Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-22-2003 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Jackman called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe Absent: Commissioners Zutshi Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Planner Lata Vasudevan and Planner Christy Oosterhous PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of January 8, 2003. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the regular Planning Commission minutes of January 8, 2003, were approved as submitted. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman and Kurasch NOES: None ABSENT: Zutshi ABSTAIN: Barry and Roupe REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 16, 2003. .REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Jackman 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). ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2003 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #02-192 (503-24-064) – LEE 14493 Big Basin Way (Saratoga Cleaners): Request for Design Review approval to construct an addition of an 875 square foot commercial tenant space at the street level and an addition of a 1,476 square foot apartment to the second floor level of an existing structure located in the CH-1 zone. The existing 3,224 square foot structure consists of a service establishment at the street level and two apartments at the second floor. This project was reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commission on 11/12/02. The 4,277 square foot site is located in Parking District No. 3 (VASUDEVAN) Planner Lata Vasudevan provided the staff report as follows: • Described the request for Design Review Approval for the addition of 875 square feet for a commercial tenant space on the first floor, a 620 square foot garage and a second floor apartment. • Stated that the parcel is zoned CH-1 and that the Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed the proposal and was supportive with the recommendation to expose the original limestone exterior wall, to install S-brackets along the side and to install a plaque explaining the historic significance of the building to the community. The applicant has incorporated these recommendations into their proposal. • Said that the entire first floor would be commercial with three apartments on the second floor. • Informed that the site is situated within Parking District No. 3 and that the applicant must buy development rights for three spaces. • Explained that the façade depicted in the exhibit was intended to resemble the existing façade but that the applicant has since submitted a revised proposal for modifications to the façade as Exhibit B. These changes are the result of the Planning Commission’s site visit the previous day and were provided by Architect Warren Heid, together with a written description, this evening. • Stated that staff feels this proposal represents an improvement over what currently exists and supports the proposal with the added conditions: 1. That the façade be developed per Exhibit B; 2. That the applicant obtain an encroachment permit for any portion of the canopy or any other minor projection that may encroach into the public right-of-way; and 3. That the plans show the restroom on the floor plan. Commissioner Barry: • Pointed out that the limestone is only included on two sides of the building and not on the front façade. • Questioned what is intended when speaking of the original design of the building. Planner Lata Vasudevan: • Explained that the original structure was constructed in the mid-1800’s and looks nothing like it does today due to a major remodel that occur in the 1950’s. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2003 Page 3 • Added that the main reason the building remains on the Historic Inventory list is because the building was constructed with original limestone walls, limestone that will be exposed along Turkey Trot Way and preserved. Chair Jackman said that the old photograph shows glass in the front. Planner Lata Vasudevan agreed. Commissioner Barry asked if the limestone was included on the front façade prior to the remodel in the 1950’s. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that it is not clear. Commissioner Kurasch inquired whether the property owner, Mr. Lee, has had a chance to discuss these changes with his architect prior to tonight’s meeting. Planner Lata Vasudevan advised that she had spoken with the architect, Mr. Heid, who told her he had spoken of the changes with Mr. Lee, who is happy with the new proposal. Commissioner Hunter stated that the Village Guidelines are marvelous and asked whether staff referred to these guidelines while evaluating this project. Planner Lata Vasudevan: • Replied that she had considered the Village Guidelines during her review. • Added that the original intention was to mirror the original façade from the 1950’s remodel. • Said that this new proposal does include some elements from the guidelines including articulation around windows. Commissioner Hunter asked if the inclusion of window boxes were an option or required by staff. Director Tom Sullivan explained that there have been few applications for additions, remodels or new construction within the Village. When the Patrick James remodel occurred, the window boxes were insisted upon by the City. Chair Jackman proposed the use of flower planters under the windows since flowers thrive better in the ground rather than within window boxes. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out the reference in the Village Guidelines to pedestrian and open space linkage and suggested creating a corridor effect with the two sidewalks. Planner Lata Vasudevan explained that she saw this project more as a continuity of storefronts. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out a design suggested on page 26 of the Village Guidelines and asked why two properties with separate function are not being split to look like two different storefronts and if this idea had been considered. Commissioner Roupe questioned having two entryways on the East Side of the property and why a common sidewalk is not used to allow a more integrated use as well as space for more landscaping. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2003 Page 4 Director Tom Sullivan said that the Commission could add this as a Condition but that the applicant and property owner would have to work out mutual access easements. Added that the City cannot force the neighbor to allow this easement. Commissioner Roupe asked if the applicant is at least allowed to pursue the possibility. Commissioner Kurasch suggested that they be allowed to see how they feel about the suggestion. Commissioner Roupe agreed that there was benefit in seeing if the applicant is willing to pursue this. Director Tom Sullivan cautioned that this is not a public sidewalk but rather private and that an easement is required when accessing one property requires passing through another’s property. Commissioner Barry asked if the pathway only goes to the entrance. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that it goes to the stairway. Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:26 p.m. Mr. Warren Heid, Consulting Architect, 14630 Big Basin Way, Saratoga: • Identified himself as the Lee family representative and advised that his associate, Mr. Bruce Johnson, Project Architect, is also present this evening. • Advised that this building originally had limestone on the East and West Side. The East Side faces the open lot and will be covered following the completion of construction. The limestone will be visible on the West Side of the building. • Added that this is original limestone that was quarried in Saratoga. • Said that the Heritage Commission accepted that the intent is to maintain the 1950’s look. • Added that due to the narrowness of the lot and building, it was decided not to make the building appear as two separate buildings. Instead it was found to be better to maintain the original architectural style. • Said that after the Commission’s site visit, stained redwood elements were added. Other design features include making the limestone prominent, covering up electrical equipment and carrying out a horizontal cornice feature as a tie in between the railing at the back and carried around to the front and back also. • Said that the window treatment includes two by four redwood for a bay window effect over each of two-second story windows but not for the apartments. • Said that the neighboring property only has sidewalks to their stairs. • Stated that incorporated an archway between the two buildings would look squeezed as it is only 18 feet wide. • Said that the best use is to make it look like one building although they have tried to dress it up a bit. • Assured that the project will be harmonious with the Village rather than the stark look the building has right now. Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Warren Heid if the area between the two buildings could be improved with landscaping, etc., if an easement agreement is worked out between the two property owners. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2003 Page 5 Mr. Warren Heid: • Said that the area would be dark, that little sunlight would get in. • Said that there are few planters on buildings in the Village of which he is aware. • Added that he did not think plants would survive in that particular area. • Said that he could talk this issue over with his son, Jeff, who is a landscape architect, but that it would ultimately be up to Mr. Lee. • Reminded of the 22-foot height with only 5 feet between the buildings. Commissioner Barry suggested that the existing sidewalk of the other building could become a landscape area if shared sidewalks are worked out. Mr. Warren Heid reiterated his belief that there is simply not enough sunlight to sustain plants in that area. Chair Jackman asked Mr. Heid if they have had difficulties reaching the neighboring property owner. Mr. Warren Heid replied yes, they have had no response to their attempts as the Management Company is not being cooperative. Commissioner Kurasch asked what materials are proposed adjacent to the sidewalk, near the wing wall. Mr. Warren Heid replied concrete. Commissioner Kurasch said that this is quite an expanse of concrete and questioned the use of the overhang. Mr. Warren Heid said that the need for a overhang the result of meeting lot coverage limitations. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that the Village Guidelines encourage building from property to property without setbacks. Planner Lata Vasudevan pointed out that the lot coverage maximum is 80 percent. Mr. Warren Heid said that it would be pretty difficult to do what is being asked in such a way that would be attractive. Commissioner Kurasch suggested that a more urbane look is warranted, something other than concrete, perhaps a material such as pavers. Declared that having 15 feet of concrete would look like a service yard. Mr. Warren Heid said that he would be willing to work on other possibilities and could incorporate such changes in material to include pavers. Commissioner Barry said that she has lots of questions that she would defer to Project Architect Bruce Johnson. Asked Director Sullivan if there is any flexibility for the Commission to consider a design that extends the maximum lot coverage. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2003 Page 6 Director Tom Sullivan advised that to do so would require a Variance, an action that cannot be done tonight. Commissioner Barry asked if there is any real hope that a Variance request could be supported. Director Tom Sullivan replied that there is a weak case as far as making the required findings for a Variance. Added that some redesign is possible to give more of a property line to property line façade. Commissioner Kurasch said that having a double sidewalk seems like a large area. Commissioner Roupe cautioned that a property line to property line building would preclude access. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that there could be an arcade-like opening in the façade. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that there are many alleys in Carmel with beautiful plants. Mr. Warren Heid joked that they were likely plastic. Commissioner Roupe said that it may be difficult to grow anything but ferns in those conditions. Mr. Warren Heid: • Said that there is a garage planned for three apartments, one existing and two new. • Stated that he would take a look at what he can do to establish a pleasing façade. • Assured that he is not here to destroy the Village but rather to enhance it. • Agreed that there are narrow facades in Carmel and that nice plants do appear to thrive in that situation. Mr. Bruce Johnson, Project Architect, 80 Alice Avenue, Campbell: • Explained that the Ordinance limitations to 80 percent lot coverage are what caused the inclusion of a four-foot offset or overhang between the first and second floors. • Suggested that allowing that space to be two stories would eliminate the wing wall and that the four foot by 60-foot area would be back within the building. This would eliminate the double walkway and then planter boxes could then be maintained. • Suggested amending this project to allow the covered area to come down to the ground level. Commissioner Roupe reminded that the coverage would be more than 80 percent if that area came down. Director Tom Sullivan agreed that is the case if that occurs. Commissioner Roupe cautioned Mr. Johnson that a Variance on the 80 percent coverage is an uphill battle. If the building comes straight down at that location, they would be forced to find approximately 240 square feet of the footprint elsewhere to remove from the project. Mr. Bruce Johnson said that the planters would be maintained and that Mr. Jeff Heid could advise them on what plant materials would work under these conditions. Commissioner Hunter suggested hanging baskets as another possibility. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2003 Page 7 Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Johnson for comments on the double sidewalk situation. Mr. Bruce Johnson said that they can also check with Jeff Heid for softscape materials in lieu of hardscape materials, if such materials can be adequately maintained. Chair Jackman declared her confidence in the recommendations of Mr. Jeff Heid on this matter. Commissioner Barry: • Thanked Mr. Johnson for heeding the request of the Commissioners during the site visit and coming back this evening with changes based on those comments. • Suggested incorporating limestone on the front façade, across the first floor, to blend with the existing limestone on the side façade. • Said that in her opinion, it seems that the Heritage Commission wanted to highlight the limestone and wanted continuity with the buildings further up Big Basin Way. • Suggested arched windows as an attractive alternative if they are symmetrical. • Asked if it is possible to incorporate arched windows on the second floor. Mr. Warren Heid: • Said that he had attempted to find a matching limestone veneer for use on the front façade but has thus far been unsuccessful. • Added that normal limestone is 8 to 10 inches think which cannot be accommodated in this application on the front façade. Mr. Bruce Johnson agreed that incorporation of arched windows is a possibility. Chair Jackman pointed out that use of arched windows would be within the living room in one apartment unit and in the kitchen of another. Commissioner Kurasch said that the building is plain and that she does not mind stucco. However, she did not envision stained redwood and questioned the use of this material over the windows. Questioned if this was some sort of gable. Mr. Warren Heid said that they could make trim out of cement plaster too but that they were under the impression that the Commission wanted the plaster to be softened. Added that the wood shingled canopy over the window is intended to both protect and soften. Commissioner Kurasch asked why use shingles over an awning element. Mr. Warren Heid replied to achieve continuity of roofing materials. Commissioner Kurasch expressed support for some banding of stone on the front façade. Mr. Warren Heid said he is willing to look further for an appropriate material. Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 8:04 p.m. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2003 Page 8 Commissioner Hunter said that she attended the Heritage Preservation Commission meeting at which time this project was reviewed and the Village Guidelines did not even come up. Reminded that these guidelines were approved in 1991. Chair Jackman suggested a continuance of this item. Commissioner Garakani expressed support for a continuance and asked if this site is one parcel or two. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied one. Commissioner Garakani asked if the site has two addresses. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied yes. Director Tom Sullivan added that it is very common for a building with multiple tenants to have multiple addresses. Commissioner Garakani: • Said that this is a very sensitive area with a small corner lot and a huge building. Additionally, the building’s front and sides don’t match the Village corridor. • Recommended a continuation. • Expressed appreciation to the applicant for providing computer generated final view of this building. • Said that the Commission has provided all direction possible to the staff and applicant this evening. • Said that he would like to see wood siding on the second floor on all four sides of the building. • Stated support for the inclusion of arched windows and perhaps some sort of arched walkway with landscaping in the corridor. • Reiterated that this is a sensitive area and questioned whether some sort of Variance might be possible. Commissioner Roupe: • Agreed that a continuance is in order. • Said that it might be better to have a Study Session with the applicants bringing forward a couple of alternate concepts. Commissioner Garakani said he would be willing to give up some of his time to attend such a Study Session. Chair Jackman agreed. Commissioner Barry pointed out that the design work required by the applicant would be more conceptual and less detailed than it would have to be to come back to a Planning Commission hearing. Commissioner Hunter: • Stated that she would like to see the Village Guidelines implemented. • Said that the inclusion of arched windows is not a good idea. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2003 Page 9 • Added that the inclusion of any type of phony limestone is not desirable. To do so would take away from the beauty of the existing limestone on the building. • Supported the suggestion for a Study Session. • Advised that she would support a building much as depicted in the Village Guidelines on pages 26, 27 and 28. • Declared that she would like to see the treasure that is the Village maintained and enhanced. Mr. Warren Heid supported the suggestion for a Study Session. Director Tom Sullivan proposed scheduling this Study Session for 5 p.m. on February 12, 2003. Since the Planning Commission Meeting agenda for February 12th is already fully booked, if the project should be continued to a Planning Commission meeting, it would have to be on February 26, 2003. Chair Jackman reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 8:15 p.m. Mr. Warren Heid: • Said he needed more direction to prepare for the Study Session since each Commissioner has offered different suggestions. • Pointed out that the Village is actually very eclectic and looks best at night with the lights on. • Asked for more definite instructions. Commissioner Roupe said that the Commission gave ideas this evening and that Mr. Heid should come to the Study Session with several ideas. Chair Jackman assured Mr. Heid that he is well aware of what is there in the Village and what is possible. Commissioner Barry: • Said that Commissioner Hunter made an excellent point and that it may be best to utilize square instead of arched windows. • Said that the Commission has provided a pretty consistent message to the applicant that it is looking for something with a flavor of the Village Guidelines. Mr. Warren Heid questioned if anyone is aware of any arched windows within the Village. Chair Jackman replied no. Chair Jackman reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 8:20 p.m. Commissioner Kurasch: • Agreed with Commissioner Hunter about the desirability of the example given within the Village Guidelines. • Added that she cannot make the findings to support a Variance of the 80 percent coverage. • Stated that she does not like the project as it currently is proposed. Chair Jackman supported the recommendation to continue this item to a Study Session at 5 p.m. in the Conference Room on February 12, 2003. It would later have to be readvertised for public hearing. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2003 Page 10 Commissioner Roupe recommended also pre-setting the item for public hearing on February 26, 2003, so as not to unnecessarily delay the project. Director Tom Sullivan agreed that this course of action is possible. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission continued consideration of Design Review (Application #02- 192) for 14493 Big Basin Way to a Study Session at 5 p.m. on February 12, 2003, and subsequently to public hearing at the Planning Commission meeting of February 26, 2003, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe NOES: None ABSENT: Zutshi ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION #02-219 (503-29-127) – MOORE, 20700 Saratoga Hills Road: Request for Design Review Approval to demolish an existing one-story residence and to construct a two-story single-family residence. The project also includes the construction of a pool house, basement and three-car garage. Both the pool house and garage are attached to the main residence via a common roof. The total floor area on the site is 6,520. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. The lot size is approximately 98,010 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. (OOSTERHOUS) Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Informed that the applicant is seeking approval to demolish an existing one-story single-family residence and construct a new two-story single-family residence, with a pool house, basement and three-car garage. • Described the project to include a 26-foot maximum height on a two-acre parcel. The architectural style is French, with details including eaves flared outward, multi-bay windows, beige stucco and copper accents to include gutters, downspouts and the roof of a bay window. • Advised that staff is recommending an alternative to the use of copper for environmental reasons. • Added that the house would include two gas fireplaces and one wood-burning fireplace. There is an additional wood-burning fireplace in an outdoor area. Staff is recommending only one wood- burning fireplace be permitted on site. • Said that staff is also recommending the use of paving stone materials for the drive. • Advised that one tree would be removed, four additional diseased trees removed and one tree transplanted on the site. • Recommended approval with amendments to the use of copper, limiting the site to one wood- burning fireplace. Commissioner Roupe advised that the Planning Commission had concluded several years ago that copper does not present a significant threat to the Bay following a presentation by experts at a Commissioners Retreat few years ago. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2003 Page 11 Chair Jackman added that it has been determined that when runoff from copper gutters filters to the ground, any copper in that water is neutralized. Commissioner Barry stated that she is a strong advocate against cooper roofs but feels differently about copper gutters, for which a case can be made to support, but that it was imperative that the retention of water on site occur. Commissioner Kurasch asked for the zoning designation. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied R-1-40,000. Commissioner Hunter asked if the second wood-burning fireplace is in the guesthouse. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied one is in the main house and the second is outdoors. Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:31 p.m. Commissioner Roupe commended Mr. Rob Moore for his installation of story poles, the rendering of the house and his advance work with his neighbors. Mr. Rob Moore, Applicant and Owner, 20700 Saratoga Hills Road, Saratoga: • Clarified that his site is unique in that it has 200-foot frontage. Planner Christy Oosterhous pointed out that the project meets the front setbacks and explained that the pool house is simply the closest structure to the front property line at 35 feet. Mr. Rob Moore: • Sought clarification that the shrub removal called for is just around the trees to be protected. Planner Christy Oosterhous said yes. Mr. Rob Moore: • Pointed out that the Ordinance regarding wood burning fireplaces makes the distinction of restricting them to one per structure and not one per site. • Added that he will have a wood-burning fireplace in the living room of his home and a gas-burning fireplace in the more often used family room. Another wood-burning fireplace is on the outdoor wall of his guesthouse. Commissioner Roupe asked staff for its interpretation of the Ordinance. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that the Ordinance clearly states one per structure and this becomes a discretionary matter for the Commission. Commissioner Roupe asked if the guesthouse is seen as a separate structure. Planner Christy Oosterhous said that the issue is not just the question of number of structures but more the number of wood-burning fireplaces. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2003 Page 12 Director Tom Sullivan reminded that the Sobrato project was limited to one wood-burning fireplace. Commissioner Hunter asked if they asked for more. Director Tom Sullivan said he is not sure since that application initially came in prior to his tenure. Mr. Rob Moore: • Pointed out that the impervious surface he is proposing totals 16,000 square feet out of a total allowable of 34,000 square feet. • Said that he is trying to get double duty with this surface so his young children will have a flat continuous surface on which to ride bikes and rollerblade. • Stated that he is willing to put cobblestone where the drive is visible from the street if aesthetics are the concern. Commissioner Roupe advised that paving does not gain in water retention. Director Tom Sullivan advised that there are a couple of brands of paving materials that gain a lot in perviousness, up to 30 to 40 percent better than impervious materials. Chair Jackman recommended incorporating pervious material around the boarder of the drive to reduce the amount of impervious material while still leaving flat surface for the children’s use. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that a 4,000 square foot asphalt area is quite large and asked if there is a reason why Mr. Moore does not want to use pavers there. Mr. Rob Moore: • Pointed out that there is no off-street parking and this area will be necessary for when they entertain. • Added that he is willing to work on the impervious surface concern. • Said that he wants a smooth surface to allow drainage. • Reminded that there are competing interests on the property. They need to retain water on site so that water from copper gutters can be diverted. He added that the water from the gutters would hit a splash and migrate into the landscape area. A bio swale will serve to filter any copper from the water before it is diverted to the street. A portion of the storm water will drain directly down the driveway. Commissioner Garakani said that while there will be water retention on site, most still will go into the drain on Saratoga Hills Road. However, more water should be retained on site than is currently the case. Mr. Rob Moore: • Said that the original soils report called for taking all water off site. • Added that the City’s consultant required keeping all water on site. • Said the final decision is to retain a large portion on site but that some water needs to drain off. • Said he supports the condition in the Resolution. • Reminded that he is only incorporating 26 square feet of cooper roofing over a bay window. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2003 Page 13 Chair Jackman asked for information on what is a bio swale. Director Tom Sullivan advised that it is a landscape drain system that allows filtering. Commissioner Kurasch asked for a written confirmation that less water will drain from the site than currently. Mr. Rob Moore said that he had not been asked to provide such a document. Commissioner Barry asked for the composition of the soil in the bio swale area. Mr. Rob Moore said that his soils engineer is not present this evening. Commissioner Barry said that she is assuming that the bio swale is being located in a place so that it will actually work. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes and added that, if not, the applicant would be wasting lots of money. Mr. Rob Moore restated his areas of concern as being the fireplace issue, paving issue and use of copper. Commissioner Garakani asked if any retaining wall would be required in the area in which the existing garage is currently located in order to flatten out that area. Mr. Rob Moore replied yes, a three-foot high retaining wall would be installed. Commissioner Garakani asked if that is enough. Mr. Rob Moore replied yes. Commissioner Roupe asked if there would be more or less impervious surface than currently exists on the property. Mr. Rob Moore replied a similar amount. On one hand, less impervious surface is required because of a two-story structure. On the other hand, additional impervious surface because of the new guesthouse. However, it is not a significant difference. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Moore if he is willing to supply documentation on the on-site drainage being increased and/or decreased and therefore not adding to the burden on Saratoga Hills Road. Mr. Rob Moore replied yes. He stated his understanding that the letter should state that drainage systems would put less water on Saratoga Hills Road than the existing site conditions. Director Tom Sullivan asked that the amounts and/or differences be quantified. Commissioner Roupe suggested that the brick area near the pool could be a pervious surface. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2003 Page 14 Mr. Rob Moore pointed out that this is only a 20-foot by eight-foot patio by the pool that is paved. Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Moore if there is an alternative to copper that he would be satisfied with. Mr. Rob Moore said he wants and likes copper but could live without it if there is a compelling reason to do so but that he would appreciate leaving it in the design. Added that this is a 40-year home for him. Commissioner Barry asked about construction impacts on the road. Mr. Rob Moore said that he would be responsible for any damage to the road and will work with the road contractor that maintains the road. Commissioner Roupe stressed that the road would be required to be back to current conditions following completion of construction. Commissioner Kurasch questioned whether a bond should be required. Director Tom Sullivan replied if the Commission feels it is necessary. However, no final occupancy would be issued until the road is back in appropriate condition. Commissioner Barry brought out a situation raised whereby a drainage plan was approved for another site but was built differently, as far as pipe size is concerned. Mr. Rob Moore said that that was the result of a series of contractor’s errors. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that calculations would be incorporated with the construction drawings. Chair Jackman asked where the nearest sewer drain is located on Saratoga Hills Road. Director Tom Sullivan pointed it out on Plan Sheet C-1. Commissioner Kurasch asked how it is determined that the right pipes are installed. Is there an inspection to double check. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that these are not City-owned or maintained storm drains, but rather are private. Commissioner Kurasch again asked how compliance is ensured. Director Tom Sullivan replied by having the applicant provide certification that off-site drainage will be the same or less than current drainage. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Moore why he would not consider gas for the outdoor fireplace. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2003 Page 15 Mr. Rob Moore said his wife would make the best case for wood-burning fireplaces. Added that the romance and feel of a wood fire is much better than gas. Commissioner Kurasch expressed concern over potential sparks. Mr. Rob Moore replied that it would be designed to be safe. Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 9:10 p.m. Commissioner Barry: • Suggested that an Ordinance change be initiated to tighten the restriction on number of wood burning fireplaces. • Added that one per property is enough. • Said she is not persuaded that the second wood fireplace is needed. • Agreed that the applicant should be able to implement the placement of pavers where he wants on his property. • Said she is okay with copper gutters but not with the copper roof over the bay window. • Stated that the design of this home is very nice. • Expressed appreciation for the applicant’s work with his neighbors. • Said that the story poles provided a good view for the Commissioners and thanked Mr. Moore for having them in place for their site visit. Commissioner Hunter: • Said that the design is great and this would be a beautiful home. • Added that she has four sons and understands the need for a space for children to play. • Said that until the Ordinance is straightened out to limit wood burning fireplaces to one per site, she will support one wood burning fireplace in the main residence’s living room and a second outside the guesthouse. • Said that the use of copper is fine. Chair Jackman agreed and said she too is okay with leaving the placement of pavers to the discretion of the owner. Commissioner Kurasch asked Commissioner Barry for her position on the use of copper. Commissioner Barry replied it is okay as long as adequate on-site dispersal and retention of water occurs. Commissioner Kurasch asked staff for its opinion on how to assure that on-site drainage requirements are met. Director Tom Sullivan said that the applicant will provide calculations for conditions now and what is proposed. If there is a reduction, the situation is better. This information will be used by Public Works to evaluate the adequacy of site drainage. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the site drainage “as is” is inadequate. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2003 Page 16 Director Tom Sullivan said he did not know. Commissioner Kurasch: • Said that she supports allowing the pavement as the applicant wants. • Said that this will be a great addition on a spectacular site. • Advised that there are compelling reasons to limit wood-burning fireplaces to one and asked staff if this matter is discretionary at this point. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes and added that the Commission would have to state why it was limiting to one per site as opposed to one per structure. Commissioner Garakani stated that this project is very well done on a nice large site. Pointed out that copper tends to oxidize. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that this is part of the French architectural design. Commissioner Garakani said that minimal copper is being use. Warned that if 8 grams of copper are multiplied by a large number of homes using copper gutters, the adverse impact would be greater. For one project, it is not a big deal. Commissioner Roupe suggested having the speaker come back to advise the newest members of the Commission on the impacts of copper. Commissioner Barry stated that there is no question that copper in the Bay is a problem but that mostly copper contamination comes into the Bay as a result of break pads. Chair Jackman pointed out that there have only been one or two applications incorporated copper elements. Commissioner Garakani said that the water retention issue only pertains to storm water. Added that everything looks good and that he supports the design. Commissioner Kurasch asked Commissioner Garakani for his position on the second wood-burning fireplace. Commissioner Garakani said he has a wood-burning fireplace in his own home but upon reading the new material provided on the subject, he has concerns about the impacts. Chair Jackman said that she uses candles in her own fireplace. Commissioner Roupe: • Said that this is a great, well thought out project that will be nice looking. • Commended the work with the neighbors. • Said he was willing to give the applicant latitude on the issue of pervious versus impervious materials but that he will have to meet the requirement that less water is drained off-site than currently. • Said that copper is appropriate for gutters and acceptable. However, he does not encourage copper roofing and feels that there are good alternatives available for the roof on the bay window. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2003 Page 17 • Said that the Ordinance should be followed on the issue of the fireplaces. If necessary, the Ordinance should be changed. Therefore, he supports the allowance of two wood-burning fireplaces on this site that has two structures. • Declared that the air quality actually continues to improve although efforts should continue to improve air quality even further. Chair Jackman said she does not support the copper roof over the bay window and that the road must be returned to current condition following construction. Commissioner Hunter said that the copper roof over the bay window will be attractive and that she is in favor of allowing it. Stated that this would be a beautiful French Normandy-style home. Commissioner Kurasch agreed that there are preferable materials to a copper roof available for use on the bay window. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Planning Commission granted a Design Review Approval (Application #02-219) to allow the demolition of an existing residence and construction of a new single- family residence on property located at 20700 Saratoga Hills Road, with the following additional Conditions of Approval: 1. That the roadway be retained and maintained to its current condition during and after construction before final occupancy is issued; 2. That copper gutters be allowed as long as they drain into a landscape area to allow for filtering but that the copper roofing on the bay window be eliminated; 3. That pervious pavers be applied at the applicant’s discretion given that a quantified and documented decrease in the amount of off-site water flow is achieved; and 4. That two wood-burning fireplaces be allowed, one in the main structure’s living room and the second outdoors at the guest/pool house. by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe NOES: None ABSENT: Zutshi ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR’S ITEMS There were no Director’s Items. COMMISSION ITEMS Council Updates Director Tom Sullivan: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 22, 2003 Page 18 • Advised that Council would hold a hearing on February 5, 2003, on the Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance. • Informed that Council would be appointing a new streamlined and downsized Committee to review the Gateway Design Guidelines. • Announced that two Councilmembers would be working with him on a Tree Committee. COMMUNICATIONS None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Jackman adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, February 12, 2003, to begin at 7 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk