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed
structure is 14 feet, 6 inches. The proposed floor area of the structure is 602 square feet. Total floor
area on the site, including the main residence and garage, would be 6,598 square feet. The property is
zoned R-1-40,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS)
Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to construct a 602 square foot
detached secondary dwelling unit with a maximum height of 14 feet, 6 inches. The unit will include
a slate roof and cobblestone accents. The color is sand, which matches the main residence.
• Explained that in July 2001, the applicant received Design Review Approval for a new home and
pool.
• Added that the Planning Commission is reviewing this secondary unit this evening only because it
results in a total floor area on the site in excess of 6,000 square feet. Only the design is up for
consideration as the secondary dwelling unit is allowed by right.
• Informed that the Code limitations for one wood burning fireplace is per structure rather than per
property.
• Said that the neighbor to the north has concerns. To address those concerns, modifications have
been made to the plans, including a reduction in height, a shift in the positioning of the footprint and
additional landscape screening.
• Advised that geotechnical review and clearance has been issued.
• Said that this proposal is consistent with required findings and recommended approval.
Commissioner Hunter pointed out three letters and said there appears to be some confusion about why
secondary units are allowed by right. Asked if the Commission has the authority to pick the siting of
the unit on this property and suggested that staff explain the State Law pertaining to second units.
Director Tom Sullivan:
• Explained that legislation was adopted and took effect a year ago whereby the State took away any
City or County right to hold hearings to approve secondary dwelling units. They are permissible as
a right and cannot be reviewed at public hearings.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 10
• Added that if a proposal reflects a conversion into a second unit, that request is handled over the
counter.
• Said that if a proposal is for a new second unit, it comes before the Planning Commission for
Design Review only and not the use itself. The City has no authority to say yes or no to second
dwelling units.
• Clarified that if there were no kitchen facility, this would be a guest house rather than a second
dwelling unit and would require a Use Permit approval.
• Added that a deed restriction is proposed that states if this unit were to be rented, it would be rented
as a BMR (below market rate) unit. This is an incentive to meet the Housing requirements assigned
to the City of Saratoga.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if the deed restriction lasts forever.
Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. He added however that most likely these units would never be
rented.
Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous advised that this unit is in the general area of the previous second
unit on this property that was demolished prior to construction of the new main house.
Commissioner Hunter:
• Pointed out that the previous unit was visible from Peach Hill Road.
• Said that there have been two letters submitted expressing concern about the visibility of the new
garage.
• Asked if staff had heard from these neighbors at the time that the original house plan was reviewed.
Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that she asked the project planner that handled that
application but he didn’t recall.
Commissioner Rodgers asked if the proposed screening is sufficient to help alleviate the concern of the
neighbors across the street.
Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous said that the screening was more for the neighbors to the north
driveway. There are some Oak trees along Peach Hill Road.
Chair Garakani asked if the cherry trees would be removed.
Commissioner Hunter said their removal is not proposed in the landscape plan.
Chair Garakani questioned why this unit was not considered at the same time that the main house and
pool were considered.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that the change in the law that took effect last year now allows this unit
while previous requirements had onerous conditions. There were very few legally established second
units in the City under the old ordinance. The City had to unadopt its old ordinance and create new
requirements.
Commissioner Hunter asked if cabanas could be changed into secondary living units.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 11
Director Tom Sullivan said that there are no design review issues for second living units. They must
simply meet setbacks, heights, materials and parking requirements.
Commissioner Nagpal clarified that the Commission would not be looking at this at all if it were not for
the fact that the site exceeds 6,000 square feet in total floor area.
Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3.
Mr. Bob Flurry, Project Designer:
• Introduced himself and said he was available for any questions from the Commission as was his
client, Mr. Massie.
Chair Garakani asked about the mitigation of the corner of the property.
Mr. Bob Flurry said that no conclusion has been reached since the site visit with the neighbor.
Commissioner Hunter asked where the screening landscaping would be planted.
Mr. Bob Flurry said the location was determined to screen Mrs. Johnson’s property.
Commissioner Hunter said that she spent a lot of time on site today and pointed out that two neighbors
who had concerns could not be here tonight.
Commissioner Nagpal asked about the retaining wall in the area in which it was not installed.
Mr. Bob Flurry said that the original plan had been to put it all around but that he was not involved with
the project at that time. The retaining wall will remain as currently built.
Chair Garakani pointed out that the applicant has two children and questioned their safety.
Commissioner Hunter asked who the man was that was there during the site visit.
Mr. Bob Flurry said that the man was the project manager.
Commissioner Hunter asked if the neighbors had attended the original public hearing.
Mr. Tony Massie, Property Owner and Applicant, 15301 Peach Hill Road, Saratoga:
• Replied no.
• Added that they had come to agreement regarding screening.
Chair Garakani asked Mr. Massie about the plans to ensure the safety of his children to prevent them
from falling off the slope.
Mr. Tony Massie replied that the area is not that steep. Instead the area of concern is the west side of
the property and they will put railings in there.
Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Tony Massie if he would be willing to remove the concrete pathway at
the edge of the property.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 12
Mr. Tony Massie advised that they originally did not install the retaining wall at that portion because
Mrs. Johnson didn’t want it there.
Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Tony Massie if he has any problem letting the grass grow to the edge
with the removal of the path and installing the retaining wall there if necessary as well as putting in
additional screening.
Mr. Tony Massie advised that Mrs. Johnson wanted a view of the hill but that he prefers screening
himself.
Dr. Serita Johnson, 15277 Peach Hill Road, Saratoga:
• Said that it is satisfying to see the work done by the Planning Commission.
• Opined that the staff report is biased.
• Said she submitted a letter against this project.
• Stated that the desert tan paint color appears yellow or gold.
• Said that the secondary dwelling unit would be located next to the large garage and that the house
and garage already appear bulk. This cabana will provide more bulk to the area.
• Advised that the reduced height and extended setback does not adequately satisfy her concerns.
• Provided copies of the City’s Design Review Handbook, reading a portion that states that
landscaping is not intended to mitigate design mistakes.
• Said that the previous secondary unit was a one story structure with a flat roof. She could only see
a small portion from her property.
• Expressed her disagreement that this unit will be an improvement.
• Said that she had two visits with staff and felt that her concerns were glossed over.
• Stated that she is fearful of landslides.
• Declared that 6,000 square feet in structures for this property is larger than what exists on
surrounding properties.
• Stated she has a problem with privacy, views, noise and heights.
• Asked that the Commission not rely on landscaping to reduce the appearance of bulk.
• Added that privacy should be addressed in the design phase per page 18 of the Design Handbook.
Additionally, the handbook suggests avoiding siting at the sides of lots, not to block views. Her
view is being blocked by this cabana.
• Stated that several provisions of the Design Handbook are being ignored.
• Questioned why the City is so eager to approve this secondary dwelling unit and the reason behind
the deed restriction for low-income housing.
• Suggested that this is an abuse of the intent of the law, which was not created to build cabanas.
• Said that this makes no sense and that she is offended that this can be done with her concerns so
minimally addressed.
Commissioner Hunter asked Dr. Serita Johnson if the terrace area at the front of her house is a chief
outdoor area or is another portion of the yard used more frequently.
Dr. Serita Johnson said that they have a deck that they use often.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 13
Commissioner Rodgers said that the Commissioners had tried to hear Dr. Serita Johnson’s concerns out
during yesterday’s site visit. She asked staff if the intent of the modified State law is not to allow
cabanas.
Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous advised that this unit has a kitchen with cooking facilities, which
makes it a secondary dwelling unit.
Commissioner Rodgers asked if there are differing opinions on interpretations of the State law, which
allows secondary dwelling units as a matter of law.
Dr. Serita Johnson replied that she thinks it is a sham.
Commissioner Rodgers said that she does not like to see a structure there as she does not believe it
complies with the spirit of State law.
Dr. Serita Johnson suggested that it be relocated elsewhere on this property.
Commissioner Hunter asked where the original pool used to be situated on this property.
Dr. Serita Johnson replied down a flight of stairs in back of the property. She added that during the site
visit with the Commissioners, they discussed trees, views, etc., but not about the requirements of the
Design Handbook.
Commissioner Rodgers said that there is a conflict between the desire for privacy and maintaining
views. Asked if there is some sort of screening device that could be implemented, perhaps one that is
moveable.
Dr. Serita Johnson replied that this does not take care of noise impacts.
Mr. Fred Frederick, 15277 Peach Hill Road, Saratoga:
• Identified himself as the husband of Dr. Serita Johnson.
• Asked if it would be possible to get a copy of the geotechnical report in order to have it reviewed.
• Clarified that they would have 15 days to appeal any decision made this evening.
• Pointed out that their patio is their evening cocktail place.
Director Tom Sullivan said that Mr. Fred Frederick could visit the Public Works Department where the
Associate Engineer has a full geotechnical file and from whom Mr. Frederick can obtain copies.
Someone from the audience asked for a definition of low-income housing.
Director Tom Sullivan clarified that low income is based upon average income levels and changes
regularly. In Santa Clara County, it is fairly high and includes lots of public service employees.
Commissioner Hunter said that it equals approximately $40,000 a year. These BMR units could go to
elderly parents on Social Security or to teachers or firefighters that may be at the lower end of their pay
scales.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 14
Director Tom Sullivan concurred with the information provided by Commissioner Hunter, saying that
she is right on the mark.
Mr. Tony Massie said that he understands his neighbor’s concerns and is willing to put in necessary
screening.
Commissioner Hunter questioned the paint color.
Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Tony Massie if he had evaluated the possibility of locating this second
unit elsewhere on his property.
Mr. Tony Massie replied yes, he had but came to the conclusion that this was the most reasonable
location.
Commissioner Nagpal asked about the location of the original pool as an alternate site.
Mr. Tony Massie replied that this area is neither sufficiently stable nor large enough and would require
additional geological study.
Commissioner Hunter added that the neighbor on the other side would then be concerned.
Mr. Tony Massie said that there is a retaining wall on the west side of the property and that the
neighbor there did not want a structure there and he didn’t like the location of the original pool.
Chair Garakani stated that he has a problem with adding to the original plans approved for this site.
Commissioner Hunter said that there is already permission for the pool and main house, which are
almost completed.
Director Tom Sullivan clarified that the Commission can deny Design Review for the structure itself
but not for its use as a secondary dwelling unit.
Commissioner Hunter said that if denied, it would have to go back to the drawing board.
Commissioner Rodgers asked why this unit is needed.
Mr. Tony Massie said they desire this unit to relate to the outside yard. Admitted that they plan to
utilize it as a cabana and assured that they are not constructing it as a rental unit.
Chair Garakani asked Mr. Tony Massie why this unit was not included in his original plan.
Mr. Tony Massie said that they chose to use the allowable square footage for the main house.
Commissioner Hunter asked how large is this property.
Mr. Tony Massie replied 1.5 acres with about three-quarters of an acre being flat.
Commissioner Rodgers asked about landslides.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 15
Mr. Tony Massie advised that there was one in back, west of the large Oak tree. It was corrected about
18 years ago.
Commissioner Rodgers asked if there is a retaining wall in that area now.
Mr. Tony Massie replied pretty close to that area.
Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3.
Commissioner Hunter said that it is very difficult as there is not just one but three neighbors who are
expressing concerns about this unit.
Commissioner Zutshi:
• Said that she didn’t find the main house to be bulky.
• Pointed out that everyone is allowed to have the maximum use of his or her property.
• Stated that the concerns of Dr. Serita Johnson are valid but wondered if she values privacy or views
more.
• Stated that she has no objections to this project.
Commissioner Schallop asked about height restrictions.
Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that just a little portion is viewed from the Johnson property and that
Mr. Massie can put in the retaining wall.
Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that Mr. Tony Massie is willing to put in screening landscaping.
Commissioner Zutshi added that Mr. Massie is also willing to remove the walkway at the edge of the
property. She pointed out that most property owners don’t have parties all the time but rather just
occasionally.
Commissioner Rodgers:
• Expressed her concern for the perception of bulk from Peach Hill Road, from which it appears there
is lots of a straight wall.
• Agreed that trees and landscaping could not be used for justification for bulk.
Chair Garakani stated that there are several issues in the Design Handbook that are not met by this
project. Suggested that the secondary dwelling unit be incorporated as a part of the new garage
structure.
Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that to do so would result in a huge single structure, which would
appear more bulky than two separate buildings.
Chair Garakani suggested that the articulation of the roofline could deal with that fact.
Commissioner Nagpal:
• Said that she appreciated a lot of what Dr. Serita Johnson had to say.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 16
• Pointed out that this unit will be used as a cabana rather than a secondary dwelling unit per the
applicant himself. However, the Design Review for the secondary unit is what is before the
Commission today.
• Added that existing screening is remarkable along that side and that it doesn’t appear as if there is a
better location available on the property for this unit.
Commissioner Rodgers reminded that staff had the applicant move the unit back by seven feet to help
alleviate concerns.
Commissioner Nagpal stated that the view is shielded.
Commissioner Hunter:
• Said that she drove around the area five times and can see where the pool house is going to be.
• Reminded that 16 trees are proposed and that it would not really be seen much when these trees
mature.
• Said that she thinks that Peach Hill Road area is as good as it gets and has always thought so.
• Agreed that it can be a huge shock to neighbors when older homes are replaced with huge new ones.
• Conceded that there really is no place else on this property for this secondary unit.
• Instructed the applicant to do a very good job with the screening.
• Stated that the Commission has to let this unit go in there as it is a reasonable place to put it and the
Commission’s hands are pretty much tied.
• Said that she hopes the concrete path is removed and that good screening is placed there.
Director Tom Sullivan clarified that the Planning Commission has the authority to deny Design Review
approval for design-based reasons but not for its intended use as a secondary unit.
Commissioner Hunter said that the design is nice but the placement is in questions.
Director Tom Sullivan reminded that placement is part of design. Assured that the Commission does
have the authority to deny. Added that he is not specifically recommending that action but wants to be
sure the Commission understands its rights to deny for design reasons.
Commissioner Hunter asked if the Commission could do a conditional denial.
Director Tom Sullivan replied no.
Commissioner Schallop asked about the building color.
Commissioner Hunter said that she agrees it appears gold and does not blend in that well.
Commissioner Rodgers supported the idea of completing the existing retaining wall and screening
vegetation facing Peach Hill Road.
Chair Garakani said that this proposal does not fit with what is there and that he cannot accept it unless
it was to be integrated with the garage somehow. As it is proposed, he cannot support this request.
Commissioner Schallop:
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 17
• Stated his concurrence with Commissioner Hunter’s comments.
• Said that there are ways available to address the privacy and bulk issues and that screening is the
best compromise.
• Announced that he is comfortable approving this request.
Commissioner Nagpal asked about the issues relating to the building color.
Commissioner Zutshi said that Director Tom Sullivan would take care of comparing the actual to the
approved color board.
Commissioner Hunter said that she is totally against wood burning fireplaces in hillside locations due to
sparks and potential hillside fires.
Director Tom Sullivan said that Ordinance allows one wood burning fireplace per structure.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if a requirement for the completion of the retaining wall could be
supported.
Commissioner Hunter said if Dr. Johnson wants it.
Chair Garakani asked about potential fencing in the future.
Commissioner Zutshi said that the issue of fencing would come back for review.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that fencing could not be placed on top of a retaining wall but rather
would have to be set back two feet from a retaining wall.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the
Planning Commission approved a Design Review request for a detached secondary
dwelling unit, which results in a total floor area on the site at 6,598 square feet on
property located at 15301 Peach Hill Road with the following additions to the
conditions:
• No wood burning fireplace allowed in the secondary dwelling unit;
• Staff will work with the applicant regarding the retaining wall, screening and
removal of the concrete pathway along edge of the grass;
• Screening will be provided for Peach Hill Road,
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Zutshi
NOES: Garakani
ABSENT: Uhl
ABSTAIN: None
***
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 4
APPLICATION #03-246 (386-10-043) – GOLDEN GATE DOUGHNUTS, LLC, 18562 B Prospect
Road: The applicant is requesting approval of a Design Review and a Conditional Use Permit to
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 18
demolish the existing 3,960 square foot commercial building and construct a new 4,090 square foot
commercial building for a Krispy Kreme Doughnut Store. Maximum height of the structure will not
exceed 20 feet. The parcel is 99,434 gross square feet. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE)
Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that several actions are required including adoption of a Negative Declaration and approval
of both a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review Approval to allow the demolition of an
existing 3,960 square foot commercial building and construction of a new 4,090 square foot
commercial building to house a Krispy Kreme.
• Stated that decorative fencing and additional landscaping in the public right-of-way would be
installed.
• Said that this project required an Environmental Impact Assessment, which rated the project as
having a less than significant impact.
• Described the operation of this proposed Krispy Kreme as being 24 hour with both a drive-thru
window and walk in services with indoor seating and views of the donuts being made.
• Stated that this project meets the design criteria for commercial buildings and is compatible with the
rest of the shopping center and other nearby commercial centers.
• Explained that there are architectural details included that provides a pedestrian scale to this
building. The building colors would be three different colors to help break up the building mass.
The paint would be non-reflecting earth tones and a tile base would be used to define the entry.
• Added that the signs would incorporate the standard Krispy Kreme corporate colors of white, green
and red and will meet the 40 square foot maximum allowed under Ordinance. Additionally, there
will be a backlit green awning and a red neon band around the building.
• Described the landscaping as including flowering plants and four 24-inch box trees and one 36-inch
box tree.
• Stated that parking required is one space for every 200 gross square feet of space. There is a total of
20,000 square feet of space for this center and 112 parking spaces provided whereas 103 are
required. Additionally, 10 queuing spaces would be available at the drive thru aisle.
• Stated that four trees would be removed. Three are Magnolias and one is an Oak. The Oak was
ranked as fair but per the Arborist’s report could be removed with replacement trees.
• Explained that the 24-hour operation requires a Conditional Use Permit, which allows the Planning
Commission to impose conditions.
• Stated that staff is supportive of this use as it is within an established commercial area off major
arterial roads and provides services for the residents of Saratoga in an area with a concentration of
commercial services.
• Advised that no negative correspondence has been received.
• Recommended approval of the Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permit and Design Review
Approval.
Commissioner Hunter asked if effort has been made to match the existing center.
Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that the stucco finish proposed is common throughout the
existing center.
Commissioner Hunter asked if the proposed colors match the existing.
Associate Planner John Livingstone replied no.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 19
Commissioner Hunter asked about matching the existing roof tiles.
Associate Planner John Livingstone said that the applicants opted not to use the same roof tiles but
rather to use a different style.
Commissioner Hunter asked why the four trees are to be removed.
Associate Planner John Livingstone said that these trees must be removed to allow the reconfiguration
of the site.
Commissioner Nagpal asked where the trees are to be removed.
Associate Planner John Livingstone said that the trees are circled and number in the Arborist’s Report
as Trees #9, #10, #11 and #12.
Commissioner Hunter sought clarification that the business would be open 24 hours.
Associate Planner John Livingstone replied yes.
Commissioner Nagpal asked which tree is the Oak.
Associate Planner John Livingstone replied Tree #11.
Commissioner Nagpal stated that it does not appear to be located within the proposed building
footprint.
Commissioner Rodgers asked where the decorative fence is to go.
Associate Planner John Livingstone said that the fence would run along Lawrence Expressway to the
trees and stop there.
Commissioner Rodgers asked if this fence would have spikes at the top.
Associate Planner John Livingstone replied no.
Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4.
Ms. Diane Zimmerman, Real Estate Representative for Krispy Kreme:
• Gave an overview of the company, which started in 1936. The first store in California was built in
1999. The first in Northern California was in Union City in 2000. The Saratoga store would be the
18th in California.
• Explained that there are three facets to the Krispy Kreme store. There are retail sales to the public,
wholesale to other businesses and fundraising efforts. Krispy Kreme works with non-profits (non-
political organizations) that have tax identification numbers in a number of fundraising efforts.
• Added that each new store that opens selects a child-related non-profit to sponsor.
• Stated that her goal tonight is to answer any questions and reach consensus.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 20
• Said that she also brought the project architect, local operations manager and a representative of the
property owner to answer any questions that might arise.
• Clarified that the 24 hour operation includes lobby hours from 5:30 a.m. to midnight, 1 a.m. on
Fridays and Saturdays, and 24 hour drive thru hours.
Commissioner Hunter asked Ms. Diane Zimmerman if there would be any low carb donuts.
Ms. Diane Zimmerman said she didn’t think so, adding that Krispy Kreme would simply stick to what
they do so well.
Mr. John Zarian, Project Architect:
• Said that his associates were on site for the Commission’s site visit the previous day.
• Stated that as a result of issues raised by the site visit, they have modified the color board and tile
sample and removed the awning that was considered not to be consistent. Instead they propose to
install a Spanish tile mansard roof and have incorporated more of a Mediterranean style cornice.
They have set back the entries three to four inches and added a low screening wall for the seating
area. Additionally, they are searching for more Mediterranean-styled light fixtures.
Commissioner Hunter asked for clarification that the awning is gone.
Mr. John Zarian replied yes.
Commissioner Zutshi asked if there is a new color rendering to look at.
Mr. John Zarian replied no, adding that they did not have sufficient time since yesterday to accomplish
an updated colored elevation.
Commissioner Nagpal asked for clarification that the tile on the wall was also changing color.
Mr. John Zarian replied yes.
Chair Garakani suggested that having the curvature of the site matched by the same curvature in this
building.
Mr. John Zarian said that this suggestion was not pointed out to him. He advised the Commission that
Krispy Kreme has a standardized prototype designed building rather than a custom building for each
location.
Commissioner Hunter disagreed that changes from corporate architecture are not done and gave as an
example the Home Depot in Rhode Island that looks more like a Colonial Mansion than a typical Home
Depot.
Mr. John Zarian said that the patio area has been modified to allow the screening wall as well as a water
feature. With the four trees to be removed, four specimen trees are proposed as replacements.
Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. John Zarian to save Tree #11 if possible.
Commissioner Schallop asked if there would be a “Hot Donut” light.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 21
Mr. John Zarian replied yes.
Commissioner Zutshi asked if the parapet is still white.
Mr. John Zarian replied that the precast cap is white. Said that he had not heard that there was a
problem with the color of the cap itself. Other colors could be considered.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if Trees #9, #10 and #11 could be saved.
Mr. John Zarian replied that Tree #10 falls within the parking space and drive aisle. Tree #9 is within
the redesigned circulation path. The root base for Tree #11 is so large that it is impractical to do any
improvements in the area without damage to that tree.
Mr. John Machado, Property Owners Representative:
• Said that he has managed the Westgate Corner Shopping Center for the last 15 to 20 years.
• Advised that their tenant, Warehouse Records, went out of business last year.
• Stated that they are fortunate to attract Krispy Kreme to this location.
• Said that the new building placement is better than the existing as it opens up the rest of the parking
field for the rest of the shopping center.
• Said that the added square footage is just 120 square feet from the current building size.
• Said that this project will provide a service to the city and offers a pedestrian feel to the center and
ties into the rest of the project.
• Informed that the property owner has authorized him to repaint the rest of the center to match when
Krispy Kreme is done.
• Reported that they were unsuccessful for over six to eight months in finding a replacement tenant
for this space.
• Advised that the Oak in question is diseased. Efforts have been made together with an Arborist
over the last few years to care for it.
Commissioner Rodgers asked if they are comfortable with the parking layout.
Mr. John Machado said that they had input in the parking layout. Added that they would not allow a
curved building to be built as they need buildings that can be flexible for future uses. Therefore,
building shapes are kept as generic as possible. He added that a new low carb store has been added to
the center.
Commissioner Rodgers expressed concerns about the parking spaces at the entry near the drive thru.
Mr. John Machado said that the Traffic Engineer for Krispy Kreme has looked into this configuration as
has the property management team and no significant issues were raised. Reported that the peak hours
for Krispy Kreme are early a.m. when other uses are not yet open.
Chair Garakani asked Mr. John Machado to verify that the property owners would not allow a building
with a curvature element.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 22
Mr. John Machado clarified that they need to keep their buildings as rectangular in shape as possible to
keep uses flexible. They look at viability for the property owners for the long term. Added that Krispy
Kreme knows how to make a building work for them and that this will be a very nice environment.
Commissioner Nagpal asked about the potential for using arched windows and doors.
Mr. John Machado said that this could be considered as long as it does not interfere with operations.
Again, they are looking for a building that is as flexible as possible as the current building is now
obsolete.
Chair Garakani said that this way if Krispy Kreme leaves, the owners can lease the space to another
business.
Mr. John Machado agreed that this building shape is more flexible.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if the doors and windows proposed are aluminum.
Mr. John Zarian replied yes.
Chair Garakani suggested sending this proposal back to the Planning Department. He asked if the
applicant is open to this suggestion, adding that the Commission can either vote tonight or continue.
Mr. John Zarian said that they have brought forward what was requested by the Commissioners during
the site visit. Said that they are willing to work further with staff to refine the details but that he did not
think that having an additional hearing is fair to Krispy Kreme.
Commissioner Rodgers asked if off-site traffic flow is taken into consideration. Pointed out that entry
to the site off Prospect, customers must immediately turn right to access the drive thru window, driving
past four parking spaces. Questioned the impact on those four spaces as far as ability to back up to
leave while cars are accessing the drive thru and whether stacking might also impact Prospect Avenue.
Mr. John Zarian said that there is a minimal safety issue. However, this is a slow turn and not a fast
turn. Acknowledged that there are always hazards in any parking lot and that this is the logical area for
a few more long-term parking spaces, likely for employees from the other stores. There is more than
adequate stacking space for the queue per the Traffic Engineer.
Commissioner Rodgers asked if these particular four spaces are needed to meet the minimum
requirement or is there flexibility to waive them.
Mr. John Machado said that the spaces could be restricted for employee parking only.
Mr. John Zarian said that reducing the number of spaces would require a reduction in building square
footage.
Commissioner Zutshi asked how many cars could queue for the drive thru.
Mr. John Zarian replied 10.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 23
Commissioner Hunter said that the biggest problem she sees would be how to get back from the site
onto Lawrence Expressway.
Mr. John Machado:
• Pointed out that they are not changing any traffic circulation on Prospect.
• Reported that Krispy Kreme has been extremely accommodating.
• Said that once this new building is constructed, the rest of the center would be repainted to match.
• Stated that they would appreciate an approval tonight, allowing the details to be worked out with
staff. Delays would result in an economic hardship for the owners.
Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4.
Director Tom Sullivan suggested that the Commission make the determination as to whether they have
had adequate time to review materials. If not, a continuance is in order. If the concerns have been
addressed, staff is willing to work with the applicant to refine the details.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if the Negative Declaration could be adopted and the remainder of the
project continued.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that the whole project should be continued if any part of it is to be
continued. If the Commission is comfortable, they can move on tonight.
Commissioner Hunter said that this project is vastly improved with these recent changes. Thanked the
applicants for providing the changes this evening. The colors are much better. This project is fine and
her only concern is the removal of trees. Asked for the size of replacement trees.
Associate Planner John Livingstone replied 24-inch box.
Director Tom Sullivan added that 24-inch box is a fairly minimal size.
Commissioner Hunter said that she did not think that a continuance is necessary.
Director Tom Sullivan agreed that there appears to be consensus to that opinion.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the
Planning Commission accepted the Negative Declaration for the proposed project
on property located at 18562-B Prospect Road, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Uhl
ABSTAIN: None
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the
Planning Commission approved a Design Review and Conditional Use Permit to
allow the demolition and reconstruction of a commercial building for a Krispy
Kreme store on property located at 18562-B Prospect Road, with the added
conditions to:
• Use the updated color board and revised design; and
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2004 Page 24
• Require the replacement trees to be 36-inch box;
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Uhl
ABSTAIN: None
***
DIRECTOR’S ITEMS
There were no Director’s Items.
COMMISSION ITEMS
Commission Hunter expressed concern that five historic buildings on Big Basin Way have sold recently
and that she could see the potential for substantial change.
Director Tom Sullivan:
• Reminded that any modifications to exteriors would have to be evaluated by an historic architect,
the Heritage Preservation Commission and possibly Commercial Design Review.
• Said that he had spoken with one new owner who plans to restore his building.
• Advised that there are exemptions available to Building Code requirements for historic buildings
and that he has reminded the Building Division of that fact.
• Informed that Historic Consultant Leslie Dill has determined that the Corinthian Corners building is
not historically significant.
COMMUNICATIONS
There were no Communications Items.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, Chair Garakani adjourned
the meeting at 10:45 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of June 23, 2004, at 7:00
p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk