Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-27-2002 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Barry called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Roupe Absent: Commissioners Jackman and Zutshi Staff: Planner Ann Welsh and Planner Christy Oosterhous APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of February 13, 2002. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the regular Planning Commission minutes of February 13, 2002, were approved with a one word correction to page 12. AYES:Barry, Hunter, Garakani, Kurasch and Roupe NOES: None ABSENT: Jackman and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Planner Christy Oosterhous announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 21, 2002. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Planner Christy Oosterhous 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 February 27, 2002 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 DR-01-045 (517-19-042), ELLIS – 14920 Vickery Avenue: Request for Design Review to construct a two-story single-family Mediterranean-Contemporary style residence. The floor area of the proposed home is 3,431 square feet with a 1,487 square foot basement. The lot, located in the R-1-20,000 zoning district, contains 36,368 square feet. The applicant proposes a maximum structure height of 23 feet. The existing two-story structure, garage, pool and shed are to be demolished. (WELSH) Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval to demolish an existing two-story residence, pool and shed and construct a new 3,431 square foot residence with a 1,487 square foot basement. The parcel is located within the R-1-20,000 zoning district at 14920 Vickery Avenue. • Describe the proposed residence as a Mediterranean-Contemporary style that conforms to the zoning district requirements. There is a minimization of the perception of bulk through the L- shaped design. The home would be integrated into the environment as it will back into a steep slope. Privacy issues are addressed naturally by vertical separation of this structure from its neighboring structures. • Added that there are few issues with this proposal. There is a possibility that a retaining wall near the pool may need to be moved back. Additionally, another minor issue exists with a light well that exceeds three feet in depth at one point. • Recommended approval and stated that the necessary findings can be met. • Pointed out that Fire Requirements 14 and 17 should be omitted as a correction to the staff report. Commissioner Hunter asked if there is a basement with this home. Planner Ann Welsh replied yes. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that this proposed home is close to the maximum allowable square footage and asked whether the square footage at the front entry was double counted due to its height above 15 feet. Planner Ann Welsh replied no. She clarified that the applicant has revised plans to deal with a couple of minor issues and to meet square footage requirements. Commissioner Roupe asked if these changes show the front entry to be less than 15 feet in height. Planner Ann Welsh advised that the applicant has redesigned the turret so that it does not have walls. There must be three walls and a roof to be counted and with the redesign there are only columns and a roof. Commissioner Roupe clarified that he is speaking to the issue of the foyer and not the porch feature. He repeated his question as to whether the open space above the foyer has been properly double counted in the final square footage. Planner Ann Welsh assured that the foyer roofline is lower than 15 feet. Commissioner Roupe asked if the plans in the packet are the most current. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002 Page 3 Planner Ann Welsh replied yes. Chair Barry asked that the typical condition for retaining water on site be added to the Conditions as has been the practice. Planner Ann Welsh said that this can easily be added. Commissioner Roupe: • Pointed out that the Commission has established some pretty standard issues that they no longer feel compelled to call out for each application. Included are fireplace, fence and drainage issues. • Asked staff to discuss these with Director Sullivan as a format issue to ensure that these issues are always routinely addressed by appropriate Conditions of Approval. Planner Ann Welsh agreed that it is not unusual to have boilerplate Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Roupe said it is important that these are always included unless an exception is called out. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:20 p.m. Mr. Don Andre, Project Architect, 723 E. Lake Avenue, Watsonville, CA 95076: • Stated that it is difficult to show this L-shaped design on a two-dimensional plan. • Assured that the height is at 14 feet in the entry and that there is no area above 14 feet. Commissioner Roupe asked that staff carefully look at the entry foyer and ensure that the entry square footage is counted twice if any found to be above 15 feet in height. Planner Ann Welsh said that staff can have the applicant provide a cross section. Mr. Don Andre agreed that he could do that. Chair Barry suggested that this request could be added as a Condition of Approval. Mr. Don Andre said that they have had an exhaustive site study prepared including a geotechnical report. There will be a better situation on this property with the new house on this site. It will be more stable with better site drainage and natural landscaping is to be retained. Commissioner Roupe commended Mr. Andre for the story poles, which were very well installed and helpful. Mr. Don Andre said that they demonstrate that the house would not be seen from Vickery. Commissioner Kurasch: • Said that it is hard to see that the four elevations come from the same house. Each has a radically different look. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002 Page 4 • Asked how these different appearing styles would go together as it does not appear that there is one continuous style. It is hard to put this house altogether. • Asked what this variety of style was going toward, including different style windows. On one elevation, it appears as if no two windows look alike. Commissioner Roupe agreed that it is difficult to read the two-dimensional drawings and pointed out that it is helpful to have a key plan. Suggested to staff that in the future they might ask to have a key plan included on the plan set. Commissioner Garakani asked about the retaining wall near the pool. Mr. Don Andre advised that the landscaping plan was conceptual and that the retaining wall is being moved forward per the Arborist’s report recommendation. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Hunter: • Said that she knows this property well and agrees that the new home will not be visible from the roadway. • Stated that as long as the owners like this design, that’s fine and good luck to them. Commissioner Roupe: • Said that this is a good, nice-looking design that is well protected for privacy. • Agreed that the architectural continuity is not evident but that it looks into a land slope and is perhaps more of an inside out kind of design situation. • Stated that this is an acceptable project. Commissioner Kurasch: • Said that it is not good to ignore architectural design even if someone cannot see it. • Added that she has no other objections and agrees the project is well suited to the property even if it is not particularly attractive. Chair Barry: • Clarified that the two issues raised include having staff verify the proper count of the square footage for the foyer feature, charging double square footage if appropriate, and to ensure water retention on site. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission approved DR-01-045 to allow the construction of a new residence at 14920 Vickery Avenue with the added Conditions: • That staff review the total square footage to ensure that the project does not exceed allowable, paying particular attention to how the square footage of the entry foyer is counted, depending on maximum height and double counted if found to be higher than 15 feet; and • That on-site drainage be addressed as a Condition of Approval. AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter and Roupe Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002 Page 5 NOES: Kurasch ABSENT: Jackman and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 2 Application #02-021 (Citywide): The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment to create standards to permit small wind energy conversion systems in accordance with State Assembly Bill 1207. (WELSH) Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that as a result of State Assembly Bill 1207, each municipality is expected to not unduly regulate the establishment of small wind energy conversion systems but rather to encourage their use. • Said that if a municipality does not adopt local review requirements by July 1, 2002, right to install wind energy conversion systems would allow any applicant that complies with the minimum guidelines established by the Bill. • Said that the draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment prohibits installations within scenic corridors, requires a minimum parcel size of one acre and establishes setback and noise requirements. Finally, if an installation is not used for 12 months, the property owner must dismantle it. Commissioner Kurasch suggested the added provision that cellular antennas not be permitted to be installed atop these systems for aesthetic reasons. Commissioner Roupe expressed concern for going forward with such an Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Planner Ann Welsh cautioned that though a municipality could pass on adopting such an Ordinance, it will have more controls if they do. Included in this draft are limits on Hillsides, agricultural zoning districts, scenic corridors and scenic highways. Creating this Ordinance gives the City more controls. Commissioner Roupe said that it is important to have design control including how these units are painted. Asked why not do the same thing for cellular antennas. Commissioner Hunter said that due to the energy crisis, she supports wind power and is willing to pass this Ordinance to meet the intent of the Bill the Legislature and Governor have passed. Chair Barry asked if these types of installations will come before the Planning Commission for Design Review approvals. Ms. Ann Welsh said that her original draft had even more restrictions that this proposal before the Commission. However, the City’s Attorney eliminated a number of them. The Ordinance before the Commission is a bare bones Windmill Ordinance. If the State finds that a local municipality’s Windmill Ordinance is too restrictive, it would be found to be non-compliant and thrown out. The City cannot add a lot of restrictions. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002 Page 6 Chair Barry asked if the application process for a windmill installation would be for a Use Permit or Design Review. Planner Ann Welsh replied that the application process would be for a Conditional Use Permit only. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the State would review the Ordinance. Planner Ann Welsh said that the State is relying on the prudence of each local municipality. Commissioner Hunter said that windmills are a big issue in some of the Northern California Counties that are more agricultural. Commissioner Kurasch said that a goal stated within the City’s General Plan is to lessen the dependence on non-renewable resources. Commissioner Roupe said that a potentially 60 foot high tower, minimum height, plus blades, does not seem to fit anywhere in the City. Chair Barry said that the likelihood for such installations is low in Saratoga and stressed that it would not make sense to allow these windmills on a ridgeline. Planner Ann Welsh pointed out that the draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment does not permit windmills on a scenic easement, within an earthquake zone, on a scenic highway corridor, to name a few restrictions. Chair Barry said that with all respect to the City Attorney, she would support putting in additional restrictions and see if the Ordinance will stand up to State scrutiny. Planner Ann Welsh said that she would try to address ridgeline installations and present the changes to the City Attorney for review for compliance with the Bill’s intent. Chair Barry stressed the need for controls over location and design issues for windmill installations. Commissioner Roupe asked staff to raise these issues with the City Attorney. Commissioner Kurasch asked staff to also seek advice on the consequences of not adopting an Ordinance. Chair Barry agreed that it is worth the effort to push the envelope. Commissioner Garakani questioned how it is possible to ensure continuous operation of a windmill and how this could be monitored. Planner Ann Welsh advised that abandoned windmill complaints would be handled on a Code Enforcement basis. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002 Page 7 Commissioner Hunter said that windmills are dangerous for birds and that the Audubon Society is upset by the use of windmills. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that windmills will have a metering system, which will be a simple way to monitor whether a windmill is generating power. Chair Barry opened and closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:52 p.m. Chair Barry stated that the Commission will not take action this evening but rather would direct staff to revise the Draft Ordinance per the comments made by the Commission. *** PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 3 DR-01-021, BSA-01-002 & V-01-012 (517-14-080) – HUSTED, Kittridge Road: Request for Design Review and Building Site Approval to construct a two-story, Craftsman style, single-family residence on a vacant lot. The floor area of the proposed residence and attached two-car garage is 4,810 square feet. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The site is zoned Hillside Residential. A variance is requested in order to construct retaining walls in excess of five feet. An exception is also requested to exceed one thousand cubic yards of cut and fill. (OOSTERHOUS) Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval for a two story Craftsman style single family residence on a vacant lot that is eight acres gross and five acres net. The FAR is 4,810 and the proposed maximum height is 26 feet. The zoning is Hillside Residential. • Said that the site has received geotechnical clearance. • Described the proposed structure as having cherry stained cedar shake siding and stone veneer. There are three acres of private access easements. • Said that a fire truck turnaround is proposed. This is a public safety requirement made by the Fire District. • Said that the average slope of the property is steep, except for the building pad, which is the only level pad on the site. • Said that story poles were constructed and the proposed structure is not imposing from the roads and residences in the area but rather the home will be tucked into the hillside, minimizing impact. • Said that two retaining walls are required for the driveway. One is approximately 20 feet high upslope at the highest location. Another is approximately 16 feet high on the downslope side. A 9 to 21 foot high retaining wall is required near the proposed residence. The residence itself will minimize the impacts of that retaining wall. • Added that the retaining walls will incorporate a rock formation finish. • Stated that the application includes a Building Site Approval, Variance for retaining walls greater than five feet in height and a Design Review Approval for the new home. Also a grading exception is required to exceed 1,000 cubic yards of cut and fill. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that since the turnaround area is required by Fire, that issue is beyond the purview of the City Ordinances, etc. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002 Page 8 Planner Christy Oosterhous agreed. Commissioner Kurasch asked staff if there is any liability to the City in the event that the retaining walls or hillsides should fail. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that the road was approved. The City has immunity from liability for any permits it makes. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the Hold Harmless provision includes approval of a variance for retaining walls. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. Chair Barry asked if damage were to occur to a public road as a result of conditions on a private road that should fail, could the City recover costs. Commissioner Hunter reminded that Kittridge is also private. Chair Barry asked if there is any City-owned road that could be impacted by this project. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that she was not sure offhand. Commissioner Kurasch said that she has never seen a 20-foot high retaining wall in previous proposals and asked staff why they support this request. Planner Christy Oosterhous said that this was an issue of concern for staff as well who discussed ways to minimize the walls but there is not a way to do so. Added that the applicant’s civil engineer can discuss this issue further. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:05 p.m. Mr. Chuck Husted, Applicant: • Made himself available for questions and introduced his team. • Said that he and his wife, Susan, are looking forward to joining the community. Mr. Larry Kahle, Project Architect: • Described the 8 acre gross lot that is irregularly shaped with only one building pad available. • Said that they have worked hard to lessen the impact of the retaining walls, which are required due to the slope of this lot. • Said that they had originally proposed another retaining wall to create the fire truck turn around but that former Director Walgren had suggested the deck instead. This would be a solidly engineered deck. • Stated that they are prepared to go with the deck or a retaining wall for the fire truck turnaround, although they prefer the wall to the deck. Chair Barry asked why. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002 Page 9 Mr. Larry Kahle replied because the wall would allow them to use some of the fill from this site. Mr. Mark Helton, Civil Engineer: • Said he would answer any questions the Commission might have for him. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Helton for the highest wall height. Mr. Mark Helton replied 23 feet if a retaining wall were to be used for the fire turnaround. Commissioner Garakani asked if the walls would be visible. Mr. Mark Helton said it was possible but the he thought they would mostly be invisible. Commissioner Garakani asked how the walls are to be supported. Mr. Mark Helton replied that they would drill peers and tie them into the hillside. This is a fairly common practice. While it is not difficult engineering, it is costly. Commissioner Garakani asked if there are any neighbor concerns. Mr. Mark Helton said he was not sure as it has not be his role to work with the neighbors. Chair Barry asked why it would not be possible to use staggered walls for the driveway instead of 20 and 16-foot high walls. Mr. Mark Helton replied that the height is due to the slope of the hillside. If the walls were to be broken up as suggested on this slope, it would give the appearance of being even higher than what is actually proposed. Commissioner Roupe asked how much fill could be used with the retaining wall for the fire truck turnaround. Mr. Mark Helton replied a substantial amount. While he could not be certain, he guessed about several hundred yards or about 10 truck trips. Commissioner Kurasch asked if it is possible to realign the driveway by moving it five to 10 feet in order to get it away from the downslope that is requiring these high retaining walls. Mr. Mark Helton said that he had thought of that and tried to see if it would be possible. However, it would be more disturbing to the hillside and would eliminate the building site itself, limiting to approximately 2,500 square foot floor area. Commissioner Kurasch: • Said that the retaining wall is necessary to accommodate the size of this house. • Said that this is an intensively developed home for this property. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002 Page 10 • Asked if the garage were to be shifted to the east, what would the impact be on the retaining wall heights. Mr. Mark Helton said that the garage is located where it is because the fire turnaround needs to be above it. If they had to drop the garage elevation, it would add another three feet of height to the retaining wall. They actually moved the garage up to reduce the height of the retaining wall. Commissioner Kurasch asked, if the house were smaller and reconfigured, if there is any way to reduce the retaining walls. Mr. Mark Helton replied no. It would have an impact on the existing driveway to access the neighbor’s property. Commissioner Kurasch suggested shrinking the house away from the slope. Mr. Mark Helton said that it would not be possible. Commissioner Hunter said that she had heard that the pad on this property was cut into the mountains in the 1950s but also heard 15 years ago, approximately 1985. Asked if Mr. Helton know more concisely. Mr. Kahle replied that they obtained the 1950s date from the Fire Department. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the staff report actually says prior to 15 years ago rather than specifically 15 years ago. Commissioner Kurasch asked who would assume the burden or responsibility for any problems from this project on adjacent property. Mr. Mark Helton said that from an engineering standpoint, this project was designed very well, using proper engineering sense. It would take a major event to have something happen. Commissioner Kurasch read an excerpt from the General Plan and pointed out that there is a policy to plan for 50 and 100-year events. Mr. Bruce Ashford, Project Overseer, 3741 Norris Canyon Road, San Ramon: • Said that he is the project overseer. • Said that the nearest public street is Norton Drive in one direction and Bohlman in the other. Kittridge is private. Mr. Glenn Romig, Soils Engineer: • Said that he prepared a Geotechnical Report. • Advised that the pad was cut prior to 1971 but no one is sure exactly when. • Said that this is one of the most stable sites they have looked at up there. • Said that the house will have a retaining wall at the back to stabilize the steep cut slope. • Informed that they took a boring of the area for the fire truck turnaround. They can put in either a good deck or retaining wall. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002 Page 11 • Said he was available for any questions. Chair Barry asked if it would be possible to plant around the retaining wall for the fire truck turnaround to further screen it without destabilizing it. Mr. Glenn Romig replied that landscaping would enhance it as long as it did not include eucalyptus trees. Chair Barry asked if there are known slide areas on this site. Mr. Glenn Romig replied that there are no mapped landslides. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the downhill neighbor is concerned about the drainage on site and where water runoff would go and how it would be controlled. Mr. Glenn Romig replied that the roof and driveway runoff would be directed to two dissipaters. Commissioner Roupe asked if any additional water would go down the drive. Mr. Mark Helton said that they plan to retain the historic drainage pattern and that culverts were installed with this in mind. Commissioner Kurasch suggested establishing an open space or scenic easement for the bulk of this property and that the General Plan supports this and might be appropriate as a mitigation for this development. Would the applicant support this addition to the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Chuck Husted said he had no problem with that provision and would be happy to do so. Chair Barry reminded the Commission that they had done so with the Sobrato property recently. Added that the natural vegetation and terrain would remain as it is. Mr. Chuck Husted agreed with the exception for screening landscaping for the retaining walls and a few walkways on the property. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the two properties to the east of the proposed turnaround do not belong to this applicant. Planner Christy Oosterhous said that this is correct. The turnaround is located at the property line and the applicant does not have control of the property to the east of the proposed fire truck turnaround. Ms. Heather Rose, 604 Wellsbury Court, Palo Alto, CA: • Said that she owns the property to the east. • Said that she will be planting redwood trees to help stabilize that gully around a documented slide area on her property. • Added that her landscape architect has designed a plan using mature as well as littler trees. • Said that she is willing to plant other trees. • Advised that she has been working with other residents on development of a joint road association. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002 Page 12 • Said that there is a road association for Kittridge Road. This road is not up to code. • Said that she has had patchwork done on Kittridge Road and has asked her developers to take care of the work. They bring equipment up on rubber tires to prevent tearing up the road. • Said that she has a tree bond to replant trees on her property. • Added that she removed non-indigenous trees. • Suggested a “good developer” bond to ensure that the road is cleaned of any construction spillage and that repairs are made to any damage caused to the road by construction equipment and traffic. Commissioner Roupe supported Ms. Rose’s suggestion for a bond to ensure the condition of the road and asked her if she has any suggestions on how to establish a value for the road bond. Ms. Heather Rose said that the bond would be calculated on the potential damage to the road. She added that it may be cheaper to replace the road rather than repair it. Commissioner Roupe questioned how to implement such a bond. Commissioner Hunter suggested that this is a question for Director Sullivan. Commissioner Garakani said that there is a bond for the private road he lives on. Commissioner Kurasch asked Ms. Rose if she is proposing an assessment district. Ms. Heather Rose: • Said that there is a lack of City support for the roads, water and sewer, which are private in this area. • Said that the residents are uncomfortable legally with an assessment district. To establish one, 80 percent of the residents would have to agree to do so. • Added that the residents are comfortable enough for an association to work together on road maintenance. • Mentioned that there is even more development occurring in the County jurisdiction using the same roads, sewer and water hook ups. Chair Barry thanked Ms. Rose for her leadership. Commissioner Hunter agreed that there is additional development pending in the area. Ms. Heather Rose pointed out that there are three new homes on Quickert Road in County jurisdiction and that there are also other developable lots. Commissioner Roupe encouraged staff to look into sphere of influence, particularly for those projects that require travel over Saratoga private and public roads for access. Commissioner Hunter asked why the Cooper-Garrod project in County jurisdiction came to this Commission for review while other projects in the County do not. Mr. Ed Farrell, 20877 Kittridge Road, Saratoga: • Identified himself as a member of the Board for a private mutual water company. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002 Page 13 • Said that there are 10 connections pending in this area. • Said that as far as the road maintenance has been handled, in the past they have held “go and fix the road Saturdays,” where neighbors would spend the day cleaning up the roadway and repairing it as necessary. • Said that there is road damage and spillage of gravel and cement from construction and that the concept of a bond is appealing. • Pointed out that last month he watched a tractor drive down the street as it tore up the roadway. • Said that he is looking for the heavy hand of authority from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Roupe said that the concept for a bond to leave the road in an “as is” condition is not unreasonable. Chair Barry said that there is a practical problem of determining who is responsible for any damage. Mr. James Campagna, Bohlman Road, Saratoga: • Said that he lives just below the subject property. • Stated that the proposed Craftsman style house fits nicely and that the variance is unobtrusive and tastefully done. • Urged support and approval as submitted. • Pointed out that in a major emergency exiting is possible from Bohlman Road. Mr. Bob Samsel, 15300 Kittridge Road, Saratoga: • Advised that he had forwarded a complaint to Code Enforcement regarding the tractor that tore up the roadway recently. • Said that he is here this evening to raise the issue of water runoff and expressed concern over additional water being run down Quickert Road. • Said that the culvert is ineffective along this property and suggested that water be collected and sent somewhere. • Asked that the Husteds not use the dirt road to access their site as only Parcel 83 has access rights along that dirt road. Commissioner Roupe said that any water would be going down the road and not down the dirt road. Mr. Bob Samsel said that this would be wonderful. Commissioner Roupe said that the road runoff should be directed down the over slope and not down the dirt road. Chair Barry questioned who would need to cooperate in the water runoff issues as it clearly is not just this property involved. Mr. Bob Samsel said that he was not sure. He suggested one more catch basin to divert water. Chair Barry stressed that impacts have to be evaluated on a number of properties. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002 Page 14 Commissioner Roupe said that the suggestion for a bond gives assurance of road repair as necessary and the application has no objection. The structure of the bond would need to be worked out by staff. Mr. Chuck Husted agreed that he has no problem with the concept of a bond. Assured that he would not do anything to negatively impact his neighbors. Chair Barry pointed out that the issue of policing subcontractors is horrendous. It is a challenge to stay on top of what is occurring. Mr. Chuck Husted said that this is the reason he has hired Mr. Ashford to oversee this construction. Mr. Bruce Ashford, 3741 Norris Canyon Road, San Ramon: • Assured that he will enforce all subcontractors and will use wood to protect the roadway from damage when construction equipment is brought to the site. Commissioner Roupe suggested that the road be graded so water runoff is directed toward the uphill side and not downhill. Asked what could be done so drainage occurs appropriately. Mr. Bruce Ashford said that they plan to maintain the historic route of water. Mr. Ed Farrell, 20877 Kittridge Road, Saratoga: • Said that a natural drainage ditch at the hairpin turn solves the problem. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the retaining wall, currently proposed at 16 feet in height, at the rear of the house, could be reduced if the house were moved away from the larger hill. Mr. Chuck Husted replied that this retaining wall is well behind the house and not visible as it is backed up to the slope. Commissioner Kurasch said that the impact concerns are not just visible impacts but also include environmental impacts. Less disruption of the slope will be more stable and she does not want to set a precedent for extensive use of retaining walls on Hillside developments. Mr. Chuck Husted said that the home has been placed to mitigate impacts of the retaining walls and that these walls have been designed to deal with a one to one slope. Mr. Mark Helton, Civil Engineer: • Said that moving the house further from the hillside slope would not reduce the walls. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the house is moved and retaining walls not installed would it be okay. Mr. Mark Helton replied that it might be okay for 20 years but not longer. Mr. Mark Husted said that he appreciates the comments from his neighbors as this is a good way to learn. Assured that they will mitigate impacts as possible. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 9:30 p.m. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002 Page 15 Commissioner Roupe: • Stated that this is a very well designed project that will fit nicely into the Hillside as it is tucked in and not very evident. • Said that this project is just fine. • Agreed that the retaining walls are big and an issue but that this is probably as well as can be done. • Commended the retaining wall material choice. • Expressed support for a retaining wall fire turnaround instead of a proposed deck, especially since this would reduce the soil exported from the site. • Said that the bond for road maintenance makes sense and would propose leaving the details to staff to work out. • Said that any water runoff generated on site should not add to water flow already there. • Suggested that the applicant work with the neighbors. • Said that this is a good project that he can endorse. Commissioner Hunter: • Stated that she cannot support this use of retaining walls and does not believe that this is a good building lot. • Declared that the turnaround is an abomination on this hillside. • Said that she cannot support this project despite the fact that the house design itself is very nice. Commissioner Garakani asked if a variance for the retaining wall for the fire turnaround is required. Commissioner Kurasch: • Replied that that particular retaining wall is outside the purview of the Commission since it is a Fire Department requirement. • Stated that this is a massive use of this site and that the need for these tall retaining walls point to the difficulty of building on this lot. • Said that she cannot support this proposal. • Said that she could support the establishment of a scenic easement. Chair Barry asked Commissioner Kurasch if she will support the project with the scenic easement. Commissioner Kurasch replied no. Commissioner Roupe: • Pointed out that there is provision for variances if findings can be made. • Said that there are good arguments for a variance in this situation. Commissioner Hunter said that she did not know how strongly she felt against the retaining walls until this evening and that she does not agree with the staff findings. Commissioner Garakani asked if there is any way to design without a 23-foot retaining wall. Commissioner Roupe replied no. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002 Page 16 Chair Barry asked staff to clarify whether there is already an approved building site. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that the Commission is being asked to grant a Building Site Approval this evening. Commissioner Garakani stated that if the Commission does not grant a Building Site Approval, this applicant has a lot on which they cannot build. Chair Barry pointed out that the Commission’s decision can be appealed to Council. Restated that the question here is whether this parcel can be approved for building of any kind. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the required criteria for an approved building site includes six findings. Commissioner Garakani asked if the applicant just recently purchased this property. Chair Barry: • Stated that while the Commission may have empathy for the applicant, it is not a criteria for basing its decision. • Said that she strongly agrees with the sentiment that she does not want to encourage these kinds of retaining walls, although they can be partially mitigated with landscaping. • Said that she would like to see screening vegetation planted as a Condition. • Said that she believes that this road and area will be improved if these improvements are made and saying no to this proposal will not improve the situation for this whole area. Commissioner Kurasch asked what the criteria for this decision would be. Chair Barry: • Pointed out that staff has advised that the variance criteria is met with this project. • Suggested a continuance to a Study Session. • Said that her main concern with the retaining walls is the perceived creation of a canyon effect. • Said that she does not feel good about denying this application and sees value in going forward with a Study Session. Commissioner Garakani: • Pointed out the letter from the neighbor raising issues about too many trucks and the instability of the road. • Said that these proposed retaining walls make the hillside more stable. Chair Barry said that this is half yes and no. The hillside is stabilized with retaining walls but the construction traffic is detrimental to the roadway. Commissioner Kurasch: • Said that the problem is the long-term potential for non-predicted events. • Said that every time there is a cut into a hillside, it destabilizes the hill in some way. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002 Page 17 • Said that she is not sure about the cumulative effect and that she cannot support the scale and form of this project as it is proposed. Chair Barry suggested asking the applicant to provide conceptual alternative site plan possibilities at a Study Session. Commissioner Roupe suggested that there is a threshold question here, is this a buildable site or not. If it is deemed not, there is no point in going forward with a Study Session. Commissioner Kurasch said there appears to be a question as to whether this is a buildable site. Chair Barry pointed out that the cuts are there. Added that she is not happy with the canyon effect of the retaining walls. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the hillside has been stable for 50 years, which speaks for itself. Added that he has no problem with the concept of a Study Session but the Commission must let the applicant know whether it believes this is even a buildable site. Commissioner Kurasch questioned whether redesign is possible. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that the Geologist Report says that this is a buildable lot. Commissioner Roupe proposed putting a motion forward for a yes or no vote as to whether this is a buildable site. The response will support either going forward to a Study Session or coming to a conclusion tonight. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission proposed to approve the vacant parcel at Kittridge Road as a buildable site with the question of specific structures to be the subject of a future Study Session. AYES:Garakani and Roupe NOES: Barry, Hunter and Kurasch ABSENT: Jackman and Zutshi ABSTAIN: Roupe The motion failed. Commissioner Garakani suggested more direction for the applicant for a Study Session. Commissioner Kurasch said that direction would include minimizing the face of the retaining walls, scaling them back in height and perhaps use smaller jumped walls if possible and including as small a structure on the site as possible. Commissioner Garakani asked if Commissioner Kurasch is concerned about hillside stability or the appearance of the walls. Commissioner Kurasch said that she wants the project to adhere more closely to the City’s standards. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002 Page 18 Commissioner Hunter asked why not let Council decide. Chair Barry replied that it is the role of the Commission to work out these types of issues when possible. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that two Commissioners are absent from this discussion. Asked if it might be better to discuss this project when all Commissioners are present. Commissioner Roupe replied that there is a quorum present tonight. Chair Barry asked for clarification on the nature of concerns with the retaining walls. Commissioner Kurasch replied their location, scale and size. Chair Barry said that these comments should provide adequate direction to the applicant. Commissioner Hunter said that she disagrees with staff about these retaining walls but is fine with holding a Study Session. Commissioner Kurasch said that she is looking for the lowest retaining wall possible. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the Planning Commission proposed to continue consideration of construction a residence on a vacant lot on Kittridge Road to a Study Session to review different conceptual designs and use of land and provide proposals that have less impact on the environment with the following guidelines to the applicant: 1. Include vegetation to screen the retaining walls, 2. Process a Hold Harmless Agreement to be recorded with the deed, holding the City harmless in the event that failure on this property causes any damage to adjacent parcels and/or the public right-of-way, 3. Include a fire turnaround constructed with a retaining wall as opposed to the proposed deck; 4. Process a bond to ensure the road is left in its current condition upon completion of construction; 5. Process an Open Space Scenic Easement; and 6. Enter into a lower road drainage agreement. AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter and Kurasch NOES: Roupe ABSENT: Jackman and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None Chair Barry said that the applicant can choose to go with this recommendation for a Study Session or can simply appeal to Council on the Commission’s vote against the Building Site Approval. Commissioner Garakani questioned why the Commission should even go forward if it has found that this is not a buildable site. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002 Page 19 Chair Barry reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 10:20 p.m. Mr. Bruce Ashford: • Said that there is a misconception regarding the concept of a canyon being created by the retaining walls. • Advised that there are not walls on both sides that would create a canyon effect. • Added that the lower wall will be camouflaged with vegetation. Commissioner Garakani asked if these retaining walls would help stabilize the road. Mr. Bruce Ashford replied yes. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Ashford for more clear drawings to demonstrate the retaining walls. Mr. Chuck Husted asked for more information about the format for the Study Session. Chair Barry advised that a Study Session is not a formal hearing as occurred this evening but rather is held as a roundtable discussion. There are no votes taken at a Study Session but a direction is established for a project. Mr. Chuck Husted asked if he would leave a Study Session with more of an idea on what the Planning Commission would more likely support. Chair Barry replied yes. Mr. Chuck Husted said that he is willing to go forward with the Study Session. Chair Barry directed staff to schedule this Study Session with the applicant as soon as is possible. *** DIRECTOR ITEMS There were no Director Items. COMMISSION ITEMS Addition to Museum Commissioner Hunter advised that she attended a Heritage Preservation Commission meeting at which a proposed addition to the Museum was discussed. Business Meeting Commissioner Hunter advised that she attended the Business Meeting and that the Gateway project is quite something, incorporating lots of trees, fancy pavers and will be quite good looking. Added that Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002 Page 20 there are approximately 25 new residents to Saratoga per year and the group is proposing a Welcome Wagon program. Sidewalks Commissioner Garakani expressed his concern for the safety of children in walking to school due to the lack of sidewalks in Saratoga. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the City was purposely designed to be without sidewalks. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the City did not have traffic problems when that decision was made and suggested that sidewalks are probably appropriate along major arterials. Chair Barry said that right now the City’s policy decision is not to include sidewalks. Planner Christy Oosterhous said that it would fall under the purview of the Public Works Department to evaluate this issue. Commissioner Garakani pointed to the Argonaut area where children walk in the street to get to school. Commissioner Hunter suggested designating bike lanes where people could also walk safely. Drivers stay off of bike lanes to prevent being ticketed. Chair Barry suggested that Commissioner Garakani contact someone on the Public Safety Committee. Commissioners Subcommittees Commissioner Roupe asked if any discussion on basement standards would occur this evening. Chair Barry advised that the next Planning Commission meeting would be devoted to Commission Subcommittee reports, including Basements. Safety Plaza Designs Commissioner Garakani advised that Council would be presented with the conceptual Safety Plaza Designs at 7 p.m. on March 6th during the Council meeting. Boilerplate Conditions of Approval Chair Barry advised staff that the Commission would like to review boilerplate Conditions of Approval. County Sphere of Influence Planner Christy Oosterhous added that the Commission’s desire to review the relationship with the County on review of projects within the City’s sphere of influence will also be added to a future meeting agenda. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002 Page 21 COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communication Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Barry adjourned the meeting at 10:37 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, March 13, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk