Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-09-2001 Planning Commission MinutesMINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, May 9, 2001 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Commissioner Jackman called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi Absent: None Staff: Interim Director Irwin Kaplan, Senior Planner Bob Schubert and Planner Kim Duncan Commissioner Jackman advised that the Commission would need to select a Chair for the Commission for the year. Motion: Upon Motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, Commissioner Barry was nominated to serve as Chair of the Planning Commission for 2001. (6-0) Motion: Upon Motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, Commissioner Jackman was nominated to serve as Vice Chair of the Planning Commission for 2001. (6-0) APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of April 25, 2001. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the Regular Planning Commission minutes of April 25, 2001, were approved with the following amendments: • Page 5 – Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Hulme if size, (bulk and mass) bulk and mass are is issues for him. • Page 6 – Commissioner Kurasch stated that the setback should be about 30 feet and the project have a reduction in bulk and size. (5-0-0-1; Commissioner Roupe abstained.) Chair Barry: • Expressed her appreciation for the Council’s recently authorized monthly stipend of $150 for Planning Commissioners and the acknowledgement by the Council of the time and commitment offered by Planning Commission members in the performance of their duties. • Welcomed two new members to the Commission. Ruchi Zutshi, who is attending her second meeting as a Commissioner, and Mike Garakani, who is attending his first meeting as a Commissioner. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2001 Page 2 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. David W. Dolloff, 20685 Sigal Drive, Saratoga: • Advised that he is the Chair of the Saratoga Firefighters’ & Citizens’ Task Force. • Suggested that the Commission might want to delay consideration of the pending Fire Department reconstruction application project until the situation is resolved between the County and Fire Department. • Informed that he spoke at the last Council meeting and asked Council to look into the permit process. Council set a hearing for June 3rd. • Said that it may be in the best interest not to consider the Fire Department project until after this Council meeting on June 3rd. Chair Barry asked staff for direction on this request. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan advised that since a legitimate application is pending, that application will need to proceed as scheduled. Commissioner Roupe said that no matter what happens later through the Council hearing, the Planning Commission hearing could be held and public comment solicited. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan advised that at that meeting, the Commission can determine whether it is prepared to make a decision that night or could decide to continue the matter if necessary. Chair Barry suggested that this topic should be discussed further later in the agenda under Commission Items. Thanked Mr. Dolloff. Mr. David W. Dolloff distributed a copy of an article, which just appeared in the Saratoga News. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Dolloff what he thinks the impact will be on County vs. City Fire Services. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan interrupted and advised the Commission that this topic must now be deferred to an appropriately noticed public hearing. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Mr. Bob Schubert, Senior Planner, announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 4, 2001. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET Mr. Bob Schubert, Senior Planner, provided the following six technical corrections to the staff report for Agenda Item No. 2: • Page 4, 4th paragraph, line 1 – tow two • Page 5, 5th paragraph, line 4 – as explained below • Page 11, 1st paragraph, line 3 – conservation • Page 15 (IV – a – Water) HC-RD HR Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2001 Page 3 • Page 7 (Finding No. 1): The proposed lots fall into two General Plan categories, Residential Very Low Density and Residential Hillside Conservation. Accordingly, the use and overall density will conform to Hillside Residential Conservation District of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. • Page 7 (Finding No. 2): The proposed Lot Line Adjustment will result in one conforming and one non-conforming lot, so the net effect of the Lot Line Adjustment remains the same. Therefore, the proposed Lot Line Adjustment is consistent with the regulations contained in the Zoning Ordinance and Chapter 14 of the City Code. CONSENT CALENDAR There are no Consent Calendar Items. PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 DR-01-014 (397-43-010) – ADLPARVAR, 13921 Loquat Court: Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 2,089 square foot structure and construct a new 3,369 square foot, single-story residence with a 2,281 square foot basement. Maximum height of the proposed structure is seventeen feet eleven inches and located within an R-1-10,000 zoning district. Mr. Bob Schubert, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval to demolish a 2,089 square foot residence and construct a 3,369 single-story home on a 10,083 square foot lot within an R-1-10,000 zoning district. • Provided a table matrix of the homes on Loquat Court, which range in size from 1,717 to 2,255 square feet, exclusive of garages. • Said that this proposal does not conform to the policies of the design handbook. • Suggested that the Commission take action to continue this application with specific directions to the applicant for redesign. Commissioner Kurasch asked about the disposal of groundwater from the proposed basement and how storm water drainage will be dealt with. Chair Barry inquired of staff as to why information is not provided about storm water management. Mr. Bob Schubert, Senior Planner, advised that typically storm water drainage plans are not reviewed by the Commission for single-family residential applications. Chair Barry warned that the Commission might want said information in the future. Asked staff for direction. Since the Commission usually asks an applicant whether they will support a continuance, wanted to know if the Commission could actually continue an item without applicant support. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan advised that the Commission could continue without the support of the applicant. However, it makes sense to ask the applicant if they are willing to redesign. If they are not willing to redesign their project, a continuance serves no purpose. In that case, it is best that the Commission takes definitive action to approval with conditions or to deny the application. This action leaves the applicant with the option to appeal to Council. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2001 Page 4 Mr. Raymond Nasmeh, 12029 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road: • Said that their proposed front setback is 25.2 feet. • Advised that there are two other homes on the Court with 25-foot setbacks while the remaining have 30 feet. • Said that their request represents only 29 percent coverage, with 2,936 square feet plus the basement below. • Assured that the groundwater is retained and the property graded toward the street. A sump pump will be installed in the basement with street size drain caps, per building code. No water from this site will be drained onto neighboring properties. Commissioner Jackman sought clarification that the runoff will be directed to storm drains rather than to the street. Mr. Raymond Nasmeh replied that the storm water would be directed to the Sanitation District’s storm drain system. Commissioner Roupe advised Mr. Nasmeh that the Commission strives to minimize the flow of runoff water into the Bay through the use of impervious coverage on projects whenever possible. Applicants are encouraged to retain water on site. Chair Barry stated that if the inclusion of storm drain plans are not a part of a standard application submittal, they should be. Mr. Raymond Nasmeh replied that Storm Drain Plans are a part of the building plan submittal. Chair Barry said that it has been a Planning Commission stance to retain as much water on site as possible rather than directing it into the Bay. Mr. Raymond Nasmeh assured the Commission that these concerns are covered at plan check stage. Commissioner Jackman asked Mr. Nasmeh whether the same Storm Water Management process would be used as was used for his Saratoga Legends Project. Mr. Raymond Nasmeh replied yes. He continued to say that his client has attempted to follow direction provided by staff. One result was the lowering of the garage entry as well as the changeover from stucco to wood siding to blend with the materials in the area. Asked for direction in order to be able to proceed. Commissioner Roupe questioned the reasoning behind the rise in the base floor plate by a few inches from the original height. Mr. Raymond Nasmeh answered that Code requires the base floor plate to be six inches above ground. Commissioner Roupe replied that it appears the finish floor of the house would be higher than the existing floor height. Said that since there are mass and bulk concerns, this added height is a concern. Mr. Hamid Adlparvar, Applicant and Property Owner, 13921 Loquat Court, Saratoga: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2001 Page 5 • Admitted that he had not paid attention to the finish floor height and saw no reason for this increase in height. • Promised to check with his civil engineer to determine whether there is a compelling reason for this height increase. If not, he is willing to lower the finish floor height so that it is consistent with the current height. Commissioner Garakani asked staff for guidance on the City’s standard requirement for finish floor height. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan advised that the City deals with overall height rather than with the floor plate. Mr. Raymond Nasmeh suggested that resolving this issue could be made a Condition of Approval and resolved appropriately to meet City standards. Commissioner Kurasch inquired whether the design of the driveway would meet grade standards as it appears to be a steep drive. Mr. Raymond Nasmeh replied that the lowering of the finish floor would lessen the grade of the drive too. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Nasmeh whether they are willing to work with the neighbors to achieve a compromise through redesign. Mr. Raymond Nasmeh replied that he spoke with Mr. Zambetti and the applicant spoke with the rest of the neighbors. Mr. Hamid Adlparvar clarified that he wrote a letter and spoke with them over the phone. Commissioner Kurasch inquired why the applicants were not able to develop a design that was acceptable to all. Mr. Raymond Nasmeh admitted that it is hard to make a 2,900 square foot home look like it is only 1,700 square feet. Said that they added wood siding to satisfy others. Added that a 2,900 square foot house is under par in regards to a new home by today’s standards. Commissioner Kurasch cautioned that the Commission is not in a position to evaluate economic considerations but rather design and compatibility issues. Mr. Raymond Nasmeh said that this proposed residence is not overly large, it has four bedrooms and two and a half baths. Chair Barry pointed out that approximately eight letters in opposition to this proposal have been received. Added that a letter was received this evening from Abbas Haghshenas, 15500 Quito Road, Saratoga, in support of this design. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing No. 1 at 8:20 p.m. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2001 Page 6 Mr. James Riley, 13910 Loquat Court, Saratoga: • Advised that his residence is located across the street and one house down from this project site. • Reminded that the original application was denied on February 16th. This second application has been brought to the Planning Commission based on having changed drawings, however, the only change to the drawings was the addition of screening trees while no attempt seems to have been made to address the concerns raised with the original design was denied. • Said that the demolition of a well-maintained residence, a beautiful house in pristine condition, was unfortunate and would send lots of debris to landfill unnecessarily. • Expressed concerns about the slope of the proposed driveway and the fact that the structure has been placed six feet closer to the front property line. • Added that the roof ridgeline will be higher than the existing and the footprint of this home will completely fill the area. • Advised that the two light wells are encroaching into the sideyard setbacks by two feet. A 10-foot setback is required and the light wells will be at eight feet. • Said that the light wells are an attractive nuisance, which could be dangerous to neighborhood children. • Said that not counting basement space was something that was initiated long ago, when basement space was limited to housing the water heater and other such mechanical uses. • Added that this proposed basement has three bedrooms, a full bath and a family room, all with a separate entrance. This represents a completely independent second living unit in his opinion. • Explained that this street was created in the early 60’s and designed for light traffic. • Cautioned that the heavy construction trucks risk damaging the roadway and the neighbors will bear the brunt. • Advised that no one has approached him in order to discuss this proposed project. Mr. Glenn Zucca, 13911 Loquat Court, Saratoga: • Said that his is a corner house. • Advised that he had made himself available to meet with the applicant but the applicant always canceled the scheduled meetings. • Said that the homes on this Court are in original condition and work well together. They are evenly spaced and similar in architectural style. • Said that he is not opposed to a remodel or upgrade that fits within the neighbor. Instead this proposed structure will push the house to within 10 feet of his home when it currently is 22 feet away. This change will mean that he will be able to see their kitchen from his backyard and will lose privacy. • Encouraged the Commissioners to visit his home in order to see the potential impact. • Suggested that a full size mock up be required to provide a visual demonstration of what the impact of this structure will be on the neighborhood. • Expressed concern that about the light wells encroaching into required side yard setbacks and the potential impact on adjacent properties. Commissioner Garakani advised Mr. Zucca that the Commissioners had visited the site this week. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that similar comments appear in other letters. Asked what impacts on views Mr. Zucca envisions with the proposed residence. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2001 Page 7 Mr. Glenn Zucca replied that the homes on the Court are of a similar size and distance from the street. If this house is constructed closer to the street, it will obstruct views from the other homes on the Court. Added that a careful job was done in designing this Court originally. Mr. Martin Schibler, 13939 Quito Road, Saratoga: • Explained that his is a deep lot that backs Loquat Court. • Said that he concurred with the comments made by Mr. Riley and Mr. Zucca. Chair Barry asked if the Commissioners had any questions of any speakers. Since no one did, Chair Barry invited Mr. Nasmeh to make his final statements. Mr. Raymond Nasmeh: • Said that regarding Mr. Riley’s concerns about the slope of the driveway, a professionally engineered grading plan will be prepared that falls within all codes, including drainage compliance. • Added that the house that will be demolished will actually be recycled. Recycling occurs for several reasons, which range from the fact that there is an earth to preserve to the fact that it is cheaper to the builder to recycle materials as opposed to dumping them into landfill. • Added that this existing structure is a 30 to 40 year building. The electrical and plumbing services are not up to current code. • Explained that the difference in the proposed versus existing front setbacks is but five feet. • Said that they are willing to make changes to remove the roof line variations over the bay windows in the third bedroom and living room in order to conform with the ranch style that is evident in this Court. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 8:40 p.m. Chair Barry said that the Commission has options that include a vote this evening or a continuance. Commissioner Garakani suggested proceeding on an approval with conditions. Commissioner Roupe said that changes needed include the simplified roof line, tucking in the bay windows, reducing the entry feature and eliminate the use of a double door and ensure that the finish floor height is not raised beyond the existing finish floor height. Commissioner Zutshi said that she would require a 30-foot front yard setback. Commissioner Roupe asked Commissioner Zutshi if she would expect a reduction in the square footage of the house. Commissioner Zutshi replied yes. Commissioner Kurasch said that she would rather not condition this project but rather would send it back for redesign. There are more than just a few elements requiring change. Issues include a lack of critical consistency, architectural style, placement, bulk and size. Reiterated that she is not willing to condition an approval. Said that the structure should be reduced by a minimum of 15 percent. Commissioner Jackman said that the 2,936 first floor (without counting the basement space) is not all that large by today’s standards. Added that the house does appear too bulky and the front needs to be Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2001 Page 8 decreased. Said that the light wells should not intrude on the side yard setbacks and should be pulled back so that they do not encroach. Chair Barry said that there was strong direction from Council regarding striving to achieve compatibility with new development. The neighborhood has come forward and given input. Said that she is inclined to pursue that process by letting the neighbors and applicant work together with staff to come to grips. It is clear the neighbors say this proposal is too much. Said that it is unfortunate that no good give and take has occurred between this applicant and his neighbors. Commissioner Jackman said that houses would get larger over the next few years. Wondered how to get people together. Suggested neighborhood meetings. Commissioner Roupe warned that requiring the 30-foot front setback will reduce this structure by 500 to 700 square feet. Commissioner Zutshi said that perhaps the garage could be moved back. Mr. Raymond Nasmeh said that moving the garage would leave an inadequate rear yard, which would impact the enjoyment rights of for the owner of his rear year and such a negative impact could be appealed. Commissioner Kurasch said that the house would be more consistent with the neighborhood if it includes the same 30-foot front setback. Suggested that the applicants redesign and include the neighbors in the process to help find a good compromise. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan said that if the Commission elects to continue this application, it should reopen the Public Hearing and ask the applicant if he wants a continuance or action this evening by the Commission. Chair Barry reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 8:50 p.m. Mr. Raymond Nasmeh: • Said that the neighbors and applicant have worked through staff for the last 8 to 10 weeks to no avail. • Said that he did not believe it would accomplish anyone’s need to continue this request. • Added that they have conformed to all codes. • Asked that the Commission move forward tonight and grant an approval with conditions or deny and he can appeal to Council. Chair Barry re-closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 8:55 p.m. Commissioner Kurasch suggested additional front and side yard screening landscaping. Commissioner Garakani suggested that the light wells be modified in a way that takes into account the safety of children. Commissioner Roupe advised that these light wells are required by code to provide egress from the basement. Suggested some sort of fencing that would prevent children from falling into the light wells. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2001 Page 9 Mr. Bob Schubert, Senior Planner, advised that a three to four-foot railing is required by code for the light wells for safety. Chair Barry said the placement of the light wells should be adjusted if they do indeed encroach into the required setbacks. Commissioner Zutshi asked for the distance from the bay windows to the street. Mr. Bob Schubert, Senior Planner, replied 25 feet. Chair Barry pointed out that many houses do not have a straight line so some portion of the house could be at a 30 feet setback and some at 25 feet. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Commission approved DR-01-014 to allow the construction of a new single family residence on property located at 13921 Loquat Court with the added conditions of approval: • The finished floor height shall be no higher than the existing finish floor height; • The bay windows will be recessed so as not to impact the roofline; • The front entry will be changed in style to reduce the grandeur and the double door feature eliminated; • A minimum reduction of 15% in square footage; • The residence shall be set back where possible, with at least a 30-foot setback for the garage; • Minimize the impact of the light wells as they encroach on setback area; and • Provide additional front and side yard screening landscaping. (6-0) Chair Barry advised that the applicants have 15 days to file an appeal. Chair Barry called for a break at 9:10 p.m. Chair Barry reconvened the meeting at 9:30 p.m. *** PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 2 LL-00-005 (517-23-021 and 517-22-111) – HUSAIN/KHAN, 15480 Peach Hill Road: Request for Lot Line Adjustment approval for two existing parcels with slope greater than 20 percent. Currently, a residence is located on top of the existing lot line. The purpose of the request is to correct this situation and create two parcels capable of supporting a residential building site in a Hillside- Conservation Residential-zoning district. Ms. Kim Duncan, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2001 Page 10 • Advised that the applicants are seeking a Lot Line Adjustment for two existing parcels with a slope greater than 20 percent. • Informed that in 1983, a Lot Line Adjustment was approved for this property but never recorded and the approval later lapsed. • Said that there is an existing residence that straddles the current lot line. • Said that this Lot Line Adjustment will create one conforming lot and one non-conforming lot. • Advised that this Lot Line Adjustment will allow a new residence on the second lot. • Said that staff did an Initial Study and is recommending approval of a Negative Declaration. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan pointed out that staff has distributed a written copy of the technical corrections reported at the beginning of this evening’s meeting to clearly outline the amendments to the staff report. Chair Barry sought clarification that the 1983 Lot Line Adjustment was never recorded. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan advised that the approved lot line adjustment was never recorded and lapsed. Commissioner Roupe asked if the information from the previous lot line adjustment application is available. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan replied that this information was not available. Commissioner Garakani asked whether the house that straddles the current property line was constructed before or after the establishment of that existing lot line. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan replied that the home was constructed before the property was annexed into the City of Saratoga. Commissioner Roupe said that a rational for creating a non-conforming lot has not been provided. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan advised that there is no way to get two conforming lots. Chair Barry said that this lot line adjustment doesn’t worsen the situation. Commissioner Jackman agreed that no new lots are created. It is the same number of lots. Commissioner Kurasch asked whether the lots are both in the City now. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan replied that both lots are now located in Saratoga. Commissioner Kurasch asked staff for procedures or rules that govern non-conforming lots. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan advised that there is an existing legal but non-conforming lot. If it were possible to create two conforming lots, that would be required. In this case, there is not enough acreage to do so. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2001 Page 11 Commissioner Roupe pointed out that there is a bit of an imbalance between the two lots with Lot A having 4.6 acres while Lot B has just 2.4 acres. That will leave Lot B more constrained. Suggested more evenly balancing the two lots to provide a greater opportunity to build on Lot B. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan advised that this is a legitimate issue to raise with the applicant. Commissioner Zutshi asked if a more detailed survey is available. Ms. Kim Duncan, Planner, replied no. Commissioner Kurasch asked whether the lot is conforming if it is one parcel. Ms. Kim Duncan replied that it would be 7.05 acres. The slope density would have to be determined. If the slope were greater than 40 percent, building on the land would be prohibited. Staff would not be able to make that determination this evening. Commissioner Roupe sought clarification that the only ingress/egress to the two parcels would be off of Peach Hill and not off of Sunset. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan clarified that there is no right of access from Sunset. Commissioner Roupe asked why the easement (one-foot non-easement) is being retained rather than eliminated altogether. Commissioner Kurasch suggested that a permanent easement be recorded that specifies that Peach Hill will be the only access to the two parcels. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan agreed that this would guarantee that such an easement is enacted. Chair Barry pointed out that this requirement is already incorporated into the conditions of approval. Commissioner Roupe asked where the sewer and utility easements are currently located. Chair Barry said that the Commission could impose conditions on the placement of these easements based upon the Subdivision Map Act. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan corrected the Commission by stated that a Lot Line Adjustment is a special consideration that is not a part of the Subdivision Map Act. The Commission is limited to zoning and building issues. This is not a subdivision under the law. Commissioner Roupe added that imposing future conditions could not be applied at this point. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan advised that one of the conditions states that there is no assurance that Lot B can be developed at all. To construct on that lot, the owner will be required to comply with all City regulations. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2001 Page 12 Chair Barry pointed out the strong language provided by the Assistant City Attorney on Item 4, page 8. Added that she would like to see this paragraph added to the Negative Declaration. Added that she had a problem approving the Negative Declaration as it appears to be in conflict. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan said that there is no intention to create a conflict. The lot line adjustment can occur and use of Lot B is conditioned that building on the property is contingent upon being found to be developable and meeting development standards. Chair Barry reiterated her belief that the Attorney’s language, in its entirety should be inserted into the Negative Declaration. Asked whether it has been determined if this property is located on a fault. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that there is a letter in the packet that states there are no faults. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan advised that the City’s geologist has reviewed this. Commissioner Roupe added that it is stated that there are no known faults on or through the property. Chair Barry stated that she wants this verified. Added that the Commission has not seen the geotechnical map for this area and that she want to verify that the property is not next to or on the fault. Asked staff to explain the differences between Hillside Residential and Hillside-Residential Conservation zones. Ms. Kim Duncan, Planner, advised that they are the same. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 9:45 p.m. Norm Matteoni, 1740 Technology Drive, San Jose: • Identified himself as the attorney and representative for the applicant. • Said that the simple issue is that they have two lots. The northerly lot is the large one with about 5.5 acres. The southerly lot has a house straddling the property line. They propose to shift the property line northward. • Explained that the two lots are not even because they were attempting to created a lot with a workable building site area to eliminate the need for excavation and/or grading in order to accommodate a house on the property. This configuration offers a flatter building area and includes appropriate contour lines. • Added that with slope formulas, setbacks are established that will fit with the design of a home in the future. The existing home was built without permits in the 1940’s, while under County jurisdiction. The existing lot line is the old section line. • Advised that Sunset Drive was originally established in the Glen Una Subdivision at the end of the 19th Century, beginning of the 20th Century. Sunset does not intrude into this parcel. The Sunset easement is at the City Attorney’s recommendation, an easement of non-access so that that connection cannot be made in the future. They cannot abandon or grant any easement rights because they were originally dedicated to the County and the City now has them. Chair Barry asked for verification as to whether there are two accesses to the property. Mr. Norm Matteoni: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2001 Page 13 • Advised that access to this property is only from Peach Hill Road. There are easements off of Peach Hill. • Added that this application seeks to correct an existing situation and does not worsen the situation but rather improves it. • Added that they have undertaken geologic and soils evaluations and the outcome was provided in the staff report. The report finds no impact. Further geologic review will be undertaken with any specific proposal for a house on Parcel B. • Pointed out that the conditions go with the property. • Reminded that there is no specific application for a new residence on Lot B at this time. Chair Barry asked what the status is for the access easement for Lot B. Mr. Norm Matteoni replied that it will be recorded to define the path and assure access to Peach Hill. Chair Barry asked what would occur if future geologic problems are discovered. Mr. Norm Matteoni answered that they will be unable to sell the land without appropriate access. Clarified that the Santa Clara Formation Fault is north of the westerly edge of this property. The letter in the packet states that there are no faults shown to cross the property. Chair Barry said that this information seems to say that the fault does not run through the property but is located but 800 feet away. Mr. Norm Matteoni said that the house is 150 to 200 feet from the road so the fault is about 600 feet from the property. Added that the existing lot patterns are one to two acre sites. These two proposed lots are larger than most along Peach Hill. They are in keeping with the harmony and character of the neighborhood. This lot line adjustment helps for any future residence. Ms. Jitka Cymbal, Project Engineer, 14583 Big Basin Way, Saratoga: • Explained that the existing lot line was created before the house. The house was built before building permits were required by the County (they began to issue permits in 1946). • Said that they looked at potential building sites for both lots, topography and trees. • Said that they didn’t want to take out trees unnecessarily and conducted a tree survey. • Of the two sites, one has an existing home and the other is down the ridge quite a ways. It is fairly level site with a slope of less than 10 percent. After defining the building sites, they worked backwards to create the proposed lot line. • Pointed out that there are quite a few easements: including sewer (from Peach Hill to Sunset); San Jose Water (from Peach Hill to Sunset); road and utility easements (at two points, one from Peach Hill to the section line and the other between the section line and the Birunbaum property, both of which have slope easements attached). They propose to leave the existing 22-foot easement and extend a new easement to the new property line. Chair Barry asked what the owner’s intention is for the building pad area of Lot A. Ms. Jitka Cymbal, Project Engineer, replied that they are simply potential building sites for use in determining setbacks. They are not trying to define the actual building area. Commissioner Roupe asked why the proposed lot line placement was selected. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2001 Page 14 Ms. Jitka Cymbal, Project Engineer, replied that for Parcel B scenario they wanted to leave an area behind the potential residence for placement of a pool in the rear yard. Commissioner Roupe suggested that the lot line be moved west (left) to achieve more balance between the two lots. Added that if Lot B is smaller, it will be more difficult to get an approval to build on that lot. Ms. Jitka Cymbal, Project Engineer, admitted that Mr. Husain wants the bigger of the two lots. Added that the only other issue raised that she should address is Sunset. Added that the existing road does not belong to this property and this owner has no control over it. Added that the City Council could vacate and give this area to one of the adjacent owners. Commissioner Zutshi asked about the detailed survey of trees. Ms. Jitka Cymbal, Project Engineer, replied that she has given that report to the City as well as a topography map, items not typically provide for a lot line adjustment application. Chair Barry asked what the results are of these reports. Ms. Jitka Cymbal, Project Engineer, replied that they depict the contours, trees, drip lines and physical improvements. Such information is not generally needed at this stage. In order to design the easement access road, they will conform to the topography. Commissioner Garakani asked about the easements. Ms. Jitka Cymbal, Project Engineer, replied that both easements would be created by the same document. One easement from Peach Hill to the section line and the other from the Biranbaum property to the section line, the purpose and intent for that easement is unknown. Commissioner Kurasch wondered about combining both lots. The formula requires a 9.25 acres in order to be developable. Asked how large the net area, with the slope area , would be. Ms. Jitka Cymbal, Project Engineer, replied that they have not calculated on that basis as they have always looked at this property as two parcels. Commissioner Roupe said that per the staff report, there is a 3.73 acre net requirement for Lot A. Ms. Kim Duncan, Planner, advised that the Hillside Residential code requirement is 29 percent slope requires 3.73 acres. Ms. Jitka Cymbal, Project Engineer, said that average slope may increase if you reduce the area. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan said that Lot A could be reduced and still be conforming. Commissioner Roupe stated his preference for a larger non-conforming lot. Ms. Meg Giberson, 15561 Glen Una Drive, Saratoga: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2001 Page 15 • Stated that her main concern is the access. • Stressed that access needs to come form Peach Hill Road. • Warned that access could come indirectly from Sunset. That could be expanded but shouldn’t be used. • Agreed that it would be appropriate to use a non-use easement from both. • Showed the Glen Una map from the 1920’s. Commissioner Roupe suggested that a good lawyer will be able to structure an agreement that ensures that access to this property comes only from Peach Hill. Ms. Meg Giberson asked that the Commission consider a continuance. Commissioner Roupe asked Ms. Giberson to identify her primary concern. Ms. Meg Giberson replied that keeping access off of Willow Creek Canyon is a second concern. She distributed photographs depicting story poles, which were installed on the subject property in February. Commissioner Kurasch advised Ms. Giberson that the City does not have a proposal for a house before it right now. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan reiterated that there is no development application before the Commission. Chair Barry said that this lot line adjustment pre-supposes building pads. Asked Ms. Giberson if she has any other issues to raise. Ms. Giberson expressed disappointment that Saratoga Codes appear to be in conflict with the Subdivision Map Act. Added that she wished more information were available, particularly about the 600 foot driveway that may end up not even being allowed, perhaps due to Fire requirements. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan said that such issues would be referred to the Fire Department when a specific application is presented. Commissioner Roupe reiterated that if the property owner cannot meet requirements, they will not be able to build on Lot B. Added that only one access will serve these two parcels, off of Peach Hill Road. Commissioner Jackman said that she believes that once there is a legal parcel/lot it can be build upon. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan advised the Commission that a lot cannot be developed if it does not meet City codes. Commissioner Jackman said that she needs more information before she can make a decision on this application. Ms. Meg Giberson distributed copies of a four-page letter to the Commissioners. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2001 Page 16 Mr. Alan Giberson, 15561 Glen Una Drive, Saratoga: • Backed the comments of his wife and thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak. Mr. Darryl Dukes, Resident, Peach Hill Road, Saratoga: • Expressed his opposition to this lot line adjustment. • Provided an updated petition with additional signatures (for a total of eight). • Discussed the inadequate roads in the area. • Questioned why give the opportunity to split these lots. • Opined that the lots should be developed as one lot. • Pointed out that four traffic accidents have occurred on Peach Hill recently since the construction of another new house began in the area. • Complained that he cannot jog while cars are driving along the road. • Stated that Peach Hill Road cannot handle any more traffic. Commissioner Roupe clarified that this lot line adjustment does not automatically approve Parcel B as a developable lot. Added that maintenance/repair of a road during and/or following construction is a standard condition of approval when granting approval to build. Mr. Darryl Dukes warned that one property owner in the area had to spend a million dollars. Warned that it could cost a million to improve this road to access Parcel B. Mr. Norm Matteoni: • Explained that there are two legal lots here even without a lot line adjustment. • Added that the owner could simply remove this 1940’s home and be left with two buildable lots. • They are only moving a property line. • Agreed that the cost of the road might make building on Lot B cost prohibitive. • Added that they are committed to prohibiting access to Sunset. Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Matteoni whether he could support creating a minimally conforming Parcel A and expanding the non-conforming Parcel B. Mr. Norm Matteoni said that as long as the average slope can be maintained, they could support that recommendation. Commissioner Roupe suggested that the slope formula be determined in order to define the minimum area necessary for Parcel A to keep it conforming and incorporate the rest of the property into Parcel B. Mr. Norm Matteoni again said that this would be acceptable. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Commission closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. (6-0) Chair Barry stated that the issues seem to be ensuring that the only access easement be from Peach Hill and the repair and/or maintenance of Peach Hill be required in order to build the access road. Commissioner Roupe suggested that this be a condition of approval for building on Parcel B. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2001 Page 17 Chair Barry asked about the building of the access road to Parcel B. Commissioner Kurasch suggested that this condition be processed as part of the lot line adjustment this evening. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan agreed that the requirement for the recordation of an access easement should be a condition of approval. Chair Barry asked about the requirement to repair construction damage to Peach Hill. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan advised that this is a typical requirement. Commissioner Kurasch wondered if the Hillside District was established prior to 1983, when the unrecorded lot line adjustment was approved and/or before this property was annexed into the City of Saratoga. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan said that he was unaware of the answer to that question. Commissioner Kurasch asked whether the conditions of the original approval could be useful to the Commission. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan said not really since the lot line adjustment must meet today’s standards. Commissioner Jackman advised that the Hillside Development District was established by the 1974 General Plan. Commissioner Roupe said that he was prepared to make a motion. Commissioner Garakani suggested that these properties might be best combined into one lot rather than being divided. Commissioner Roupe advised that the owner seeks a lot line adjustment. Commissioner Kurasch said that Commissioner Garakani raises a good issue. Commissioner Roupe said that Commissioner Garakani can vote no if he does not support the lot line adjustment. Chair Barry reminded that the existing residence is not strictly legal but rather legal non-conforming. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan said that this is correct. Chair Barry added that this project is grandfathered. Commissioner Garakani asked why the properties should be split. Chair Barry replied that they probably want to sell one parcel. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2001 Page 18 Commissioner Roupe reminded that there are already two legal parcels. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the Planning Commission approved a Negative Declaration in support of a Lot Line Adjustment Application (LL-00-005) with the following additions: 1. The addition of language, drafted by the Assistant City Attorney (Paragraph 4), into the Negative Declaration that states that the lot line adjustment in no way implies that Parcel B is a buildable lot; 2. Documenting that the Berrocal Fault runs near enough to this property to be a significant factor in future considerations. (6-0) Chair Barry clarified that approval must have legally strong enough language that offers no assurance of the build-ability of Lot B. Commissioner Kurasch sought a protective easement for Willow Creek. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan said that it could be specified that the access easement shall not impair Willow Creek. Commissioner Roupe said that he would be willing to add this as a condition to his motion. Chair Barry suggested that Willow Creek be tested. Commissioner Kurasch said that the existing condition is that these two lots are functionally one parcel. Only one is buildable. One lot is conforming, the other non-conforming. There appears to be an intent to develop both. Said that she is not comfortable supporting this request of increasing build- able lots to two when one now exists. Said that there is not enough information and that she does not want to create something that is not up to minimum standards. Stated that she will not support two lots. Commissioner Roupe reminded that the Commission is not creating two lots, there are already two parcels. However, the house runs through the property line. This lot line adjustment will correct that situation. Parcel B might be non-conforming but both lots already legally exist. Right now, only one is buildable. There is a better chance of approving a building on Parcel B with this lot line adjustment. Advised that to vote against this application is to keep the situation as it is. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the Planning Commission moved to approve a Lot Line Adjustment (LL-00-005) for two parcels with slope greater than 20 percent, with the following additional conditions of approval: 1. Add language that states that in no way does approval of this lot line adjustment imply that Lot B is a buildable lot; 2. That the lot line be adjusted so that Parcel A would become a minimally compliant lot within the formula of code and Lot B increased, although it will remain non-conforming; 3. That there shall be no access to Lot B other than off Peach Hill Road; 4. That all access from Sunset be recorded and denied; Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2001 Page 19 5. That it be specified that any access easement will not impair Willow Creek. (3-3; Commissioners Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi voted for approval/Chair Barry and Commissioners Garakani and Roupe voted against approval) The motion failed for lack of a majority. *** DIRECTOR ITEMS Interim Director Irwin Kaplan announced that a new Community Development Director, Tom Sullivan, will begin work next week. Additionally, he advised the Commission that Planner Kim Duncan would also be leaving the City of Saratoga at the end of next week after seven months with the City. Chair Barry expressed her farewells and appreciation to Mr. Kaplan for his service as Interim Community Development Director. Ms. Kim Duncan, Planner, said that it has been a wonderful experience working for the City of Saratoga and that she learned so much. Commissioner Garakani expressed his appreciation for Ms. Duncan for assistance she offered to him on one occasion prior to his appointment to the Commission. Chair Barry thanked Ms. Duncan for her service. COMMISSION ITEMS Consideration of Fire Department Application at next meeting: Chair Barry asked whether consideration of the Fire Department application should be continued until after Council meetings in June. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan stated that there is a valid land use application (Use Permit and Design Review) to be considered. Council is approaching this matter from a policy standpoint. The Commission must consider it from a land use position. Chair Barry said that the work of the Commission on this application could become moot a few weeks later depending on the decision of Council. Commissioner Jackman said that the Commission really has no choice but to consider these valid applications. It is necessary to keep political and land use issues separate. Added that she will not be available for the next meeting. Change in Submission Requirements to Include Landscape Plans: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2001 Page 20 Commissioner Zutshi suggested that an item be agendized for a future meeting in consideration of a change in submission requirements to require landscape plans early in the application process for development applications. Commissioner Roupe said that it is hard to prepare landscape plans until the structure is pretty well set on the site. Chair Barry said that it appears the Commission does not yet have a definitive basis in order to require landscape plan submittals during the initial approval process and is interested in developing whatever protocol necessary to necessitate provision of said landscape plans with each application. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan suggested that this matter be agendized for the next meeting. Chair Barry said that all of the Commissioners seem to feel that this requirement for early submission of landscape plans is important, including hardscape, fencing and landscaping details. Working with Applicants and their Neighbors Commissioner Garakani suggested getting together with staff to brainstorm on ways to effectively work with neighbors and/or applicants in the future in dealing with conflicts regarding potential development so that these issues may be resolved by all parties prior to Planning Commission hearings when possible. Chair Barry said that with a new director coming on board, this is a natural time to have such a discussion, either as a Study Session topic or as a Retreat item. Need for Better Sound during Meetings Commissioner Garakani asked staff to look into having a speaker added in the Theater nearer to the far right side in order to allow the Commissioners on this side of the dais to better hear one another and members of the audience. County Planning Workshop Commissioner Kurasch announced a workshop, sponsored by the County Planning Department. The date is June 1, 2001, from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. Cost is $10 and includes lunch. Email Communication One Commissioner had mentioned exchange of email addresses in order to pass along information. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan warned that email amongst Commissioners falls under Brown Act regulations and is considered a matter of public record. Whistle Stop Housing Tour – Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2001 Page 21 Chair Barry announced that she had received a flyer regarding the upcoming Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group’s Whistle Stop Housing Tour. Promised to provide it to staff for distribution to any Commissioners who have not yet received this flyer. COMMUNICATIONS Written: Saratoga City Council Minutes from Adjourned Meeting of March 23, 2001, and April 18, 2001. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Barry adjourned the meeting at 11:27 p.m. to Wednesday, May 23, 2001, at the Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk