Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-24-2001 Planning Commission MinutesMINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chairman Page called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Kurasch, Patrick, Roupe and Chairman Page Absent: Commissioners Bernald and Jackman (excused) Staff: Acting Director Irwin Kaplan and Planner Mark Connolly PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – January 10, 2001. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the Planning Commission minutes of January 10, 2001, were approved with the instruction to insert the correct project description for Agenda Item No. 5. (4- 0-2-1; Commissioners Bernald and Jackman were absent and Commissioner Barry abstained, as she was not in attendance at this meeting.) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communication items. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 19, 2001. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, provided the following technical corrections to the packet: • Item No. 1 – On page 10, staff advises that the City’s Geologist did review this project. Also on Page A5-O the calculations are incomplete and depict a percentage of impervious surfaces that exceed that allowed. The walkways and other impervious surfaces will be reduced so as not to exceed the maximum allowable. • Item No 2 – Advised that changes to the fencing are now depicted. • Item No. 4 – Informed that the Variance aspect of this application was not posted. No final action will be taken on this project this evening. The project will be properly posted prior to final action by the Planning Commission at its next meeting. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2001 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR There are no Consent Calendar Items. PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 DR-00-036 & UP-00-018 (397-05-091)– SAN FILIPP0, Sobey Road: Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,312 square foot two-story residence with a 608 square foot basement and 529 square foot cabana on a vacant lot. The Use Permit approval is necessary to allow the cabana to be located within the rear yard setback. The maximum height of the residence will be 26 feet. The site is 43,042 square feet and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Stated that this request is for a Design Review approval to allow the construction of a 5,312 square foot, two-story residence with a 608 square foot basement and a 529 square foot cabana. A Use Permit is required to allow the cabana to be located within the rear yard setback. The maximum height of the cabana is 15 feet while the maximum height of the residence will be 26 feet. This is a constrained lot in that there is a 30 percent grade at the front of the lot. Concerns have been expressed by the adjacent neighbor to the east regarding the proposed placement of the house. As mentioned during the Technical Corrections, amendments to the plans will be required to reduce the impervious surfaces for the property to meet allowable percentages. Echo stone and decomposed granite or gravel will be used for walkways. With those adjustments, staff is recommending approval as all other requirements are met. Commissioner Kurash inquired about the cabana. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that a Use Permit is required to allow the 15-foot height as well as the placement within the rear yard setback. Commissioner Roupe inquired whether the retaining walls are within the allowances. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that staff has verified that the maximum height of any retaining walls on site is three feet. Chairman Page opened the Public Hearing No. 1 at 7:50 p.m. Mr. Rick Zea, 4616 Venice Way, San Jose: • Identified himself as the representative for the applicant and advised that they have worked closely with staff to meet all requirements. Thanked Mr. Connolly for his assistance. • Added that they have also worked closely with the neighbors, having mailed information as well as meeting with neighbors. At the meeting with neighbors, support was expressed. • Requested approval. • Advised that both the applicant and architect are available for questions. Commissioner Patrick asked Mr. Zea if there would be any problem complying with the requirement to reduce impervious surfaces. Mr. Rick Zea deferred to the applicant and architect. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2001 Page 3 Commissioner Patrick added that she felt there is too much paved area on the property. Asked if the applicants might consider reducing the amount of driveway. Mr. Rick Zea advised that adequate access to the site requires the long driveway. Said that they would consider a compromise material for portions of the driveway as possible. Mr. Maurice Carmargo, 3953 Yolo Drive: • Identified himself as the project architect. • Assured the Commission that it will be easy to reduce the impervious surfaces to meet acceptable standards. Suggested changes to some of the walkway materials. Commissioner Roupe asked about the significance of such changes. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that should the walkways be comprised of decomposed gravel, a 25 percent credit is given that reduces the total amount of impervious surface to allowable levels. Added that the applicants will be using pervious pavers for the hammerhead and flat area in front of the garage, which offers a 25 percent credit. These changes result in 32 percent of impervious surfaces. Chairman Page expressed concern with the numbers provided and ultimate percentage of impervious surfaces that will result on this site. Commissioner Roupe agreed and said that there appears to be a lot of impervious surface. This issue must be resolved to ensure that the project meets allowable limits. Mr. Maurice Carmargo said that there are walkway areas that can be eliminated outright. Assured that he was willing to make changes to meet City requirements. Said that the edges of the driveway can be constructed using pervious material. Chairman Page inquired whether any other architectural design styles had been considered and whether the applicant might be willing to consider the use of wood siding. Added that this Mediterranean-style stucco building is out of character with the beginning of Sobey Road. Said that with the removal of 17 trees from this site, this structure will be highly visible from Sobey Road and that he is not certain this style home fits. Mr. Maurice Carmargo advised that they had considered many architectural styles but that the owner has a pretty strong desire to have Mediterranean-style architecture. Added that many trees are staying and that the house is set back quite a way from the front of the lot while retaining a presence to the street. There are limits due to the constraints of the lot. Concluded by stating that this design is compatible and set back. Commissioner Roupe said that the structure gives the appearance of a three-story in that it marches up that hill. Said that the ceiling height in the study seems excessive and inquired why it is so massive, especially since it is at the front elevation that is most visible from the street. Mr. Maurice Carmargo said that the house is single-story on that elevation. Said that the high ceiling for the study was designed to give balance to that whole elevation and a certain prominence to highlight the front entrance. Said that this one-story façade balances with the living room wing. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2001 Page 4 Commissioner Roupe stated that it rather creates bulk and mass. Commissioner Kurash inquired about landscaping plans around the large oak tree in the front of the property. Mr. Maurice Carmargo advised that the landscaping plan has not yet been developed. Said that they could look into adding additional landscaping that is compatible and requires low water. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the neighbor’s concerns have been addressed. Asked why the house is situated on the site as it is currently. Mr. Maurice Carmargo said that they moved the house as far back from the east property line as possible. The study has been buried into the hillside. They also created a planting strip between the driveway and house next door. This planting area will allow plenty of room to install screening landscaping. Added that the owner is willing to plant as many trees as necessary. Mr. Tim McNeil, 18450 Sobey Road, Saratoga: • Stated his opposition to this project. • Expressed concern that the structure cascades down the slope of the hill which gives bulk and mass to the house. • Added that this new home has been positioned over his rear yard and pool area, which will greatly affect his privacy. • Said that there is plenty of property in the meadow portion of this lot on which to construct this home. • Advised that many of the 17 trees to be removed are over 30 feet in height. Therefore, his property will be substantially and unfairly impacted by this project. • Suggested that the project be redesigned for placement on the lower portion of the meadow. Added that the City should consider issuance of a Variance, if necessary, in order to facilitate placement of this home there. Said this would be a good solution to the problems of the current placement. • Expressed his opinion that it was a bad subdivision that created this lot. Ms. Nona Christensen, 18510 Sobey Road, Saratoga: • Said that she owns three acres over several lots, including the lot immediately adjacent to the west to the applicant’s lot. • Expressed support for this project and stated that the proposed house will be a beautiful addition to Sobey Road. • Said that several architects were consulted and all came up with the same placement of the house on this lot. Ms. Grace San Filippo, Applicant, 117 El Portal, Los Gatos: • Advised that this is her first experience in building a house. • Said that she feels strongly that she wants a Mediterranean-style home to reflect her Italian heritage. • Said that she has done everything possible to design this project and feels that it will be a beautiful addition to Sobey Road. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2001 Page 5 Commissioner Roupe asked why Ms. San Filippo would not consider constructed in the meadow area of her lot. Ms. Grace San Filippo replied that the meadow area is so far back and would feel very isolated and would result in a flag lot appearance. Said that she prefers a home with a street presence. Additionally, to do so would leave her with little rear yard area and without any option for the placement of a cabana on site. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 was closed at 8:25 p.m. (5-0-2; Commissioners Bernald and Jackman were absent) Commissioner Barry said that she was not ready to approve this application this evening, as she does not feel it fits with the rural character of Sobey Road. There is still the chance to preserve the semi- rural atmosphere. Said that the mass and bulk issues raised are relevant and that she has concerns about drainage issues. Commissioner Roupe stated his shared concern. Said that this is a large house that cascades down the slope. The high ceiling in the study accentuates the mass and bulk. Commissioner Kurasch said that the proposal is not outlandish and is kind of a trend. Suggested that the house might be a bit ambitious for its lot. Commissioner Patrick reiterated concern about impervious coverage. Added that the house is not compatible with the neighborhood. Said that the siting of the house seems logical but that the mass and bulk are a problem. This is simply too big a house and she cannot support it. Chairman Page stated that he concurred with the other Commissioners’ concerns. He listed a concern with the architectural style of the house. Since this part of Sobey Road is more rustic, wood siding might be more compatible. While much of the house may not be visible from the street, from the neighboring homes, this structure will be highly visible. Commissioner Roupe stated that it appears this application would not be approved if put to a vote this evening. Suggested a continuance to allow the applicant the opportunity to reconsider several things. Suggested changes include reducing the amount of impervious surfaces on the site as well as the mass and bulk of the structure (specifically the three-story appearance caused by the high ceiling of the study) and possibly repositioning the structure on the lot. Chairman Page advised that should the application not be approved this evening, the applicant can appeal to Council. An alternative is a continuance to allow some redesign, which can be brought back to the Commission at a future meeting. Commissioner Kurasch questioned whether the Commission was in agreement that the architectural style was inappropriate. Commissioner Roupe cautioned that the Commission should not stand too hard on that issue. The main issues appear to be the mass and bulk and the cascade effect of this current design. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2001 Page 6 Chairman Page suggested the addition of some stone and a different roof color. Commissioner Barry stated her preference for a wood-sided home at this location. Added that since not all seven Commissioners are here tonight, other views may be forthcoming. Said that this house will have a presence and should be more compatible with the area. Everyone will have to try to be reasonable. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Commission continued DR-00-036 & UP-00-018 to its meeting of March 14, 2001. (5-0-2; Commissioner Bernald and Jackman were absent) *** PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 2 DR-00-052 (397-07-018) – MAESUMI, 15171 Maude Avenue: Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing single-story residence and two accessory structures totaling 3,100 square feet and construct a new 5,235 square foot single-story residence with 2,486 square foot basement. Maximum height of the structure is 24 feet tall, located on a 33,105 square foot parcel within an R-1- 40,000 zoning district. Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this application seeks approval for the demolition of three existing structures totaling 3,100 square feet and the construction of a 5,235 square foot, single-story residence with a 2,486 square foot basement. The maximum height would be 24 feet. The zoning is R-1-40,000 and the lot is 33,105 square feet. This project meets all minimum requirements and is actually two feet lower than the maximum allowable. Staff is recommending approval. Commissioner Patrick pointed out two light wells that appear larger than the allowable 36 inches. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the applicant would modify the size of the light wells on their construction plans. Commissioner Barry asked if a color board is available. Mr. Mark Connolly replied yes and distributed the color board to the Commissioners. Chairman Page asked if the new construction hours would be imposed on this project, from 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. weekdays with no weekend construction permitted. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that those hours would be imposed. Chairman Page inquired why a new fire hydrant is required, as it appears that there is an existing fire hydrant in close proximity. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the applicant had the option to install the fire hydrant or install fire sprinklers throughout the new home. Chairman Page opened Public Hearing No. 2 at 8:45 p.m. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2001 Page 7 Mr. Omid Shakeri, 3131 S. Bascom Avenue, #110, Campbell: • Stated that he is available for questions. • Clarified that one Fire Department requirement is for a hose wraparound of 150 feet. Portions of the new house will exceed that distance. The two options to solve that deficiency are either a fire hydrant or installation of fire sprinklers throughout the house. • Expressed support with all the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Barry inquired about the height proposed for the structure. Stated that it was originally 18 feet. Mr. Omid Shakeri advised that the structure would look strange at 18 feet. Their proposal is 24 feet at the highest point to finish or natural grade, whichever is lower. Added that this is not actually a 24- foot height except for the manner in which the City measures. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the light wells exceed allowable size. Inquired about a light well under the balcony off of the living room. Mr. Omid Shakeri said that he would like to seek an exception for the size of that light well. Chairman Page questioned how that light well would serve its purpose of providing light when a balcony is directly above it. Commissioner Patrick clarified that the light well is actually under the library and not the living room with the balcony. Commissioner Roupe stated that he is hesitant to grant an exception to the standard guidelines. Added that it is not really clear what is actually being proposed. Mr. Omid Shakeri said that the intention is to bring the light well beyond the balcony. Expressed confusion for the reasoning for limitations to 36 inches for light wells. Mr. Mark Connolly explained that the 36-inch limitation for light wells is not a Code issue but rather a Director’s guideline standard. Commissioner Kurasch asked why 36-inches is a desired size for a light well standard. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the UBC establishes this minimum to provide adequate lighting. In the past some light wells got so wide that the terracing effect often would give a single-story home the appearance of a two-story. Commissioner Patrick added that it is also a square footage issue. Chairman Page said that he would defer to staff on that issue. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Commission closed Public Hearing No. 2 at 8:57 p.m. (5-0-2; Commissioners Bernald and Jackman were absent) Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2001 Page 8 Commissioner Patrick said that she was not inclined to adopt an exception to the light well standard. Said that she will support the project if it meets all standards. Suggested altering the angle of the house a bit to ensure that a mature tree’s drip line is not impacted, if possible. Commissioner Barry expressed concern about the proposed 24-foot height, as it appears excessive for a single-story home. Added that the light well should stay within the 36-inch limitation. Commissioner Kurasch stated that she would want the house to fit the rural character through use of softening materials. Added that the 24-foot height does not seem to be a single-story height. Said that there are some exceptional oak trees and would like to see a landscape plan with native landscaping. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Commission sought to reopen the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. (2-3-2; Commissioners Barry and Roupe voted for; Commissioners Page, Patrick and Kurasch voted against and Commissioners Bernald and Jackman were absent). The motion failed. Commissioner Barry suggested the addition of materials such as stone to attenuate concerns. Chairman Page said that such a condition would be fitting and appropriate. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Commission approved DR-00-052 with the requirement that the light wells not exceed 36-inchs and that a landscaping plan be developed that is protective of the oak trees on site using native materials and low amounts of irrigation. (3-2-2; Commissioners Barry and Kurasch voted against and Commissioners Bernald and Jackman were absent) Prior to the vote, Commissioner Barry asked if Commissioner Patrick would consider an amendment to her motion to require an added condition to lower the roof to 22 feet. Commissioner Patrick declined to add that condition to her motion. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3 DR-00-047 (503-23-041) – SHAHBAZI, 14231 Burns Way: Request for Design Review approval for a 1,325 square-foot single-story addition and Variance approval to allow the enclosure of an existing porch located in the rear yard setback. The 10,290 square foot parcel is located within an R-1-12,500 zoning district. Maximum height of the structure will be 17 feet tall. Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this proposal seeks approval for a 1,325 square-foot single-story addition to a residence and a Variance to allow the enclosure of an existing porch located in the rear yard setback. The maximum height is 16 feet, 6 inches. The lot is 10,000 square feet and the zoning is R-1-12,500. This is a constrained lot and the Variance is necessary for a small portion of the Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2001 Page 9 addition. There is no viable alternative to the Variance. The adjacent neighbor has been informed of the proposal. There are no view and/or privacy issues as a result of the Variance. This project meets all other requirements. Commissioner Kurasch inquired about the proposed siding material. Mr. Mark Connolly provided the material board. Commissioner Roupe asked why this application is for Design Review rather than a Variance. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that it has been a policy and practice to look as such requests as part of Design Review. Chairman Page opened Public Hearing No. 3 at 9:10 p.m. Mr. Rick Hartman, HomeTech Architects, 1540 Parkmoor Avenue, San Jose: • Advised that the siding material is hardy blank siding, which will be horizontal rather than vertical. This material looks like hardboard but is cement instead of wood. This is a Class A material, which makes the Fire Department happy. • Said that they would like to request a change in roofing material to Edgelight. This material is a tile that looks like a shingle. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Commission closed Public Hearing No. 3 at 9:15 p.m. (5-0-2; Commissioners Bernald and Jackman were absent) Commissioner Kurasch stated that this is a supportable Variance for which she has no problem. Commissioners Patrick, Barry, Roupe and Chairman Page concurred. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Commission approved DR-00-047. (5-0-2; Commissioners Bernald and Jackman were absent) Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Commission approved V-00-019. (5-0-2; Commissioners Bernald and Jackman were absent) Chairman Page advised that there is a 15-day appeal period. Chairman Page called a recess at 9:15 p.m. Chairman Page reconvened the meeting at 9:22 p.m. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 4 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2001 Page 10 SD-00-001, DR-00-011, BSE-00-012 & V-00-018 (517-08-008 & 016) – TRAFALGAR, 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street: Request for Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map approval for the subdivision of a 22,582 net square foot site into six lots ranging in size from 1,756 square feet to 2,489 square feet and two additional common area lots. The proposal calls for demolishing four existing residences with garages totaling 4,595 square feet. Five new 2,686 to 3,030 square foot townhouses, including garages and basements would be constructed. Additionally, 1,316 square feet of retail space with a second story condominium would fact Big Basin Way. The front portion of the project would have access from Big Basin Way and the rear townhouses from St. Charles Street. The Big Basin Way half is zoned CH-2 and the St. Charles Street half is zoned R-M-3000. The Planning Commission will take testimony, discuss the proposed project and continue the item for a Public Hearing and final action at a later date. Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that there are two legal lots of record. The St. Charles property is zoned R-M, 3,000 and the Big Basin Way property is zoned CH-2. Staff is recommending keeping that zoning boundary. Said that an informational discussion would occur this evening with a continuance recommended to February 14, for final action. This is necessary, as the Variance was not properly noticed. Commissioner Patrick asked why the condo project was being subdivided. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the subdivision allows greater FAR for each individual lot. Commissioner Patrick said that this project would create six substandard lots ranging in size from 1,756 to 2,489 square feet. Inquired whether the moratorium impacts this proposal. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that this project was submitted prior to the moratorium. Acting Director Irwin Kaplan advised that these are freestanding condo units that are not attached. Commissioner Kurasch inquired about the second floor office. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the applicant must increase parking by 10 spaces and meet ADA requirements to incorporate that office space. Chairman Page pointed out the normal parking requirement per residential unit as 2.5 spaces (one covered and 1.5 uncovered). These units only propose two enclosed spaces. Added that visitors to the site will end up parking in the Village spaces therefore impacting commercial uses. Chairman Page opened Public Hearing No. 4 at 9:35 p.m. Mr. Stan Gamble, Civil Engineer, Trafalger Incorporated: • Advised that this project includes two lots, Lot A and Lot B. • Said that his firm has constructed 250 homes since 1980 and they just won an award. • The existing parcel profiles are as follows: 1. Parcel A is on Big Basin and has three existing structures. They were originally built as residences. 2. Parcel B is on St. Charles Street and has one existing cottage. • Adjacent Uses are as follows: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2001 Page 11 1. To the east of Lot A are four residential units over two retail spaces with 895 square feet. 2. To the east of Lot B are four residential units. 3. To the west of the property is a hotel. • Lot A is proposed to be developed with two two-story townhomes and two retail/office spaces of 1,300 square feet with one residential flat above the retail space. • Lot B is proposed to be developed with three two-story townhomes. • The average size of the townhome units on both lots is 2,140 square feet excluding basements. • The proposed density for Lot B is equal to the neighboring project and Lot A includes slightly less. • Provided a time line for the project to date including being initially under contract in October of 1999; in escrow in January 2000 and submittal of his initial plan with the City in March 2000. His project is excluded from Measure G. • Initial staff comments have been met. Included was having a separate structure at the lot line. An increase in retail space in Lot A, provision of additional parking and the retention of a cork oak tree in the center of Lot B. Commissioner Patrick asked about access to St. Charles. Mr. Stan Gamble said that a driveway would connect the courtyard area with St. Charles. Commissioner Roupe stated that while this project is not under the constraints of Measure G or the moratorium, it is the will of the people and the Council to do everything possible to retain the commercial aspect of the Village, including not converting commercial space into residential uses. Inquired whether the Commission does have some discretion. Acting Director Kaplan promised to research and provide a detailed answer for the next meeting. Commissioner Roupe asked what is precluding the applicant from keeping the use strictly commercial. Mr. Stan Gamble replied economics. The parking is limited to 14 spaces. More retail space might be viable if a Variance is possible on the parking requirements. Commissioner Roupe suggested that a Variance on parking might be a possibility. Asked the applicant if he was willing to pursue the idea of a more commercially oriented project. Mr. Stan Gamble replied that he would be willing along Big Basin. Added however, that he finds that the retail traffic turns around at Fifth Street. Commissioner Patrick stated that the Village Plan requires plaza type areas. Mr. Stan Gamble pointed out the proposed plaza area that is setback 15 feet from the sidewalk plus there is the 10-foot sidewalk. Commissioner Patrick questioned the roof design. Mr. Stan Gamble said that the steep roof design is cut flat at the top to meet height limitations. Commissioner Patrick inquired whether the easement might be overused with six residential units. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2001 Page 12 Mr. Stan Gamble advised that the easement is currently used for three existing residences. Commissioner Patrick asked if Mr. Gamble has a Preliminary Title Report. Mr. Stan Gamble replied that he has provided those documents to staff. Commissioner Kurasch advised that the Commission would need one set of clear square footage numbers for this project. There are a lot of different numbers on the various pages of the plans and none of the numbers are corresponding. Mr. Stan Gamble pointed out that some figures are depicting areas of units and not square footage. Commissioner Kurasch reiterated that it must be made very clear what square footage the units include. Commissioner Patrick said that the data needed includes property lot lines, the square footage for each proposed lot, each current lot and the proposed buildings. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the applicant has discussed other possible uses for the front of Lot A with staff and whether other alternatives are doable. Added that with Lot B, the units are large and may need to be reduced or perhaps to flip the garage placement in order to allow ambiance, open space and a quality walkable environment. Asked if the applicant has considered providing affordable units. Mr. Stan Gamble said to incorporate affordable units he would need greater density and smaller units. Commissioner Patrick warned that more general information is required this evening rather than a debate on the specifics. Commissioner Roupe expressed confusion with the depiction of fireplaces on the plans. Mr. Stan Gamble advised that each residential unit has a fireplace. They are direct vent fireplaces and therefore there are no chimneys required. Commissioner Kurasch inquired about the height limitations for these sites. Mr. Stan Gamble advised that the maximum height he is proposing is 25 feet. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the zoning for each lot is different as are the height limitations. The St. Charles property is R-M and allows a maximum 30-foot height. The Big Basin lot is zoned CH-2 and allows a maximum 35-foot height. A moment later he corrected himself to say that the maximum height for CH-2 is 26 feet. Mr. Bill Brown, 14755 Oak Street, Saratoga: • Advised that he had sent an email to staff and proceeded to read it aloud to the Commissioners. • Said that this project is out of character with the area. Commissioner Patrick asked Mr. Brown if he objected to the residential uses or if he had architectural design concerns. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2001 Page 13 Mr. Bill Brown clarified that he had no objections to the rear lot but supported the maximum commercial use possible for the Big Basin parcel, be it retail or office. Commissioner Roupe suggested that there might not be incentive to drive to this location for office space. Mr. Bill Brown stated that there is demand for office space in Saratoga including his own business, which is located outside of Saratoga because of limited office space available in Saratoga. Commissioner Kurasch sought clarification that Mr. Brown prefers commercial office and/or retail use to residential uses. Mr. Bill Brown replied yes. Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Brown if he would support a parking variance. Mr. Bill Brown replied yes. Mr. Srinivasan, 14598 Big Basin Way, Saratoga: • Stated that he has a similarly sized parcel but that his property has 3,000 square feet less building that is proposed for this site. • Expressed his disagreement with Mr. Gamble that business stops at Fifth Street. • Said that the easement will be used more than the original intent with this development and that he is concerned about the safety of children due to traffic impacts of the expanded easement use. • Added that the mass of this project will create views impacts. Commissioner Patrick asked Mr. Srinivasan if he counted basement spaces in his square footage comparisons. Mr. Srinivasan replied yes. Chairman Page asked how many units are included on Mr. Srinivasan’s property. Mr. Srinivasan replied that he has four condominiums (three in the back and one over the retail space) and 900 square feet of retail space. Each residential unit has a two-car garage and there are five additional parking spaces. His parcel is a half an acre. Ms. Margaret Marchetti: • Stated that the overall plan and design are very attractive but that the project is still massive and very close to St. Charles. • Said that the Village atmosphere is being lost. • Suggested that the one tree being removed be replaced with a 36-inch box tree rather than the proposed 24-inch box tree. • Added that a parking variance is not a viable option. • Reiterated that her concerns are the massiveness of the project, trees and parking. Commissioner Patrick asked Ms. Marchetti where her property is located in relation to this site. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2001 Page 14 Ms. Margaret Marchetti advised that she is located at Sixth and St. Charles. Added that she does not mind retail space on Big Basin but does not support any on St. Charles. Commissioner Kurasch asked if parking was the reason for that concern. Ms. Margaret Marchetti replied yes. Ms. Betty Riley, Pamela Way, Saratoga: • Expressed her agreement with the comments made by Ms. Marchetti. • Said that she supports retail on Lot A but does not want to see more traffic on St. Charles. Ms. LeAnn Hernandez: • Said that this project will be a great addition to the Village. • Added that when compared to the average of $3 million plus for homes in Saratoga, this project will equate to affordable housing. • Said that she had minor concerns including a 7 a.m. construction starting time. This will pose a problem with their motel next door. • Suggested that the CC&Rs include a restriction that requires that garage doors be kept closed and that no parking be allowed in the courtyard. • Added that this project will represent an improvement over the current structures on site. Mr. Paul Hernandez: • Asked that the oak trees be properly cared for on this property. • Said that he felt the density was a cause for concern. • Said that most of the roofs in the area are of a low pitch. Asked that the roof height be reduced if possible. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Hernandez if he has been building on his property in the recent past. Mr. Hernandez replied that they are currently under construction. Commissioner Barry asked for the square footage and number of buildings on his property. Mr. Hernandez replied that his parcel is an “L-shaped” parcel 150 x 150 and 75 x 150 feet. He has four buildings, two single-story and two two-story. Two buildings have 600 square feet each and the other two have 1,100 square feet each. Commissioner Barry asked if trees on his site are being protected and whether any have or will be removed. Mr. Hernandez replied that they are not removing any trees, except shrub trees. Chairman Page asked Mr. Hernandez if the units are bed and bath or kitchen units. Mr. Hernandez replied that they are bed and bath units. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2001 Page 15 Mr. Stan Gamble said that he wanted to refute some of the comments made. Said that the easement exists for use by this site. Added that the setback is 25 feet. Said that the house sits down five to six feet from St. Charles. Added that the motel has a height variance and is located only five feet from the property line. Commissioner Patrick asked Mr. Gamble if he owned the property when that variance was sought. Mr. Gamble replied yes. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Commission closed Public Hearing No. 4 at 10:50 p.m. (5-0-2; Commissioners Bernald and Jackman were absent) Commissioner Roupe suggested that the Commission would need guidance on the issues of the Commercial uses moratorium as well as Measure G. Added that the square footage information must be straight and identify the lots and the size of the residences/structures. Commissioner Kurasch stated that the Commission has the Village Plan to serve as a guideline. Added that it is important to retain retail space. The Commission will need to evaluate what mix is fair and best serves the City. Expressed the importance for flow of pedestrian traffic as well as open space. Said that one of the goals of the Village Plan is the side to side development of retail spaces and that goal must be respected. Commissioner Patrick discouraged the applicants and neighbors from pointing at each other with regards to past approvals. Stated that there are trees to protect and that density is an issue. This project might offer a way to arrive at affordable house. Agreed that more reliable square footage figures need to be provided in order to properly evaluate this proposal and that clear drawings and renderings are important. Said that the garage doors are an issue and that imposing construction hours is a good idea. Commissioner Barry expressed her agreement with the comments of the other Commissioners and encouraged the applicant to consider ways of providing parking including underground. Suggested that some tradeoffs could be considered. Traffic and parking are the biggest issues raised by the neighbors. Suggested that staff evaluate the possible impacts on St. Charles and potential mitigation measures to offset those impacts. Said that the project drawings should be made available to the Commission as soon as they are available. Said that a model of the project might be helpful to show the flow of space. Chairman Page agreed and added that he does not want this project to have an impact on Village parking. Commissioner Roupe suggested that story poles might be helpful. Commissioner Kurasch stated that density needs to be considered. Perhaps the size of the units or different configurations. Commissioner Patrick suggested that a Study Session may be appropriate if the Commission wants to consider alternatives and explore square footage issues. That format allows the most flexibility to deal with issues. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2001 Page 16 Commissioner Roupe said that scheduling a Study Session might be productive but it also may impact the next Public Hearing date. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that staff could schedule the Study Session for February 14th. Commissioner Barry said that there are still too many variables and unknowns. Commissioner Kurasch asked if there is a parking plan in the works for the Village. Mr. Mark Connolly replied that such a plan is in the works but that there is nothing concrete to bring forward at this point. Said that staff would conduct additional research and include the information in the next staff report. *** DIRECTOR ITEMS Mr. Mark Connolly read a letter advising the Commission that a Contract Senior Planner has been secured who will offer day to day supervision for the Department while the search for a Permanent Director is underway. COMMISSION ITEMS 1. Access to Highway 9: Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the issue raised at the January 10th meeting regarding construction access to a site via Highway 9 is still being investigated with Caltrans and the Public Works Department to see what is really feasible. Advised that the applicant has a February 14th Public Hearing. 2. Oak Street Demolition: Mr. Mark Connolly advised the Commission that the Oak Street Demolition did not represent the common procedure. It is not the practice to allow a demolition to occur prior to approval of plans. This demolition was approved in error and such approval will not occur again in the future. COMMUNICATIONS 1. Written: Saratoga City Council Minutes from December 12, 2000, and January 3, 2001. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chairman Page adjourned the meeting at 11:16 p.m. to Wednesday, February 14, 2001, at the Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn Minutes Clerk