Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-28-2001 Planning Commission MinutesMINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Page called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Chair Page Absent: Commissioners Bernald and Patrick Staff: Interim Director Irwin Kaplan, City Attorney Richard Taylor and Planners Mark Connolly, Philip Block and Allison Knapp PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of March 14, 2001. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Regular Planning Commission minutes of March 14, 2001, were approved with the following amendments: • Page 2 – …and Use Permit approval to allow…. • Page 6 – Asked that either the City of or Builder… • Page 7 – …feet of retail space that includes a second story flat. (5-0-2; Commissioners Bernald and Patrick were absent.) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications. 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 March 23, 2001. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, provided the following technical corrections to the packet: • Advised that Agenda Item 2 has two minor corrections. The date for the Arborist’s report should be 11/20/00 and the FAR numbers should be 3,917 for the first floor and 2,449 for the second floor. • Added that the Director’s Item on this evenings agenda will be stricken as it was withdrawn. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 28, 2001 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR There are no Consent Calendar Items. PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 DR-00-011, SD-00-001, V-00-018 and V-01-004 (517-08-008 & 016) – TRAFALGAR, INC., 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street: Request for Design Review, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and Variance(s) approval to allow the subdivision of a 22,582 net square foot site for townhouses and a retail commercial space. The rear yard setback variance has been requested for a building on the CH-2 portion of the site. The Big Basin Way portion of the site is zoned CH-2 and the St. Charles Street portion is zoned R-M-3000. This applicant has prepared an alternative for Commission consideration, as well as a modification of the original request to reflect concerns raised at a previous Public Hearing. Four existing residences with garages totaling 5,95 square feet and 1,000 square feet of retail space that includes a second-story flat would be demolished. Mr. Philip Block, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this project was continued from the January 24, 2001, Planning Commission meeting. Additionally a Study Session was held on February 14, 2001. • The project was originally to include Design Review, Tentative Subdivision Map and a Variance. The current request is for a Design Review, Tentative Subdivision Map and two Variances. • Based upon the feedback from the Commission, the applicant has made changes to the project including a reduction in the number of townhouse units on the St. Charles parcel. Originally there were to be three attached units and the proposal now incorporates two detached units with private driveways for each unit, making them more compatible with the existing single-family residences on that street. • The applicant also proposed a compromise by having the unit above the Big Basin retail space constructed for office use with the caveat that it could be reevaluated after five years and perhaps modified to residential uses. At that time, it will be clear whether office use is viable in this location and whether available parking has increased within the Village. Commissioner Barry asked for clarification about the access easement and whether this project is adding substantial additional use of this easement. Mr. Philip Block replied that the project is compatible with the easement. Added that the St. Charles units will be accessed by its own property and not through use of an easement. Commissioner Jackman pointed out a letter expressing concern about having a second driveway coming off of St. Charles Street. Commissioner Barry questioned the findings in the staff report for the rear yard variance. Commissioner Kurasch asked what advantages and/or disadvantages exist with this five-year office use agreement with the potential to convert to residential use. Also wondered what the impact would be on the construction of that space. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 28, 2001 Page 3 Mr. Philip Block agreed that this is not an ideal situation. Said that it is complicated to approve a project on a temporary basis. Advised that the Commission has to determine whether this proposal is indeed in the best interest of the community. Added that establishing a mechanism to evaluate the use is hard to determine. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the tabulation headings on page four of the staff report are neither clear nor appropriate in this circumstance. Asked whether an elevator is required for the proposed office space, as one is not depicted on the plans. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan advised the Commission that this project is too small to be required to meet the ADA requirements. Chair Page opened the Public Hearing No. 1 at 8:05 p.m. Mr. Stan Gamble, Applicant: • Pointed out that a consensus had been reached to save the oak tree and that the townhouse units on St. Charles were reduced from three attached to two detached units. The two units will each have their own driveway access from St. Charles, which will provide space for visitors to park off street. • Said that their proposal has kept as much viable commercial space as possible. • Reminded that the zoning allows a residential flat above the retail space. • Said that they have provided the necessary parking for the residential units and 6.5 spaces for the retail use. • Expressed his opinion that the viable retail uses in the Village end at 5th Street. • Said that his compromise is to construct the office space above the retail with the potential to revert to residential after five years in case the office use is not successful. This proposal allows the City the opportunity to determine long-term plans for parking for the Village. • Advised that they did a parking study and determined that there is enough on-street parking available during the day to justify the parking variance. Commissioner Roupe asked whether an elevator was planned in the retail/office building on Big Basin Way. Mr. Stan Gamble replied that he had checked with Building staff and was advised that since the space is less than 3,000 square feet, he is exempt from the requirement to install an elevator. Commissioner Jackman advised Mr. Gamble that there are no guarantees that uses demolished from a site can automatically be replaced in like numbers but rather at the discretion of the Commission. Commissioner Roupe asked about the impervious coverage calculations that he reads as being 71 percent on Lot A and 52 percent on Lot B. Mr. Stan Gamble said that staff advised him that there are no maximum impervious coverage limitations for these zoning designations. Mr. Philip Block, Planner, clarified that for residential properties there is a maximum standard for impervious coverage but not in Commercial. The structure footprint faces limitations but not the overall use of impervious coverage on the property. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 28, 2001 Page 4 Commissioner Kurasch again asked what advantages there are with the proposed temporary office use of the space above the Big Basin Way retail for a five-year period. Questioned the impact if this project were to be sold to another owner. Mr. Stan Gamble replied that whoever owns the property will be required to comply with whatever is approved by the Commission. Commissioner Kurasch reminded that at the Study Session, the Commissioners had proposed that perhaps smaller units should be considered. Asked if the units above the retail space could be used for affordable units. Mr. Stan Gamble replied that the number of units on St. Charles could be expanded but those units would be too small to be viable. The smaller units would not contain all the desired features of today’s homebuyer. Added that he was not interested in design something he had no interest in building and that he was not willing to construct BMR (below market rate) units. Commissioner Barry expressed concern that the size of these units suggests family use while no viable play area is being provided on site for children to use. Asked why such play space is not provided and whether it might make more sense to design units for adult use rather than family use. Mr. Stan Gamble replied that these units are being designed more for empty nesters, who typically would use three bedrooms as a master suite, guestroom and office/den. Commissioner Jackman mentioned a conference she recently attended where housing needs were discussed as well as the fact that the Council discussed its Housing Element the night before. Said that teachers currently have difficulty in finding adequate housing. Suggested that the applicant consider building one bedroom/one bathroom units. Mr. Stan Gamble informed Commissioner Jackman that to do so would require the City to rezone the property to accommodate more units. The parking requirement kills that idea. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan agreed that a zone change would be required. Commissioner Kurasch advised that State Code allows 25 percent over zoned density to accommodate affordable units. Mr. Paul Hernandez, 13020 La Vista Drive, Saratoga: • Questioned the changes from the original plan that place buildings closer to the heritage oak tree on his property that they are intent on protecting. • Wondered why there are no site poles to show the impacts on the viewsheds. Ms. Lea Ann Hernandez, 14626 Big Basin Way, Saratoga: • Said that this is a great proposal and that there are places nearby where children can play. • Reiterated the importance in preserving the heritage oak tree. Commissioner Kurasch asked Ms. Hernandez to specify which tree. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 28, 2001 Page 5 Ms. Lea Ann Hernandez replied the large heritage oak on their property, which has been designated as a prime specimen tree. Ms. Marilyn Marchetti, 20701 St. Charles Street, Saratoga: • Expressed agreement with the theory that viable retail uses stop at 5th Street and that this portion of Big Basin may not be a good location for retail businesses. • Said that she does not support the placement of BMR units on this street as it has the potential to drive down their property values. • Advised that she liked the redesign of the townhouse units so that they appear as single-family homes. • Asked that a strong landscaping plan be developed for the St. Charles frontage. Commissioner Jackman disagreed with Ms. Marchetti that BMR units drive down property values. Explained that the people who would qualify for these BMR units earn upwards of $120,000 per year and still cannot afford to buy a market price home. Reminded of the concern for teachers in the area who cannot find housing. Ms. Betty Feldheym, 20184 Franklin Avenue, Saratoga: • Said that she felt the original plan was fine with residential use above the retail on Big Basin. • Agreed that housing shortages are a crisis in this community and throughout the region. Commissioner Roupe advised that there is no potential for greater tax revenue in office over residential uses. Retail use brings sales tax revenue but there is no financial incentive for office use. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan agreed that there is no sales tax revenue for a city with office use. Commissioner Barry clarified that the point in maintaining office/retail space in the Village is not tax revenue but rather to encourage the viability of existing commercial uses in the Village. Said that it is too narrow a view just to look at retail space. Office uses helps to build vitality. Ms. Betty Feldheym again stated that housing is more necessary than office space. Commissioner Kurasch wondered if keeping office space above the retail would retain the commercial designation of the space where residential use would not. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan replied that neither use would impact the existing zoning designation. Mr. Bill Ward, 20713 St. Charles Street, Saratoga: • Advised that he is representing his Homeowners Association, which had submitted a letter addressing their issues. • Said that they agree than no viable retail occurs beyond 5th Street. Said that he did not want to encourage additional retail as it increases the need for parking in the area. Mr. Srini Srinivasan, 14598 Big Basin Way, Saratoga: • Stated that it is a challenging task for Mr. Gamble to design this project. • Disagreed with the comments that commercial use is not viable beyond 5th Street. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 28, 2001 Page 6 • Added that it takes time to build commercial uses and he purchased his property, adjacent to this project site, six months ago. • Advised that he has opened a yoga business and will open an art gallery in the near future. • Said that it is his intention to develop this section of Big Basin Way. • Added that the current homes on this subject property are much smaller than those proposed to replace them. Mr. Russ Gamble: • Assured that they plan to work with the Arborist to take every step necessary to protect the heritage oak tree on the motel property during construction. If necessary, they will even eliminate the basement in Unit 2 if it compromises that tree in any way. • Said that his development will offer an improvement to the site and the impervious coverage is similar to Mr. Srinivasan’s property. • Added that he would be delighted to add landscaping along St. Charles per Ms. Marchetti’s request. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Commission closed Public Hearing No. 1 at 8:44 p.m. (5-0-2; Commissioners Bernald and Patrick were absent.) Commissioner Kurasch asked City Attorney Richard Taylor to clarify the advantages or disadvantages to the temporary office use of the space above retail on Big Basin Way and what mechanism would be used to evaluate this use after five years. Mr. Richard Taylor, City Attorney: • Advised that the mechanism is the inclusion of a Condition of Approval limiting the use of that space for five years to office uses. • Should the use not be compliant, the remedy for the City would be a Code Enforcement action. • Added that any future owners will be subject to that Condition of Approval. Commissioner Barry suggested that perhaps five years might not be sufficient time for the City to develop a Parking District for the Village. Wondered if ten years might not be more appropriate. Asked if it is viable that the City has new parking constructed in five years time. Mr. Richard Taylor replied that it was feasible that the parking could be available within five years time. Suggested that language could be added to the Condition of Approval that accepts the approval of a parking structure even if the structure is not yet completed by 2006. Commissioner Kurasch stated that the five-year deadline was the suggestion of the applicant and not the Commission. Mr. Richard Taylor stated that if by January 2006, there is no Parking District, the applicant would no longer be limited to office uses above the retail space on Big Basin Way. Advised that the parking variance will be in effect for 10 years. Added that the applicant always has the option to approach the City to request a modification to this Condition of Approval. Chair Page sought clarification that the proposed uses are legal and allowable. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 28, 2001 Page 7 Mr. Richard Taylor replied yes. Added that it is the job of the Commission to flesh out the Code and determine reasonable versus unreasonable uses. Commissioner Kurasch clarified that permitted uses still require review and approval. Mr. Richard Taylor agreed that the Commission does determine allowable uses. Commissioner Roupe said that he could support either proposal for office or residential use above the Big Basin retail space. Added that his preference is for residential use of that space. Said that the reduction on St. Charles from three to two units with individual driveways was a good move. Commissioner Kurasch: • Said that she was not in favor of the temporary approval for the use above the Big Basin retail space. Said that this is a cumbersome condition to apply and that no advantage has been provided nor a need for this condition. • Added that she prefers to see the total frontage along Big Basin Way as retail. • Expressed concern for the parking in the Village, which is already deficient by 250 spaces. The solution is not to decrease retail space but rather to increase available parking. • Stated that this is an historic area and the existing architectural style should be embraced. Added that visual simplicity is the intent here and this proposed design is not compatible with the design plan for the Village. Added that the Village Plan calls for commercial purposes as much as possible as well as pedestrian access. Commissioner Jackman said that she could support the townhouses on St. Charles. Added that the windows on the retail space along Big Basin Way need to be larger to accommodate merchandise displays. Said that the 3 foot, 5 inch proposed setback between the St. Charles residential units and the Big Basin retail building is inadequate when a 30-foot setback is the standard requirement to separate residential uses from commercial uses. Commissioner Barry: • Said that there are a lot of competing interests here. While the developer has the right to maximize the use and development of his property, the City has the role of maximizing the viability of the Village as well as the goals of the City’s Housing Element. • Suggested adding a Condition of Approval to require the front landscaping on St. Charles Street. • Said that she is assuming that the Fire Department supports the entry and exit access provided in this project. • Said that while she can support the findings to allow a parking variance, she cannot support the findings for the reduced setback variance. There is no hardship to the applicant to merit such a reduced setback and that there is actually a safety issue in approving such a reduced setback. • Added that she did not believe that the 3 bedroom/2 bath units were the best design for this property as there is no place to play except the parking area. Rather, smaller units would be preferable. • `Said that retail/office on the Big Basin Way property is the first choice. Chair Page: • Expressed his agreement with the comments made by Commissioner Roupe. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 28, 2001 Page 8 • Said that the St. Charles portion was nicely redesigned. While he would have preferred more units, he supports the efforts to protect the heritage tree. • Added his support for the setback and parking variances. • Said that he would support either office or residential use of the upper floor on Big Basin Way. • Agreed that the five-year temporary use plan is a good compromise. • Stated his support of the EIR. Commissioner Kurasch asked for further clarification as to what would have to be accomplished within five years to either keep office use or allow the conversion to residential use. Mr. Richard Taylor replied that in 2006, the City would have to re-evaluate the parking in the Village to see if it is sufficient to support this use. This offers the greatest flexibility and is the easiest way for the City to exercise its policy. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Chair Page, the Commission considered approval of the EIR as well as the entire proposed project (Design Review, Tentative Subdivision and two Variances for parking and reduced setback) including two residential structures on St. Charles Street; retail use on Big Basin Way with commercial above, to be re-evaluated in five years; an added Condition of Approval to require landscaping in front of the two residential units on St. Charles; and working with an on-site Arborist to ensure the protection of the heritage oak tree during construction. (2-3-2; Commissioners Barry, Jackman and Kurasch voted against and Commissioners Bernald and Patrick were absent.) This motion failed. Commissioner Jackman requested a short break. Chair Page called a break at 9:25 p.m. Chair Page reconvened the meeting at 9:31 p.m. Commissioner Barry stated that she supports the parking variance but not the setback variance. Motion: Upon motion of Chair Page, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Commission approved V-01-004 to allow a decrease in parking required for this project. (5-0-2; Commissioners Bernald and Patrick were absent.) Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Chair Page, the Commission denied V-00-018 to allow a reduced setback between the Big Basin Way and St. Charles Street properties. (2-3-2; Commissioners Barry, Jackman and Kurasch voted against and Commissioners Bernald and Patrick were absent.) Chair Page asked Mr. Gamble if he would be willing to redesign. Mr. Stan Gamble asked the Commission to take its vote on the project this evening and he would appeal to Council. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 28, 2001 Page 9 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the Commission denied SD-00-001. (3-2-2; Chair Page and Commissioner Roupe voted against and Commissioners Bernald and Patrick were absent.) Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the Commission denied DR-00-011 without prejudice. (3-2-2; Chair Page and Commissioner Roupe voted against and Commissioners Bernald and Patrick were absent.) Chair Page advised that this decision could be appealed to Council within 15 days. *** PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 2 DR-00-054 & V-01-002 (517-14-087) – MARTIN/ROSE, Kittridge Road: Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 7,340 square foot two-story residence on a 346,173 square foot vacant parcel. The Variance is necessary for retaining walls to exceed five feet in height and possibly separated by less than 10 feet for parallel walls. The Variance is also necessary to exceed 15,000 square feet of impervious surface due to a long driveway. Maximum height of the structure is 26 feet tall, located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this request is for a 7,340 square foot, two-story residence with a maximum height of 26 feet. • Added that a Variance is required for retaining walls more than five feet in height up to 10 feet. Additionally, a Variance is required to exceed 15,000 square feet of impervious coverage due to the need for a long driveway to access the site. • The property is zoned Hillside Residential. • Advised that this lot is built on fill and the City’s geologist has issued clearance. The Engineering Department will work with the applicant to address drainage, runoff and any potential damage to the private road. • Said that three letters were included in the staff report as well as the minutes from the March 14th Planning Commission meeting. • Said that the garage was relocated off a hill. • Staff is supportive of this proposal. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the fencing regulations mentioned on page 9 of the staff report are standard rather than Hillside District requirements. Mr. Mark Connolly agreed that this is in error and will be corrected to reflect the regulations from the Hillside District zoning ordinance. Commissioner Kurasch asked for the grading difference between the original location of the garage to the current location. Mr. Mark Connolly replied that the original placement was at a 45-degree slope and the current placement is between 15 to 20 feet lower down the hill. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 28, 2001 Page 10 Commissioner Kurasch asked about the amount of cut and fill. Mr. Mark Connolly replied that the cut and fill amounts zero out. Clarifying, he advised that 1,200 cubic yards will be cut and 1,200 cubic yards will be fill. Commissioner Barry expressed concern that the geology and hydrology reports were not provided to the Commission. Said she was not sure how the Commission could consider approval without those documents. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that this is a Design Review process. Staff felt that it was better to address the geology/hydrology issues after approval. For example, the Public Works Department will evaluate whether any damage to the roadway has occurred as a result of construction. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan stated that it was a very reasonable request for the Commissioners to want to see the reports. Added that they are very technical reports but could be made available. Commissioner Jackman said that she would like to hear a report from the applicant’s geologist. Commissioner Kurasch asked what advantage there would be to have the Commission review these reports. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan replied that providing the reports would be a courtesy to the Commission and make the Commissioners more comfortable in making its decision. Said that these are technical but not concealed documents. Commissioner Kurasch asked why these issues should not be considered now rather than later. Mr. Mark Connolly said because it is not clear which concerns will actually occur until the project is completed. This includes whether there is any road damage from construction or inadequate drainage. Commissioner Roupe clarified that it is not a requirement to have the actual geotechnical report. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan said that staff has no problem providing this report upon request. Commissioner Barry said that some sort of summary needs to be provided. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan said that the information on the staff report could be expanded to provide more information. Commissioner Kurasch asked Commissioner Barry if she is recommending a continuance. Commissioner Barry replied that she is not sure at this point. Chair Page asked staff to point out where the 10 foot retaining wall would be located. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the highest retaining wall is 14 feet located near the garage. The walls would be 3 to 5 feet tall on the downhill side. The walls will be concrete masonry. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 28, 2001 Page 11 Chair Page opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 9:57 p.m. Ms. Heather Rose, Applicant, 604 Wellsbury Court, Palo Alto: • Advised that her technical team is present and available, including her Landscape Architect, Civil Engineer and Architect. Mr. Chris Kankel, Landscape Architect: • Discussed tree issues and the need to re-stablize the project site with the use of native plants and consistent with the drainage plans. Mr. Mark Helton, Civil Engineer: • Advised that they have worked extensively with staff and have met the retaining wall standards of the City. • Said that they designed the roadway to include all utilities of the project. • The grading and drainage plans are in accord with the City’s and County’s standards. • Dissipaters will be placed in several locations and an existing culvert will be replaced with an engineered one. Mr. Larry Kahle, Architect: • Discussed three topics, the house/its location, impervious coverage and privacy impacts. • Advised that the home is a Craftsman style. • The home has been moved into the site with minimum massing and/or privacy impacts on surrounding properties. • Added that this home will nearly be impossible to see from off the property. Only the northwest end of the home will be visible. The proposed trees will screen the site in that location and windows are oriented in other directions. • Said that while the impervious coverage totals 17,573 square feet, it represents less than 5 percent of the total site area. Commissioner Barry asked the applicant to consider gas fireplaces instead of the one allowed wood burning. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Helton what the slope is near the proposed garage. Mr. Mark Helton replied that the slope is 40 to 50 percent in that area. Added that most of the trees are not native and were planted within the last 20 to 25 years. They want to go back to more native trees on site. Commissioner Kurasch asked where the replacement trees would be placed. Ms. Heather Rose: • Explained that the pad was cut into this property about 50 years ago and trees planted to stabilize the hillside. • According to Barrie Coates, those trees are both a fire hazard and a hazard to native species. Mr. Coates deemed these trees as having no value and therefore no requirement to replace them. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 28, 2001 Page 12 Commissioner Kurasch asked how the site would be stabilized. Mr. Chris Kankel advised that they would create a matrix, using native plants, and return the area to green. Commissioner Barry asked for a summary of the geotechnical issues of this property. Mr. Glen Romick, Geotechnical Engineer: • Said that the site has steep slopes with shallow soil cover and Franciscan bedrock. • Fifty years ago a pad was cut into the hillside, with an 8 to 10 foot cut and 6 to 8 feet of fill, which was not properly engineered. The road was cut into the hillside. • The retaining walls are necessary for the driveway and will have pier supported walls to retain fill and avoid washing out the road. The area is prone to shallow landslides. • The slopes are steep 1.4 to 1.6 to 1. There is the potential for small slides. The key to minimizing the impacts is rooted in the drainage to areas not susceptible to landslide. Commissioner Barry asked how difficult this site is technically. Mr. Glen Romick replied that the driveway is 600 to 800 feet long but it is a straightforward project. There is a fair amount of linear feet to address. Commissioner Barry stated that dissipating runoff water is a concern to the neighbors. Mr. Glen Romick said that a prominent swale is the main problem. In the past, the driveway was not properly engineered and there is evidence of recent failure. Commissioner Jackman asked about the northwest retaining wall. Mr. Glen Romick advised that the 3 to 5-foot high retaining walls are a very good solution. Commissioner Jackman asked if there are holes in the retaining wall to allow water to drain. Mr. Glen Romick answered that there is a drain behind the wall to carry water. Commissioner Kurasch asked what is planned to handle the runoff from the new roadway surface. Mr. Glen Romick said that the majority of water is directed to the gully or to dissipaters. Mr. Mark Helton: • Advised that they are not increasing the flow by more than a few percent. • Added that they are trying to redirect runoff to the gully. • Said that the water will be dissipated more than it was previously. Commissioner Roupe stated that the driveway is a steep road and that water flow might end up on Kittridge. Mr. Mark Helton: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 28, 2001 Page 13 • Informed that the water will be intercepted before it gets to Kittridge and redirected back to the gully and dissipater. Mr. Bob Samsel, 15300 Kittridge Road, Saratoga: • Said that his property is directly downslope and he has owned it for 9 years. • Advised that in 1998, 54 inches of rain fell between January and March. • Stated that he had to hire contractors to dig them out of his driveway at that time. • Said that he would like to see a solution to control drainage to the gully. • Added that water should not be directed to the small gully but rather to the larger gully to the west of the site. • Suggested that the access from the site to Kittridge be paved prior to construction to keep mud off of the Kittridge. Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Samsel if he feels there will be any more water with this project than before. Mr. Bob Samsel replied that the dissipaters would be directing water to the gully, which currently is being directed to the road. Mr. Mark Helton advised that it is common practice to maintain historic drainage patterns. Commissioner Roupe asked if Mr. Helton had problems directing the water to the west gully. Mr. Mark Helton answered that redirecting water can create new problems. Added that this project may create a bit more water runoff volume but not by much. Commissioner Barry asked for clarification about historic drainage. Mr. Mark Helton explained that it is generally accepted engineering practice not to redirect. Ms. Heather Rose assured the Commission that she is prepared to consult with technical staff and neighbors to come up with a solution that meets all needs. Added that there are legal remedies for her neighbors if landslides were to occur as a result of improper development of her property. Commissioner Kurasch asked if substandard conditions and historic drainage patterns occurred what can be done to correct those problems. Ms. Heather Glen stated that she is personally very concerned about the potential for landslide and wants to get the project underway before another winter occurs without any improvements to the site. Commissioner Jackman said that this is a regional problem requiring a regional solution with the neighbor(s) participating in the plan and cost. Chair Page said that the staff, geologist and all impacted neighbors will need to work together. Commissioner Kurasch said that more specific direction should be provided. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 28, 2001 Page 14 Chair Page disagreed and said it was appropriate for the Commission to move forward with the Design Review. Commissioner Barry asked if a continuance might not be warranted. Chair Page said the Commission could approve or deny the Design Review application or continue consideration (an option he does not personally recommend). Suggested they move forward. Commissioner Roupe agreed that the Commission should go forward with the Design Review and Variance applications. Commissioner Barry asked Ms. Rose if she is committed to dealing with any increase in the volume of water. Ms. Heather Rose said that they are taking water to the gully. There is a slight increase in water because of the hardscape. Said that she does not want an unhappy neighbor or any liability issues. Said that she intends to be a good neighbor and work out all concerns regarding drainage, road maintenance, sanitation, water and any other matters. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the Commission closed Public Hearing No. 2 at 10:50 p.m. (5-0-2; Commissioners Bernald and Patrick were absent.) Commissioner Kurasch stated that the impacts from such a development should easily be mitigated through Conditions of Approval. Said that she would be more comfortable with some sort of agreement. Said that this is rather large a project for the hillside, cutting into the hill ambitiously. Said that she would like to see a smaller house on this property. Commissioner Jackman reiterated that the neighbors need to work together to resolve this regional problem of water drainage. Said that while this may be an ambitious project, it could be good. Complimented the Landscape Architect on his matrix plan. Commissioner Barry said that she is not comfortable crafting Conditions at this meeting. Said that the applicant will bear the responsibility for the flow of water off of this property. Added that she supports the efforts of this new owner to work with her neighbors and that Ms. Rose is approaching a complex project very appropriately. The existing Conditions offer as much protection as can be expected at this time. Stated her pleasure with the Landscape Architect’s grid idea. Said that the Condition for fencing needs to be modified to reflect Hillside fencing requirements rather than standard fencing requirements. Said that this is an ambitious but acceptable project. Commissioner Roupe concurred. Chair Page also concurred and said that he could support the variance for the height of the retaining walls necessary for this project. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Commission approved DR-00-054 with the corrected reference to Hillside fencing Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 28, 2001 Page 15 standards. (4-1-2; Commissioner Kurasch voted against and Commissioners Bernald and Patrick were absent.) Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Commission approved V-01-002 to allow retaining walls exceeding five feet in height and impervious coverage in excess of 15,000 square feet. (4-1-2; Commissioner Kurasch voted against and Commissioners Bernald and Patrick were absent.) Chair Page advised that this approval is final in 15 days. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3 DR-01-003 (517-12-020) – BEAN, 20500 Lomita Avenue: Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 4,559 square foot single-family residence and construct a new 5,220 square foot single-story residence. Maximum height of the structure will be 26 feet. The 39,673 square foot parcel is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. Ms. Allison Knapp, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this request is for the demolition of an existing residence and the construction of a 5,220 square foot new residence. The maximum height will be 26 feet and there is no basement proposed. Five trees will be removed (four were rated to be in poor condition). Replacement will be with 48-inch box trees. • Informed that no correspondence was received regarding this project. • Staff is recommending approval. • Advised that within the staff report the project number is incorrectly typed as DR-00-001. The correct file number is DR-00-003. Chair Page opened Public Hearing No. 3 at 11:02 p.m. Mr. William Dean, 21388 Saratoga Hills Drive, Saratoga: • Said that he was available for any questions. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 was closed at 11:05 p.m. (5-0-2; Commissioners Bernald and Patrick were absent.) Commissioner Jackman said that she has no problems with this proposal and likes the project. Commissioners Barry and Roupe concurred. Commissioner Kurasch stated that the height is rather tall at 26 feet for a single-story project. Chair Page said that this is a well-designed project and he will support it. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 28, 2001 Page 16 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Commission approved DR-00-003. (5-0-2; Commissioners Bernald and Patrick were absent.) Chair Page advised that there is a 15-day appeal period. *** DIRECTOR ITEMS There were no Director Items. COMMISSION ITEMS • DR-00-050; 14499 Oak Street – Modification of Approval: Mr. Mark Connolly advised that a modification of a previously approved project seeks to bump out the master bedroom and bath suite to take over an existing balcony space. Any project that adds more than 25 square feet are returned to the Commission for review. Chair Page asked whether the neighbors were notified. Mr. Mark Connolly replied yes. Commissioner Barry stated she had no problem with this modification. Commissioner Roupe said that there is no detrimental effect and he has no difficulty supporting the modification. Commissioner Kurasch said that as long as the materials are compatible she is supportive. Chair Page said that as long as there are no privacy impacts. The fact that neighbors raised no issues seems to support this modification. • DR-00-021; 21116 Comer Drive – Review of Landscape Plan: Mr. Mark Connolly pointed out Mr. Torre’s letter, which was distributed this evening to the Commission. Commissioner Roupe said that he is pleased to see that the applicant and neighbor got together to develop a solution. The end result is satisfactory. Commended the idea of soliciting broader neighborhood participation. Commissioner Kurasch agreed that doing so is important since it is not just this neighbor that is impacted by this project. Commissioner Jackman said that this is going to be a good landscape plan. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 28, 2001 Page 17 Commissioner Barry commended Commissioner Roupe for his participation in the neighborhood meeting. Expressed her problem with planting pine trees, calling them “incendiary” trees. Pointed out that the Hillside Design Handbook calls for the retention of existing vegetation, plans for erosion control and grading. Asked what is the R-0-S zoning designation. Mr. Mark Connolly replied Residential Open Space, this designation does not apply to this site. Commissioner Roupe suggested speaking with the applicant regarding the use of pine trees. Mr. Bob Owen, 445 S. San Antonio Road, Los Altos: • Explained that the neighbors want pine trees. • Added that there is a fire hydrant close by in case of fire. Ms. Sara Small, Landscape Architect, 60 E. Third Street, Sacramento: • Said that use of pine trees is a logical choice due to their growth rate, form and screening capabilities. • Added that potential for fire is not as much a concern with the irrigation plan on this site. • Said that a hardwood oak is a possible alternative to pine trees. This site will utilize largely native or native compatible trees. They will take measures to keep fire danger down. • Another alternate tree species might be red oaks. However, this tree is deciduous rather than evergreen and would not provide screening during the winter months. Commissioner Kurasch asked Ms. Small her opinion on the use of cedar trees. Ms. Sara Small replied that pine trees are listed on the CalTrans list of trees because it is broader, lower and spreading type of tree. This is a tough tree. Commissioner Jackman added that these trees will not be place near any structure anyway and the pines should be allowed. Chair Page said that this landscape plan is fine. Commissioner Barry said that she couldn’t support the planting of “fuel for fire” since the Oakland Hills fire. This is not the only potential tree available. Chair Page suggested leaving the final determination to staff. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan said that this plan was found acceptable and agreed to by the neighbors. Mr. Bob Owen said he could pursue changing the pine trees for another species with the neighbors. • Monthly Stipend for Planning Commissioners: Chair Page advised the Commission that effective on May 1, 2001, the Planning Commissioners will begin receiving a monthly stipend of $150. Added that he personally would recommend that the Commissioners consider donating their stipend to worthy organizations such as the Senior Center. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 28, 2001 Page 18 • Farewells from Chair Page Chair Page reminded the Commission that this is his final meeting. The Commission will be electing a new Chair and Vice Char at its April 10th meeting. Expressed his thanks to the Commission for the opportunity to serve as Chair. Stated that it has been an honor and privilege to serve on the Commission and as its Chair. Commissioner Barry expressed her thanks to Chair Page. Commissioner Jackman expressed her appreciation for Chair Page’s leadership. • Distribution of Draft Housing Needs Assessment Report Interim Director Irwin Kaplan distributed the Draft Housing Needs Assessment Report to the Commission along with a copy of a letter to Council on the report. • Creating Sustainable Communities Commissioner Kurasch announced a seminar to be held in Palo Alto. COMMUNICATIONS • Written: Saratoga City Council Minutes from Adjourned Meeting of February 21, 2001. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Page adjourned the meeting at 11:35 p.m. to Wednesday, April 10, 2001, at the Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn Minutes Clerk