Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-09-2003 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, April 9, 2003 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Acting Chair Barry called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Nagpal, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi Absent: Commissioner Hunter Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner John Livingstone and Assistant Planner Ann Welsh ELECTION OF A NEW PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR With the concurrence of the Commission, the election of a new Chair and Vice Chair was continued to the next meeting. Commissioner Barry will serve as Acting Chair for this evening’s meeting. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of March 26, 2003. As there was not a quorum of eligible Commissioners present to vote who could vote to approve the minutes, adoption of the minutes of the March 26, 2003, meeting was continued to the May 14, 2003, meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no Oral Communication items. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on April 3, 2003. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Acting Chair Barry announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b). Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 9, 2003 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #02-062 (Building Site Approval) & #02-213 (Lot Line Adjustment), (503-13-134 thru 137) – HORVATH, 22122 Mt. Eden Road: The proposed lot line adjustment involves an equal transfer of area between two abutting parcels. The lot line change is proposed to create a separate access lane for the landlocked rear parcel, which presently gains access via an easement over the frontage parcel. The new access lane would require a bridge to be constructed 100 feet east of the existing shared access bride, which spans Calabasaz Creek. The lot line adjustment involves transfer of 13,910 square feet to APN 503-13-134, which is owned by Judy Chapel, from APN, 503-13-136 and 137, which is owned by Frank Horvath. The lot line adjustment also involves transfer of 13,910 square feet from APN 503-13- 135 and 134, owned by Judy Chapel, to APN 503-13-137, which is owned by Frank Horvath. (ANN WELSH AND TOM SULLIVAN) Assistant Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is attempting to create a flag lot access for Parcel 1, which is currently landlocked with an access easement. • Said that the lot line adjustment will require the construction of a new bridge 120 feet east of the existing shared access bridge. • Said that the necessary findings can be made, this project is consistent with the General Plan, is a physically suitable site and the proposed design would not cause any environmental safety problems. • Said that the project has received preliminary geotechnical and Fire approval but will require additional review. • Suggested minor changes to the proposal to revise the lot line to widen the lane in Parcel 1 and to require the construction of a clear span bridge. • Said that there would be minimal impact on trees and replacement trees, appropriate to a streamside environment, will be planted. • Reminded that additional approvals will have to be obtained from the Soil Conservation Service and the Army Corps of Engineers before construction. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the relocation of the driveway to the west is proposed to save Tree #1. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied yes. She added that staff proposes to widen the stem of the flag to move the bridge over and avoid removal of this tree. Commissioner Nagpal asked whether it was practical to preserve both Tree #1 and Tree #3. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied no. This is not possible in order to be able to meet Fire requirements. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 9, 2003 Page 3 Commissioner Nagpal asked of the poles would be removed. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied one would be removed. Commissioner Nagpal proposed enlarging the shoulder to allow those accessing the site to pull off the roadway and asked if this idea had been contemplated. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied that this could be required and that there is enough space available to accommodate widening the shoulder. Commissioner Garakani questioned why not move the easement from one side to the other instead of this proposed lot line adjustment. Director Tom Sullivan replied that this would be a good question for the applicant. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that if the easement were to be moved the new bridge could be moved closer to the existing bridge. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh advised that the applicants want totally separate parcels. Commissioner Garakani asked if a Traffic Study is not warranted. Director Tom Sullivan said that the Commission could deny the lot line adjustment with findings as another way onto the parcel currently exists. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh said that the Commission could require a Traffic Study at the applicant’s expense. Agreed that traffic around Mt. Eden Road can be difficult. Commissioner Uhl suggested a 15 percent bond for the trees. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh advised that the City’s Arborist recommends the bond amount and the condition of approval for the bond amount is based on the Arborist’s recommendations. After construction is completed, the City’s Arborist makes sure that trees are in reasonable condition. Acting Chair Barry asked if this would be included in the Resolution. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied yes. Acting Chair Barry pointed out that a tree bond is a recommendation in the staff report and a Condition in the Resolution. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh said that the actual dollar amount can be called out in the Resolution. Commissioner Zutshi said that page 10 of the report calls out the dollar amount. Director Tom Sullivan suggested striking out the word “recommended” and replacing it with the word “required” on page 16. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 9, 2003 Page 4 Acting Chair Barry asked when the original lot split was done on this property. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh: • Stated that this parcel has a long history. It used to be located at the City/County boundary. In the 1980’s, the County portion of this parcel received Building Site Approval. At that time, the owner came to the City of Saratoga and asked that the City recognize it as being two parcels. That was done 20 years ago. The County portion became incorporated into the City of Saratoga. A lot line adjustment was recorded 10 years ago and a new lot line adjustment will now create a flag lot configuration. Acting Chair Barry asked if Mr. Horvath has owned the property over the years. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied yes. Acting Chair Barry advised that the first step in this proposal would be to approve an initial study. Pointed out that the Negative Declaration mentions a trail easement on the south side of the property while elsewhere in the report this trail easement is mentioned as being on the east side. Asked which is correct. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied that there is a 10-foot easement all along the entire southeast side. The trail easement was recorded but never acted upon. The City has the right to pursue this trail if it wanted to do so. Doing so would require tree removal. Director Tom Sullivan reminded out that this easement already exists. Acting Chair Barry pointed out that improvements to the trail are the issue. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh agreed that the question is whether the City should now require the improvements. Director Tom Sullivan said that the question is does this trail easement connect to improved easements on either end. Added that improvements can be added as a condition of approval with the necessary findings of nexus to do so. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh added that the easement goes across the Calabasaz creek. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that if the City wants to use this trail, it would have to build a bridge. Acting Chair Barry said that there might be enough of a nexus to require improvements to the trail. Commissioner Schallop suggested asking to have the easement redrawn to allow use of the existing bridge if the trail were to be improved in the future. Acting Chair Barry expressed concern with granting a Building Site Approval with the proposed 26- foot height, two stories and a cabana/garage combination. Asked staff how best to deal with the approval of a BSA if the Commission does not want to grant all the specifics. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 9, 2003 Page 5 Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the BSA is intended to provide enough conceptual architecture to see how the site would be able to be developed but does not serve in place of the Design Review process. Suggested that the Commission could state in their findings that the BSA does not include specific building rights. Acting Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Marvin Kirkeby, Civil Engineer: • Said that per his understanding of the Subdivision Map Act a lot line adjustment cannot be conditioned. Conditions would have to be a part of the Building Site Approval. • Said that the history of this property is a long one and that he is available for any questions. Commissioner Schallop asked if the applicant is willing to adjust the proposed lot line adjustment to deal with staff’s recommendations. Mr. Marvin Kirkeby replied yes. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that there are a lot of geotechnical issues and asked if the applicant is willing to go with the recommendations. Mr. Marvin Kirkeby replied yes. He said he has revised the driveway three times to get away from areas with geotechnical concerns and the current placement meets criteria. Commissioner Zutshi asked if the necessary approvals of the Army Corps of Engineers have been obtained. Mr. Marvin Kirkeby replied that this is the standard process and he will do so. Acting Chair Barry raised the issues of safety mentioned and asked if Mr. Kirkeby would object to a condition being added to either move the bridge or enlarge the shoulder of the roadway for additional safety. Mr. Marvin Kirkeby said he had no objection to that requirement as they want to make the site as safe as it can be. Acting Chair Barry asked if either suggestion were acceptable to Mr. Kirkeby. Mr. Marvin Kirkeby replied that either solution would be acceptable. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Kirkeby why not simply move the easement rather than doing a lot line adjustment. Acting Chair Barry reminded that the applicant could answer that question. Mr. Marvin Kirkeby said that given the long history, an even exchange of land is the only way to make this work. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 9, 2003 Page 6 Commissioner Uhl pointed out that in 1984 the easement was considered acceptable. Questioned why come back now for a Lot Line Adjustment. Mr. Marvin Kirkeby replied that the easement requires use of the existing bridge, which results in a large useable area that the easement goes right through, limiting other use of that land by the Andersons as well as representing a danger for the children playing on the property. The goal is to separate the two properties rather than having a driveway going through one to access the other. Acting Chair Barry reiterated that the Planning Commission is being asked to solve this problem by allowing a separation of the parcels without use of an easement. Asked if the owner lives on site. Mr. Marvin Kirkeby replied no. He added that the property has been on the market for five years. It has been hard to determine just what can be built upon it. The BSA evaluates the lot and its use. Acting Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:40 p.m. Acting Chair Barry suggested a vote first on the Initial Study followed by action on the Lot Line Adjustment and Building Site Approval. Commissioner Zutshi agreed that access by easement is a tricky situation that no one wants. Said that as long as geotechnical requirements are met she has no problem with this lot line adjustment. Commissioner Garakani agreed saying that there is a waste of land with the existing easement. Said he has no issue with the Lot Line Adjustment although simply relocating the easement would be easier. Commissioner Schallop said he agreed with the staff recommendation for the move of the bridge to save Tree #1. Commissioner Uhl concurred. Said he could support with the stipulation for the trail, dealing with the safety issue through the placement of the bridge or widening of the shoulder and with an appropriate tree bond. Commissioner Nagpal expressed support. Said she saw children running around during the site visit and could understand the concern for their safety. Suggested that the Commission should state that they are not agreeing to a specific height for the proposed structure. Director Tom Sullivan suggested adding that statement to the findings. Acting Chair Barry said that it is important that any new home fit into the natural landscape perhaps by being more descriptive of what is acceptable in the findings. Commissioner Garakani suggested that since there is no Design Review approval being given at this time, the placement of the house be removed outright. Commissioner Nagpal said that there has to be some sort of building envelope indicated as the application is for a Building Site Approval. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 9, 2003 Page 7 Director Tom Sullivan agreed that enough architecture had to be submitted to see how the lot could be developed. Reiterated that the Commission is approving an envelope but not any one specific architectural design. Any home proposed for this site would still be required to go through the Design Review process. Commissioner Uhl pointed out that the intent of the Commission will be clear by having it put into the record. Acting Chair Barry said that whoever buys the property needs to be aware of that fact. Director Tom Sullivan suggested that this issue be included in the findings to read “nothing about the Building Site Approval guarantees the ability to develop this parcel at the maximum allowable standards.” Acting Chair Barry asked if Director Sullivan’s draft finding is part of the BSA rather than the Initial Study. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission approved a Negative Declaration for Application #02-213 (Lot Line Adjustment) for property located at 22122 Mt. Eden Road, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Nagpal, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Hunter ABSTAIN: None Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission approved Application #02-062 (Building Site Approval) for property located at 22122 Mt. Eden Road, with staff recommendations and with the added conditions: • That a 15 percent bond amount for trees be specifically called out for in the Resolution; • That the City Arborist’s conditions be included in the Resolution and followed exactly for the improvements of the proposed trail easement; • That language be added stating that “nothing about the Building Site Approval should be construed as granting specific Design Review Approval including the maximum square footage, height, number of stores, number of buildings and/or closeness of setbacks permitted; • That staff will review and approve any safety mitigation; and • Subject to the concurrence of the Parks & Recreation Trails Commission, move the location of the trail easement; by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Nagpal, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Hunter ABSTAIN: None Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 9, 2003 Page 8 Acting Chair Barry reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:50 p.m. Mr. Marvin Kirkeby, Civil Engineer for Project, strenuously objected to the imposition of the added finding to this Building Site Approval. Acting Chair Barry reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:55 p.m. *** PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION #01-039 (APN 503-15-065) – HOUSE/OLSEN, Parcel 1, Old Oak Way: Request approval for Design Review and grading over one thousand cubic yards to construct a new two-story 7,904 square foot house on a vacant lot. The gross lot size is 11.56 acres and zoned Hillside Residential. The maximum height of the residence will be approximately 24 feet. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Informed that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval and grading over 1,000 cubic yards to allow the construction of a new 7,900 square foot home on a vacant lot with a maximum height of 24 feet. • Warned that the renderings posted are artistic while the plans in the packet actually reflect what is proposed. • Described proposed materials as including cedar wood siding with natural stone and a composition shingle roof. • Advised that the project does meet the Residential Design Policies that include minimizing the perception of bulk. This proposed house is built into the hillside with a majority of the home well below the 24-foot maximum height, giving the appearance of a single story structure from the west and southwest elevations. Additionally, the house integrates with the environment through its materials that include wood siding, earthtone colors, use of natural stone, which helps blend the home into the environment. The applicant is maintaining numerous oak trees as well as planting more oak trees. The proposal avoids privacy interference due to its isolated location and the large size of the lot. • Stated that the second entitlement, in addition to Design Review Approval, is the allowance for grading in excess of 1,000 cubic yards, which requires Planning Commission approval. • Said that this request meets the required findings to support this additional grading as a majority of the grading is required to provide access to the site. • Informed that the site has well over 100 trees. Six trees are proposed for removal with 24 replacement trees proposed. • Advised that this project is consistent with the General Plan and the Hillside Specific Plan and has been designed to conform with policy. • Recommended that the Planning Commission approve both the Design Review and grading over 1,000 cubic yards. Acting Chair Barry asked if the excess grading represents an Exception or a Variance. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that this request requires an Exception. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 9, 2003 Page 9 Commissioner Nagpal asked for clarification on the differences. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied required findings. Acting Chair Barry pointed out that the Code states grading“shall not” exceed 1,000 cubic yards. Director Tom Sullivan read from Section 15.13.050(f) for the Hillside Residential Zoning, which goes on to read, unless approved by the Planning Commission with required findings. Commissioner Schallop asked if the grading figures include the pool. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied yes. He added that the basement, however, is not included. Acting Chair Barry pointed out that the requirements for a Variance are much more strict. Commissioner Zutshi asked why this is an Exception as opposed to a Variance. Director Tom Sullivan replied that it is how the Code is written for the Hillside Zoning. Reminded that hillside properties are often very large lots that require lots of earth moving in order to provide site access. Associate Planner John Livingstone added that this is a very common Exception rule for cities throughout the Peninsula. Acting Chair Barry asked for clarification on the Hillside Plan Code as it pertains to average slope. Director Tom Sullivan: • Said that it is based upon average natural grade and does not include the entire parcel but only the actual building area, where Code says the average natural grade shall not exceed 30 percent. • Added that if this application exceeded the slope allowances, a Variance application would be appropriate but this case does not exceed allowable slope. Commissioner Uhl: • Commended staff on a well-done report. • Pointed out the plan to remove six oak trees and replace them with 24 oak trees but said that an actual dollar value has not been specifically called out. • Asked what the value actually would be for these replacement trees. Associate Planner John Livingstone: • Replied that in the Arborist’s report, it is recommended to have a $15,000 amount for security against possible damage to existing trees. • Reminded that the applicant has a landscape plan. • Assured that the Building Department plan submittal will include the required replacement trees. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the trail easement is part of the plan. Associate Planner John Livingstone: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 9, 2003 Page 10 • Reported that lots of letters have been received on the issue of the trail easement, copies of which have been provided to the Commission. • Informed that the applicant would like to abandon the right-of-way in the future. • Said that there may be a nexus for Council to ask for specific things in return for allowing the abandonment of the right-of-way. Acting Chair Barry: • Cautioned the audience that if they want to discuss the trail easement in order to get their views onto the public record that is fine. • Warned them that this issue of the trail easement would not be a part of the Design Review approval since the Commission has no jurisdiction over that aspect. • Asked if the Commission is also being asked to make another Exception to the rule about constructing within a certain distance of ridgeline. • Pointed out that this site is on a designated ridgeline with limited tree cover. • Asked for clarification. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that per Code requirements this is not a Variance, although no structures are permitted within eight feet of a major ridgeline without tree cover. However, the applicant is revegetating the site, which meets Code requirements. Director Tom Sullivan added that the ridge is not there anymore. Acting Chair Barry said it appears that previous owners must have done some illegal grading. Director Tom Sullivan said that Acting Chair Barry is probably correct. Commissioner Uhl said that the adjacent ridges on both sides are higher so does this restriction even apply in this case. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied probably. Acting Chair Barry expressed appreciation to the applicants for mitigation trees proposed to be planted in front of the house so the folks across the valley will have screening. Associate Planner John Livingstone added that these screening trees would be large boxed new oaks. Commissioner Zutshi asked if a condition to assure road conditions during construction has been added. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that this is a standard part of obtaining a grading permit through the Public Works Department. Acting Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:22 p.m. Mr. Goody, Architect, The Steinberg Group: • Introduced those present, including Mr. and Mrs. House, Project Architect Jeff Bird and the project’s landscape architect and civil engineer. Mr. David House, Property Owner & Applicant: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 9, 2003 Page 11 • Thanked the Commission for its site visit the previous day. • Advised that he is building houses for his two adult children. • Assured that these houses would be unobtrusive to his neighbors. • Thanked the Commission for its consideration of his application. Mr. Goody, Architect: • Explained that there is a reason for an Ordinance on grading. • Said that in the past, builders were shaving the tops of hills to get three or four houses on top of a knoll. • Added that the intention was not to prevent good architecture that allows one to fit houses onto such a site. Commissioner Schallop asked if there is any way to redesign the decking to mitigate impacts on Tree #19, which has been identified as exceptional. Associate Planner John Livingstone cautioned that this particular tree is part of the second house, to be discussed separately immediately following this one. Acting Chair Barry said that she could understand the consideration of an Exception to allow additional grading for access to the house. However, she does not necessarily support the right to a grading Exception to allow swimming pools for each of the houses when such excessive grading is already required to build on that site. Suggested that since there is already a pool on the House’s property, could it not be used by the entire family as a type of “community” pool instead of each house having its own pool. Mr. Goody, Architect: • Stated that while it is important for the City to protect its interests, it is not correct or fair for the City to determine the way that people live. • Added that if the applicant is in a position to have a pool, why should they not have one, if done properly. • Questioned the right of government to deny if it hurts no one, therefore it is not right to say no. Acting Chair Barry stated that while she may respect Mr. Goody’s right to an opinion, this request represents an Exception to the City Codes. It is important that the Commission be consistent in its implementation of its rules. Reminded that 1,000 cubic feet of grading requires an Exception. Mr. David House, Applicant: • Pointed out that elimination of a pool would still not reduce the excavation requirements for the site to below 1,000 cubic yards. • Said that the suggestion for a community pool for his family is not consistent with the desires of his family. Both of his adult children want their own pool. The grandchildren are ages 4, 5, 6 and 7. It is more convenient for parents to watch over their children while swimming if it is done in their own yard. Commissioner Uhl asked Mr. House if he has any problem with the suggestion to increase the bond amount for trees. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 9, 2003 Page 12 Mr. David House said not if the amount proposed is reasonable. Assured that he loves the trees and the Commission can be assured that he will take excellent care of existing and new oak trees. Added that he just planted two new oaks simply because he felt they were needed. Acting Chair Barry asked to speak with the landscape architect and asked what the plan is for the area other than the oaks. Mr. Ron Wigginton, Landscape Architect, 2702 8th Street, Berkeley, CA: • Advised that they are trying to naturalize the landscaping using low-lying grasses and native and drought tolerant shrubs and trees. • Clarified that they will be adding 33 oak trees not 24 as stated. Acting Chair Barry asked if this information is on the submitted landscape plan. Mr. Ron Wigginton replied yes. Acting Chair Barry asked if this is true for both parcels. Mr. Ron Wigginton replied yes. Mr. Goody, Architect: • Said that he hopes they would be given the opportunity to address any neighbor concerns raised, if any. Acting Chair Barry assured that they would have the opportunity. Mr. Philip Williams, 21272 Chiquita Way, Saratoga: • Identified himself as a spokesperson for the Chadwick and Chiquita neighbors. • Said they are supportive of the proposed new homes and they support the open space approach taken. • Said that there have been serious discussions about trails and easements and a significant amount of correspondence. • Stated that erroneous information has been distributed over the last couple of years. • Informed that their lawyer has reviewed the Open Space agreement made 10 years ago, which prohibits public access from any trail. • Added that while others may allow such access, here it is expressly forbidden. • Said that they are concerned about secondary effects of closing off Old Oak Way. Acting Chair Barry stated that it is relevant to have a copy of Mr. William’s letter outlining these concerns to go forward to Council. Mr. Philip Williams reiterated their support for the approval of this new home. Ms. Rosemary Wong, 21252 Chadwick Court, Saratoga: • Stated that they have acted as a community, working out a problem. • Thanked the Houses for inviting the neighborhood to an Open House to discuss this project. • Said that she has reservations about dedication of land in exchange for closing Old Oak Way. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 9, 2003 Page 13 • Stated that there are six types of Open Space Land, including natural resource preservation. • Said that trail access is being designated for a purpose for which it was not intended. • Asked that this be reconsidered. Acting Chair Barry pointed out that this trading information was provided as an “for your information” item and is not part of the Design Review Approval the Commission is passing judgement on tonight. Reminded that it is not within the Commission’s jurisdiction to say anything about trading access rights for the closing of Old Oak Way. Mr. Chris Blackwell, 21357 Diamond Oaks Court, Saratoga: • Stated that he has toured the building sites and visited the properties. • Said that this is architecturally an outstanding project that has been extremely well integrated into the surrounding area. • Said that they are fortunate to have such a fine project in the area. Mr. Tim Herbert, 13534 Old Oak Way, Saratoga: • Identified himself as a seven-year resident of the neighborhood, although he has know Dave House for more than 12 years. • Said that he is the son of an architect and from a design perspective, these homes are understated and elegant, blending in nicely into the environment and neighborhood, which is a series of one- acre lots. • Said that his formal letter of support was included in the packet. Ms. Carol Burnett, 20820 Reid Lane, Saratoga: • Described the existing home constructed by the Houses to be exceptional. • Strongly supported the construction of these two proposed new homes. Mr. Bob Stark, 21247 Chiquita Way, Saratoga: • Asked that the issue of trail access be followed through so it does not become an issue in the neighborhood. • Said that a dead end street offers a certain security as only those with business in the area have any reason to be there. However, if this becomes a trailhead, it would become a big deal with the neighborhood because there will be unknown people hanging about. • Said that he already has the task of picking up litter and fears that this need would greatly increase with the creation of a trail access. Acting Chair Barry asked staff if the Trail Plan is coming to the Planning Commission. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. The dedicated easements are being mapped as well as planned extensions without existing easements. Also included are Water District properties. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh is working with the Trails Committee and the Parks & Recreation Commission. It is anticipated that hearings would be held by the end of this calendar year. Acting Chair Barry encouraged all interested parties to come back at that time. Mr. David House, Applicant: • Pointed out that they are stuck between the desires of the Trails Committee and the neighborhood. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 9, 2003 Page 14 • Assured that he would work cooperatively with neighbors and the City to come up with a resolution acceptable in the best possible way. • Thanked the Commission for its consideration. Acting Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 9:00 p.m. Commissioner Garakani: • Stated that the design of this home is great. • Said that the story poles installed were excellent and could tell the story on how this home would appear on the site. • Added that it may be on a ridgeside but that plenty of landscaping to be installed that will screen out most of the house. • Pointed out that a big part of the house is cut into the hill. • Stated he really supports this design and has no problem with the inclusion of great landscaping including the addition of new oak trees. Commissioner Schallop agreed. Commissioner Nagpal: • Agreed with the comments of Commissioner Garakani and thanked all involved with this project. • Stated that this is an interesting architectural design. • Said that she is not as stressed on the issue of a pool on this site and that she could understand the desire for a pool for each house. • Added that she would like to see it made very clear that the trail issue is not being a part of this approval. Commissioner Uhl: • Said that this is an outstanding project and that a fabulous job has been done to preserve the site. • Stated that the job of the Commission is made easier when everyone involved works this well together. Acting Chair Barry: • Echoed the comments of the other Commissioners. • Expressed appreciation for the attempt to screen this house from the folks across the canyon. • Said that the proposed materials and natural colors blend in well in to the hillside although the house is maxed out on allowable square footage. • Stated that a wonderful job has been done and the only issue is the need for excess grading. • Said that if everyone else is comfortable approving the grading, she would go along although she felt it needs to be discussed further. Commissioner Zutshi: • Apologized for missing the site visit. • Said that the house is big but is designed to fit into the hillside so it does not look big. • Agreed to support the separate pool for each structure. • Asked that the applicant think about whether there is any way to reduce grading. • Said that while this may be a big house it is suitable for this site. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 9, 2003 Page 15 Commissioner Schallop: • Expressed agreement with the staff report regarding the fact that the exception for grading can be justified in this case. • Stated that he has no concerns in supporting this project. Commissioner Uhl reminded that Code says the exception to allow the extra grading can be granted with findings so that this approval would not go against Code. Acting Chair Barry said that one question might be whether or not it is reasonable development of a site to include a pool when so much grading is already required for this site. Commissioner Schallop pointed out that most homes in the area have pools. Commissioner Uhl said that he is glad the issue of the pool has been discussed but feels that at this point the inclusion of a pool can be supported. Acting Chair Barry thanked the applicant for not incorporating the use of copper elements on these homes. Commissioner Zutshi commended the applicant for conducting an Open House where the neighbors could review the plans. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission granted a Design Review and Grading Approval (Application #01-039) to allow the construction of a new two-story 7,904 square foot house on a vacant lot on Old Oak Way (APN 503-15-065) with the added finding to read, “while the Planning Commission accepted testimony regarding the trails easement and proposed street abandonment, this approval did not address those issues” by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Nagpal, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Hunter ABSTAIN: None *** APPLICATION #01-040 (APN 503-15-041) – HOUSE/CARGILL, Parcel 2, Old Oak Way: Request approval for Design Review and grading over one thousand cubic yards to construct a new two-story 6,647 square foot house on a vacant lot. The gross lot size is 4.24 acres and zoned Hillside Residential. The maximum height of the residence will be approximately 26 feet. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Informed that the applicant is seeking Design Review and Grading over 1,000 cubic yards to allow the construction of a 6,600 square foot house on a vacant lot. • Advised that the project meets Residential Design Guidelines in that it is built into the hillside in order to reduce the perception of bulk. The design and materials are compatible and views are preserved. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 9, 2003 Page 16 • Said that the necessary findings can be made to allow an Exception for grading over 1,000 cubic yards. • Said that this project conforms to the General Plan and Hillside Specific Plan. • Recommended approval. Director Tom Sullivan suggested that the same finding be added to this project as to the previous one regarding the issue of trail access. Commissioner Zutshi asked if the shared roadway has been double counted for these two homes. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that the road was split and shared and not double counted. Acting Chair Barry said that it did not appear that much grading would be required for the road. Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that the existing access would have to be leveled down the hill slope to allow required drainage. Director Tom Sullivan said that material has to be taken out to construct this road. Acting Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 9:15 p.m. Mr. David House, Applicant: • Said that the roadwork would include removal of dirt, compaction and installation of rock, etc., to construct the new road. Commissioner Zutshi asked if any of the removed soil could be used elsewhere on the property. Mr. Jeff Bird, Project Architect, The Steinberg Group: • Stated that if the geotechnical engineer evaluates the soil as suitable, some will be used. If not, it would have to be exported off site. Ms. Jitka Symbal, Civil Engineer, Westphal Engineering: • Clarified that each parcel was assessed half the road grading. • Agreed that some material excavated might be useable on site but not all. Acting Chair Barry asked about the protection of Tree #19. Mr. Jeff Bird: • Said that a replacement value would have to be determined in the event that this tree would be required to be removed. • Said that the only way to preserve it is if the crown is cut very high and still have the tree running through the deck. • Added that the best option is probably to remove this tree. Commissioner Garakani said that since Tree #19 has been ranked as being exceptional it is well worth relocating the footprint to retain this tree per the Arborist’s report. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 9, 2003 Page 17 Commissioner Uhl pointed out that the tree report is confusing and there appears to be doubt that this tree is even ranked as exceptional. Commissioner Garakani advised that dealing with a specimen tree issue in his neighborhood was what led him to join the Planning Commission. Commissioner Schallop asked what changes could be made to the decking or footprint to accommodate this tree. Mr. Jeff Bird replied that the footprint is tight and the building envelope is narrow. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that the building is at maximum allowable and perhaps building a smaller house could help save this exceptional tree. Mr. Jeff Bird reminding that this tree is but one of several hundred on the property. Mr. David House, applicant, said that he is always sad when he loses about four trees a year to storm damage. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that there are only six specimen trees on this part of the property. Mr. David House reminded that his property overall consists of 73 acres with thousands of oak trees. Commissioner Zutshi stressed the importance for the Commission to preserve what it can. Acting Chair Barry said that while she can appreciate that Mr. House owns 73 acres, the Commission is not crafting conditions for all 73 acres. Commissioner Schallop said that Tree #19 seems to impact only the deck and not the house itself. Mr. Goody, The Steinberg Group: • Pointed out that they are not “butchering” the land here. They have been as careful to get good results. • Said that he is fighting this issue because this tree is not right where it is. • Said that this project is a good one. Ms. Marilyn, 21836 Villa Oaks, Saratoga: • Said that she is very much in favor of this project. • Suggested a solution to Tree #19 would be to have it moved. Mr. David Hosue said that he would consider that option and stated that he has watched two large oak trees being successfully moved in the past. Acting Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 9:30 p.m. Commissioner Garakani: • Stated that this house looks even better than the first one. • Stated that he liked the style and the house looks good. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 9, 2003 Page 18 • Said that something needs to be done to preserve Tree #19. • Added that if the Arborist calls it a specimen tree, his first recommendation should be honored. • Said that moving the tree might be possible but he was not sure that would work. Director Tom Sullivan: • Said that staff had investigated moving oaks in the past for another project. • Stated that if the tree were to be moved on site, it could be done. • Said that in order to save this tree, either the deck would have to be redesigned or the tree would have to be moved. • Reminded that the Arborist’s second communication on Tree #19 said that this tree would have to be reevaluated to see if it is indeed exceptional. • Advised that he would have the current City Arborist look at this tree to make that determination. Acting Chair Barry said that following reevaluation of this tree, it would have to be moved or the project redesigned around this tree. Commissioner Garakani said that the issue is not just the deck but also the footprint of the house. Commissioner Nagpal said that this home design is exception and that it may actually be better to move this tree. Commissioner Uhl: • Reminded that it is still unclear whether this tree is even exceptional. • Said that even if the tree were to be ranked as exceptional, there is still the question of how many other exceptional trees are on the property. • Expressed that individuals have the right to build on their property. • Said that at this time he does not feel comfortable saying one way or another what has to happen to this tree based on the conflicting information provided by the Arborist. Commissioner Schallop asked what should occur if the second Arborist’s report deems the tree to be exceptional. Acting Chair Barry said if the tree retains its exceptional ranking, if possible that tree should be moved. If the tree cannot be moved, it seems to be the consensus of the Commission to preserve this tree even if it requires some redesign of the project. Commissioner Uhl clarified that this would depend on the number of exceptional trees found on the property. Commissioner Garakani asked for clarification as to why the house is set back into the hill. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied because it helps reduce the perception of bulk. Acting Chair Barry reminded that this is a policy of the Design Guideline. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that simply reducing the square footage would not necessarily reduce the appearance of bulk and mass. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 9, 2003 Page 19 Commissioner Uhl stressed that there is still not enough information available to make the determination on this tree. Acting Chair Barry said that, in the past, the Commission has given the best direction possible, leaving an issue in staff’s hands to resolve. If necessary, staff brings the matter back to the Commission. This prevents the project from being held up. Director Tom Sullivan: • Said that staff was fine with that suggestion. • Outlined the next step as being the reevaluation of the tree to determine if it is exceptional. • Said that the first choice, if the tree were exceptional, would be to move this tree out of the way. • Advised that, in the event the tree cannot be moved, the Commission is recommending the redesign to keep the tree in place. Commissioner Uhl said this would depend on the context of this tree to the property. Director Tom Sullivan said that this tree is but one exception tree among hundreds on this property. Commissioner Nagpal compared the handling of the tree issue for Public Hearing Item No. 1 this evening. Director Tom Sullivan clarified that a choice was made between retaining an exceptional tree and allowing the removal a second lesser quality tree. Commissioner Garakani stated he has a hard time removing any exceptional tree. Commissioner Nagpal asked how many exceptional trees are found on this parcel. Director Tom Sullivan said that staff does not evaluate the whole parcel but rather only the areas impacted by construction. Acting Chair Barry pointed out that issues raised by the Arborist’s report is a bigger issue than just this project and would have to be dealt with separately. Suggested that if the tree is ranked as exceptional, this issue should be brought back to the Commission. Acting Chair Barry reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 9:52. Mr. David House: • Said that he counted the trees and there were 120 on this parcel. • Said that about a third of them are of this size and magnitude. • Said that when he built his own house, they obtained permission to remove three to four trees of similar quality. Acting Chair Barry reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 9:55. Commissioner Schallop: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 9, 2003 Page 20 • Suggested that if the City Arborist ranks the tree as exceptional and it can be moved safety, it should be moved. • Added that if the tree cannot be moved, the decision should be made this evening on the next possible course of action. • Said that if the tree is not removed, the structure or deck should be placed per the Arborist’s recommendations in order to preserve the tree. Associate Planner John Livingstone suggested adding a Condition that calls for the City’s Arborist to reevaluated Tree No. 19. If the tree is found to be exceptional, it should be relocated on site. If the tree is exceptional but not moveable, it should be removed and mitigation suggested in the Arborist’s report should be adhered to, assuming there are other exceptional trees in the vicinity. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission granted a Design Review and Grading Approval (Application #01-040) to allow the construction of a new two-story 6,647 square foot house on a vacant lot on Old Oak Way (APN 503-12-041) with the following conditions added: • That the City’s Arborist reevaluate Tree #19. If that tree is found to be exceptional, it should be relocated on site. If the tree is exceptional but not moveable, it should be removed and mitigation suggested in the Arborist’s report should be adhered to, assuming there are other exceptional trees in the vicinity. by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Nagpal, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Hunter ABSTAIN: None Acting Chair Barry reminded that there is a 15-day appeal period. *** APPLICATION #03-052 (CITYWIDE) – CITY OF SARATOGA: Multiple Zoning Ordinance Amendments updating various sections of the 15-12: R-1: Single Family Residential Districts; 15-45: Design Review: Single Family Dwelling and Chapter 14- Subdivisions. The proposed amendments to Article 15-12 provides for consistency between ordinance requirements and long time practices as well as simplifying the rules. The amendments to Article 15-45: Design Review provides streamlining and clarity. The amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance updates the Director’s title and removes references to the Building Site Approval process. (THOMAS SULLIVAN) Director Tom Sullivan advised that as there are holes in the tentative schedule for upcoming meetings, Item No 4 can be continued to the May 14th meeting. *** DIRECTOR’S ITEMS There were no Director’s Items. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 9, 2003 Page 21 COMMISSION ITEMS Site Visit Times Director Tom Sullivan solicited suggestions for better site visit times for the current Commission. Lately, site visits have begun at 3 p.m. Upon discussion by the Commissioners, it was decided to try starting the Commission’s site visits at noon beginning with the next one. COMMUNICATIONS Written: Letter from Mark Snow regarding Edencrest Lane with site plan. Director Tom Sullivan: • Advised that Mr. Snow’s letter seeks support to allow remedial grading of a site located on Edencrest Lane. • Said that the issue is that the geotechnical engineer has determined that the only way this property can be changed from being unbuildable to buildable is through remediation. • Added that the Commission is being asked to determine if this issue is worthy of discussion and/or staff recommendation from the Public Works Department and if it should be agendized as a regular discussion item. • Said that this site would need to go through the Exception process for grading in excess of 1,000 cubic yards. Acting Chair Barry said that her preference is to agendize this item. Said that the question is regarding the total impact and whether there is a point where the total impact is just too great. Commissioner Garakani agreed. Mr. Marvin Kirkeby, Civil Engineer: • Clarified that they would need about 3,000 to 5,000 cubic yards of cut grading and imported fill to bring this site up to a buildable standard. The dirt used would be new dirt. • Added that they will essentially be filling up a hole to end up with a relatively flat lot. Acting Chair Barry asked where this project is in the design process and if it would come to the Commission in the future. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes, this project would come to the Commission for Design Review. He said that issue of remediation for this site needs to be addressed early on. Commissioner Zutshi asked if the grading would affect the decision for this future house. Director Tom Sullivan: • Replied yes. • Added that if remediation of this site is treated as an Exception for more than 1,000 cubic yards of grading, remediation is part of the Design Review discussion. • Reminded that the only action this evening would be to put this on a future agenda as a discussion item. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 9, 2003 Page 22 Commissioner Garakani proposed bringing the dirt from the previous project and placing it here. Mr. James Kennedy, 540 N. Santa Cruz Avenue, Santa Cruz: • Advised that there have been two year’s worth of geotechnical review of this site as there is an old landslide there. It must be determined if the slide has stopped moving. • Said that engineers have determined that the site can be stabilized by engineering fill. • Said he is before the Commission on this issue first, prior to beginning the Design Review process. • Stated that he wants to know if this remediation would be treated outside of the Exception process for 1,000 cubic yards of grading. • Said he wants to treat this as a separate issue to see if the necessary remediation could be dealt with prior to discussing the specifics of building a house. Director Tom Sullivan stated that it appears to be the consensus of the Commission to agendize this matter and said that he would coordinate with the Public Works Department and the geotechnical engineers. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Acting Chair Barry adjourned the meeting at 10:13 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of April 23, 2003, at 7:30 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk