HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-08-2001 Planning Commission Minutes
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, August 8, 2001
PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Chair Barry called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Jackman and Zutshi
Absent: Hunter, Kurasch and Roupe
Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner John Livingstone and Planner Allison Knapp
APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of July 25, 2001.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the
Regular Planning Commission minutes of July 25, 2001, were approved as
presented.
AYES:Barry, Garakani and Zutshi.
NOES: None
ABSENT: Hunter, Kurasch and Roupe
ABSTAIN: Jackman
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no oral communications.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this
meeting was properly posted on August 2, 2001.
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET
Director Sullivan proposed that the Commission change the order of the agenda and consider Item No.
5 first as it is being continued to a date uncertain. Agenda Item No. 1 has been continued to the
September 12, 2001, meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no consent calendar items.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 2
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 5
DR-01-016 & BSE-01-022 (517-14-027) – NIJOR, 15330 Kittridge Road: Request for Design
Review approval to construct a 2,301 square foot second-story addition to an existing 2,308 square
foot single-story residence. The proposed addition includes 60 square feet on the first floor and a new
2,241 square foot second story. The maximum height of the residence would be 25.5 feet. The site is
466.086 square feet and is located in the HR (Hillside Residential) zoning district. (SULLIVAN)
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing No. 5 at 7:04 p.m.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the
Commission continued consideration of DR-01-016 and BSE-01-022 to allow a
second story addition to an existing home at 15330 Kittridge Road to a date
uncertain.
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Jackman and Zutshi.
NOES: None
ABSENT: Hunter, Kurasch and Roupe
ABSTAIN: None
Director Sullivan advised that this item would be renoticed for public hearing once the project is ready
for Commission review and approval.
***
PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 2
DR-01-007 & BSE-01-011 (397-17-034) – CHEN, 19752 Versailles Way: Request for Design
Review approval to construct a new 5,917 square foot single-story home and demolish an existing
3,822 square foot home. The proposed height is 26 feet. The lot is 40,000 square feet in area and is
located within the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (KNAPP)
Ms. Allison Knapp, Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that this application is for a Design Review approval to allow the construction of a 5,917
square foot, single-story residence with basement and the demolition of an existing 3,822 square
foot residence.
• Said that the neighborhood consists of a mixture of older ranch-style homes as well as newer
designer-style homes with approximately 50 percent of each type.
• Added that this proposal is for more of a designer style architecture.
• Pointed out that the project has articulation and nice fenestration.
• Said that a letter of concern was received about the proposed height of the project.
• Added that the architect has prepared a packet of information.
• Recommended approval of this project.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:10 p.m.
Mr. Greg Kawahara, Project Architect, 5466 Molly Circle, Livermore:
• Stated that the proposed architecture is of a Mediterranean style, somewhat Italianate.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 3
• Added that the project will include cast stone moldings and that the massing and elevation steps
down.
• Explained that the tallest portion of the home is a 10-foot length at 26 feet in height.
• Pointed out that there is one chimney for the single woodburning fireplace. Two additional gas
fireplaces will also be included in the home but will not incorporate any chimneys.
• Acknowledged the comments from the neighbor regarding view concerns.
• Said that the proposed structure will be further setback from the street, which will decrease the
perceived bulk of the home.
• Advised that the 26-foot height will exist in just one point and that this highest ridge is just 6 feet, 9
inches higher than the existing ridge on the current home.
• Added that the existing mature vegetation in the area will help obscure any impacts and that views
will not be impacted.
Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Kawahara whether story poles have been requested.
Mr. Greg Kawahara replied no and restated the fact that only a 10-foot ridge will run at 26 feet in
height, running from front to back in order to have minimal impact.
Chair Barry asked if there is any functional use of the 26 foot height.
Mr. Greg Kawahara replied no.
Chair Barry asked why that height should not be reduced.
Mr. Greg Kawahara said that the design concept is for an elegant architectural porch entry feature that
is more unique and traditional. Added that there is a low pitch to the roof and that the massing steps
down so that the project feels vertical being horizontally stretched out.
Chair Barry asked Mr. Kawahara if he would honor a Commission request to lower the height if doing
so is possible.
Mr. Greg Kawahara said that he prefers to have the design approved as presented.
Mr. Paul Doble, Project Builder, 3083 East River Hills Drive, Saratoga:
• Cautioned that lowering the ridge risks impacting building drainage and use of materials.
• Reminded that while this is a small section, it is an important element in order to tie in the roof
design.
• Suggested the possibility of moving the house back another five feet.
Chair Barry mentioned that this Architect and Builder will be working on another similar home on this
street and asked what similarities and differences are proposed.
Mr. Greg Kawahara advised that the second home will utilize wood corbels. Both homes will have
stucco siding and tile roofs. The next home will not include as wide a front porch.
Commissioner Jackman asked Mr. Kawahara if the next home would utilize the same arch features as
does this one.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 4
Mr. Greg Kawahara replied no, adding that there will be just a single arch and that gable roof elements
will be included on the next project. Asked the Commission members if they were comfortable with
the proposed materials.
Chair Barry replied no. She stated that the Commission looks to see as much as wood and stone as
possible as opposed to use of stucco. Added that they do not want to see two homes directly across the
street from one another that are basically the same.
Commissioner Zutshi asked whether the elimination of arches on the sides could result in a lower roof
height.
Mr. Kawahara replied yes but that the appeal is the provision of the wider porch element.
Commissioner Jackman stated that she likes the way the home steps back and asked how far it steps
back.
Mr. Greg Kawahara replied that there is a significant step back of between 13 and 14 feet.
Chair Barry asked if Mr. Greg Kawahara has any further comments about proposed materials for this
house and the next one he will propose on the same street.
Director Sullivan advised the Commission that he has invited the architect to bring material samples
for the next house into the Planning Department Offices tomorrow.
Mr. Greg Kawahara said that they would welcome as much input on the next project as possible from
staff and the Commission.
Mr. Hari Pillai, Neighboring Property Owner:
• Advised that he is the neighbor to the right corner.
• Declared that past wrongs do not justify new wrongs.
• Said that he had a number of issues, including the fact that this home is out of tune with the
neighborhood of mostly ranch style homes over stucco palaces.
• Said that the roof height is an issue and that the 26-foot height achieves nothing but is purely
cosmetic.
• Pointed out that the proposed materials are out of line with the neighborhood.
• Opined that this is a loud, cookie-cutter design that represents a “house on steroids” and that this
home is a Trojan horse that sets a bad precedent for the neighborhood.
• Stated his opposition to the outdoor shower.
• Said that there has been zero consultations with the neighbors.
• Asked the Commission to instruct staff not to accept similar designs in the future and to encourage
more community involvement.
• Added that they don’t want to see their neighborhood become another Cupertino or Las Vegas but
rather would like to retain the rural atmosphere and preserve the taste of the neighborhood.
• Expressed strong opposition to the design.
Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Pillai whether additional trees might obscure this home from view
from his rear yard.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 5
Mr. Hari Pillai replied that trees would not screen this home from view from their home’s rear yard.
The existing screening trees will obscure from the front of the house and not from the back.
Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Pillai if extra screening at the rear would help him accept this
project.
Mr. Hari Pillai pointed out that it would take a long time for this new screening material to mature.
Reiterated his belief that the home can be lowered without adversely impacting the owners’ use of their
new home.
Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Pillai how he would change this project.
Mr. Hari Pillai said that the project should change to a ranch-style architecture and change its
materials.
Commissioner Garakani pointed out that the ranch style is no longer prevalent in this area.
Mr. Hari Pillai said that the fact that wrong decisions were made 10 years ago does not mean that other
wrongs should be propagated on top of that. Added that he went to a lot of trouble to add to his
property and to the area.
Mr. Raj Kumar, 19805 Versailles Way, Saratoga:
• Stated that he likes this proposal, finding it quite elegant and believes that it will be well built.
• Pointed out that there is a variety of architectural styles in the area and that not a lot of brick is
used.
• Stated that “an argument of consistency due to existing inconsistency is not consistent.”
Chair Barry asked to see the project material board.
Mr. Paul Doble, Project Builder:
• Reminded that there is but a small area at the 26-foot height and that this height is permitted under
Code.
• Suggested that full-grown trees (as large as 110-inch box, 25-foot high) could be brought in
without a problem.
• Assured that they are willing to plant trees necessary to help make the neighbor happy.
• Stated that this will be a very beautiful house and that communities want variation in architecture.
• Said that the materials proposed are very expensive and elegant. The stone is glass reinforced
concrete. Additionally they can utilize a custom stucco texture.
• Said that in his business they build homes to compliment communities, for different clients that
need to be made happy as well as for different City Planning Departments, who must also be made
happy.
Commissioner Garakani asked if it would be possible to utilize stone on the arches.
Mr. Greg Kawahara said that core or natural stone would be appropriate for use on the arches.
Commissioner Zutshi asked for the width of the arched area.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 6
Mr. Greg Kawahara replied approximately 40 feet.
Chair Barry said that she does not oppose the roofing material but wants to be sure that the colors
blend as much as possible.
Mr. Greg Kawahara said that he was willing to work with staff to select a brown-toned roof tile.
Chair Barry pointed out that using a Spanish tile roof suggests that this is not strictly a Mediterranean-
style house.
Mr. Greg Kawahara said that they can get a blended roof.
Chair Barry suggested something that blends with the color of the stone.
Mr. Paul Doble, Project Builder, assured that the roof color can be custom blended to be a more earth
tone.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:45 p.m.
Commissioner Jackman:
• Said that while she could sympathize with the Pillais about the changing neighborhood, it is
already a 50 percent mixture of ranch and designer homes.
• Added that it is possible to have a tasteful architectural mix since these are large one-acre lots and
as long as the architecture is well done.
• Stated that she liked the style of this home and believes it can fit in well.
Commissioner Zutshi expressed doubts about the size of the architectural porch feature, saying that the
40-foot width is rather large and will appear massive.
Commissioner Garakani:
• Agreed with the comments of Commissioner Jackman regarding the existing changes in the
neighborhood, saying that this is not a neighborhood just beginning to change. Rather it is a
neighborhood that has changed so much that it can’t be stopped at this point.
• Suggested that the arches should be proportionate to the overall length of the house and upon
learning that the home is 122 feet long, declared that the proposed 40 foot wide porch would be
proportionate.
• Supported the further setback from the front property line by another five feet as proposed by the
builder.
• Suggested that good screening landscaping be installed to meet any concerns of the neighbors.
• With the added use of stone around the arches, stated that he has no objections to this project being
approved.
Chair Barry reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:50 p.m.
Mr. Hari Pillai declared that the entire lot is but 164 feet wide (having misheard the size of the home’s
width of 162 feet instead of the actual 122 feet).
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 7
Chair Barry reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:50 p.m.
Chair Barry:
• Stated that it is clear this is a changing neighborhood.
• Agreed that previous Planning Commissions and Councils have had different approaches.
• Pointed out that the current view of the Planning Commission is to preserve as much as possible of
an areas architectural style.
• Expressed a problem with the proposed façade.
• Supported the increased front setback.
• Said that she liked the added stone to the pillars and suggested that it be added to the base as well.
• Said that she supports the roof color that will blend with the stone color.
• Suggested additional changes to the front landscaping so that the front entry will not appear as
prominent.
• Said that the first floor footprint is huge.
• Asked if there is any City policy concerning installation of outdoor showers.
Planner Alison Knapp replied no. Added that this outside shower is located off of a cabana and will be
for use with the spa.
Chair Barry wondered if perhaps it could be eliminated if not particularly needed.
Commissioner Garakani asked for a overview of the pending added Conditions for this project.
Director Sullivan stated:
• Addition of mature redwood trees to serve as screening between this project site and neighboring
properties.
• Use of a tile roof material in a color that closely matches the stone.
• Increase the use of stone around the arches and walls and wrapped around the windows.
• Move the house back by approximately five feet.
• Reduce the porch entry in size and mass.
Commissioner Garakani said that it would be nice to reduce the porch width to 20 feet.
Chair Barry reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:58 p.m.
Mr. Paul Doble, Project Builder:
• Agreed that the front setback could be moved to 55 feet.
• Suggested the inclusion of 48-inch box olive trees at the front so that the porch feature would not
be as visible.
Chair Barry reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:59 p.m.
Commissioner Jackman said that she is comfortable with less formal landscaping.
Commissioner Zutshi said that this would be good.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 8
Chair Barry expressed support for added mature olive trees to the front yard landscaping and asked if
the Commissioners had any disagreement with the proposed added Conditions as overviewed by
Director Sullivan.
Commissioner Jackman asked how far the outdoor shower is located from the neighboring property.
Planner Alison Knapp replied 26 feet.
Chair Barry suggested that the shower could be screened with landscaping.
Commissioner Garakani said that this should not be an issue but that perhaps the applicant can screen
as a neighborly gesture.
Chair Barry pointed out that there is potential for noise with the use of this outdoor shower.
Commissioner Garakani disagreed and pointed out that people could get the same effect of having an
outdoor shower simply by using garden hoses.
Chair Barry said that it appears the Commission is prepared to leave the outside shower in this
approval.
Commissioner Garakani said that he has no problem accepting this outdoor shower.
Chair Barry reiterated that the Commission is prepared to accept this application with the addition of
mature olive trees at the front of the house as well as the added Conditions overviewed by Director
Sullivan.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Jackman,
the Planning Commission approved DR-01-007 & BSE-01-011 to allow the
construction of a new single-story 5,917 square foot home on property located at
19752 Versailles Way with the added Conditions outlined by Director Sullivan and
Chair Barry.
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Jackman and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Hunter, Kurasch and Roupe
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Barry advised that there is a 15 day appeal period before this action is final.
***
PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 3
DR-01-015 & BSE-01-o21 (503-29-038) – CHENAULT, 21345 Saratoga Hills Road: Request for
Design Review approval to construct a new 5,837 square foot two-story residence and demolish an
existing 3,153 square foot residence. Maximum height will be 26 feet. The 53,403 new square foot
parcel is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (KNAPP)
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 9
Ms. Alison Knapp, Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicant is seeking approval to construct a 5,837 square foot, two-story residence
with basement and demolish an existing 3,153 square foot home.
• Said that this is a mixed one and two-story area and many homes are obscured from view from the
street.
• Said that a geotechnical review was done for this project and it received clearance from the City.
• Informed that one rear neighbor has expressed concern regarding potential loss of privacy and
views.
• Advised that to mitigate those concerns, the applicant has offered to add up to eight redwood trees
and eliminate a second story balcony off a child’s bedroom to help alleviate any privacy impacts.
• Said that staff is recommending approval.
Chair Barry asked if the neighbor in questions is on the flag lot.
Ms. Alison Knapp replied yes.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:10 p.m.
Mr. John Chenault, Property Owner/Applicant:
• Informed that he is a 10-year resident of Saratoga and has taken the last year to design a residence
for his family that will fit within the lot and topography.
Mr. Fred Luminoso, 12772 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga:
• Identified himself as an advisor to the Chenaults.
• Advised that they have met with five neighbors and received written support from four.
• Informed that the fifth neighbor had privacy impact concerns, which they believe have been met
through the relocation of two second story windows, the use of opaque glass in the bathroom and
the elimination of a second story balcony off one of the bedrooms. Additionally, they propose to
provide screening and hedging to benefit the neighbor to the north.
• Said that the builders will be Mark Thomas Builders and it is the practice of this builder to fence
off a construction site and comply with construction hours and City guidelines. Materials will be
staged on site.
Mr. John Matthams, International Design Group:
• Said that the proposed alignment of the house on this site is similar to the existing house.
• Said that in addition to the mature tree formation on site, they propose to add trees.
• Pointed out that the garage will be located under the house and that the home is a linear house with
only short sides to help minimize impacts on the side neighbors.
• Said that this design will blend well into the hillside and materials include a gray slate roof and
muted stucco siding with a stone base to anchor the home.
• Assured that water runoff will be retained on site and advised that permeable driveway materials
are proposed.
Commissioner Garakani stated that this is a beautiful design but questioned how water from a 4,500
square foot driveway will be retained on site.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 10
Mr. John Matthams, International Design Group, advised that through the use of sloping and dry wells.
Said that the driveway will consist of interlocking block pavers.
Mr. Jun Siliano, International Design Group:
• Said that in addition, catch basins will be situated on the low end of the property and that captured
water will be used to water the landscaping.
Chair Barry asked Mr. Siliano to point out the proposed balcony site, which is being removed.
Mr. Jun Siliano directed the Commission to page 6 of the plans and said that the balcony was to be
included in a child’s bedroom.
Mr. John Matthams, International Design Group, added that one reason to incorporate that balcony was
to allow for air circulation. While they want to keep this balcony, they are willing to eliminate it to
meet the neighbor’s concern.
Ms. Laurie Duran, 21421 Saratoga Hills Road, Saratoga:
• Said that this is a neighborhood in the best sense of the word.
• Opined that there are no homes like this proposed residence on the street.
• Advised that her family home was rebuilt in the neighborhood in 1995 and represented the first
new home in the neighborhood over the past 20 years.
• Pointed out that the adjacent property to this site is currently on the market.
• Suggested that this project should be designed to step down the hill, be tiled and painted in neutral
colors, that efforts should be made to work out issues with neighbors, that screening be done using
oak trees rather than redwoods, that no deer fencing be installed and that an appropriate street
façade be incorporated.
Chair Barry pointed out that the applicants have obtained letters of support from four of five adjacent
neighbors. Asked why Ms. Duran objected to the use of redwoods and was insisting on oaks.
Ms. Laurie Duran replied that in her estimation redwood trees are used to screen ugly houses simply
because they grow rapidly. Rather than using redwood trees, a more attractive home design should be
reached. She added that she hoped to see that the posts on the front walkway not exceed four feet in
height.
Commissioner Garakani asked Ms. Duran if she has installed oaks on her property.
Ms. Laurie Duran replied yes and added that she also plans to replace some ailing oaks along the street.
Chair Barry asked Ms. Duran if her concern is basically the development of a ridgeline property.
Ms. Laurie Duran replied yes.
Chair Barry asked Ms. Duran what the applicant could do to make it fit better.
Ms. Laurie Duran suggested that the second story would need to be reduced and that the two-story
architectural portico features be eliminated.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 11
Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that the second story has half the square footage of the first floor
footprint.
Mr. Bill Paceman, 21363 Saratoga Hills Road, Saratoga:
• Said that he has resided in Saratoga for 20 years and moved into this neighborhood last year.
• Expressed main issues (several of which have been satisfied by the applicant), including moving
two second story windows overlooking his patio, the planting of two to three trees to screen this
site from his property, removal of a second floor balcony, inclusion of opaque glass in the upstairs
bathroom and maintenance of a hedge at the property line.
• Explained that in the past, the hedge had been inadequately trimmed so as to create a visual barrier
to a treasured bay view from his property. Wanted to ensure that the hedges were kept trimmed in
such a way that this view is available. Said he has offered to maintain these hedges himself.
• Acknowledged that his preference would be for a single-story home.
• Said that he wants to see the careful placement of screening trees in order to maintain a view
corridor to the bay.
• Said that the applicant needs to be sure that the property line is accurately located prior to
construction.
Chair Barry asked Mr. Paceman if he can guarantee the accurate placement of his own home.
Mr. Bill Paceman said no and added that he just measured using a measuring tape.
Director Sullivan pointed out that a standard Condition of Approval requirement is that a licensed
surveyor certifies setbacks.
Mrs. Marguerite Paceman reiterated her husband’s plea to carefully locate trees so as not to obscure
their view of the bay.
Mr. John Matthams, International Design Group:
• Said that the house has been set down considerably, that the second story is half the size of the first
story and the house stretches along the front elevation so as to reduce impact on side neighbors.
• Added that they placed the house in a way to give the smallest façades on the sides.
• Pointed out that orange bunting is included on site and it is almost impossible to see this bunting
from the road, saying that he himself tried to see it in order to take photos.
• Reminded that the new home will be only 10 feet higher than the existing home.
• Restated that 52-percent of houses in the area are two-story homes and that there is no single-story
precedent for the vicinity.
• Said that they are utilizing redwoods to provide screening as asked by neighbors.
Mr. Fred Luminoso, Applicant’s Representative:
• Said that the Chenaults want to enjoy privacy on their property just as much as the Pacemans.
• Assured that everyone will be very happy once this project is constructed.
Chair Barry asked Mr. Luminoso if he knows the height of the Paceman home.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 12
Mr. Fred Luminoso said that the placement of a window on the Pacemans' master bedroom would be
seriously discussed by today’s design standards and that it appears that the home is taller than 26 feet
maximum allowed. Said this home design would not meet today’s standards.
Chair Barry sought clarification that the General Plan Land Use designation for the site is Residential
rather than Hillside or Ridgeline.
Ms. Alison Knapp stated that the General Plan Land Use designation is Low-Density Residential and
the Zoning is simply Residential and not Hillside Residential.
Chair Barry asked Ms. Knapp what height differences might be allowed on a Hillside property.
Ms. Alison Knapp responded that this is a difficult question to answer. Said that were the site not
already developed, a flat pad would have to be developed. This proposal is not being constructed
outside of the existing pad. If Hillside zoning applied, the project would require grading and stepping.
Chair Barry asked if restrictions on architectural style and building materials apply for Hillside zoning.
Ms. Alison Knapp replied no. Said that neighborhood compatibility is considered as are shielding of
the home and retention of mature landscaping where possible.
Chair Barry said that while this property is not zoned Hillside, it appears to be a Hillside property.
Mr. Fred Luminoso pointed out that they met with former Director Walgren early in the development
process for this site and at that time a two-story structure was supported.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:55 p.m.
Commissioner Zutshi said that existing neighbors can also screen their properties with additional
landscaping if necessary. The burden of screening should not completely fall upon this applicant.
Commissioner Jackman stated that the yellow color on the colored elevation gives a wrong impression
and asked if a color board is available.
Chair Barry reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:56 p.m.
Mr. Jun Siliano advised that the paint color is such that it will blend with the stone color.
Mr. Bill Paceman advised that he had offered to care for the hedge separating the properties but Mr.
Chenault declined his offer. Clarified that the hedge is on the project site and not on his own property.
Mr. John Chenault said that the hedge in question is an existing hedge that he is more than willing to
eliminate entirely should that be the preference of the Pacemans. Suggested that perhaps they may
want to plant an alternative hedge on their side of the property line that they can maintain at a height as
they desire. Said that he simply was not comfortable having a neighbor access his property to maintain
this hedge.
Commissioner Garakani asked about the roofing colors.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 13
Mr. Jun Siliano reminded that the roofing material is full slate.
Commissioner Jackman said that the Chenaults have gone to the trouble to relocate two upstairs
windows and that they should be allowed to retain their proposed second floor balcony.
Chair Barry reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 9 p.m.
Commissioner Garakani:
• Thanked the Pacemans for access and the opportunity to view the project site from their home.
• Stated that based upon that vantage, he does not see any issues with windows on the new home.
• Suggested that the front entry feature be minimized and lowered.
Commissioner Zutshi agreed that there does not appear to be any privacy impacts to the Paceman
property based on this new home construction.
Chair Barry set that the wall is set back so far that height limitations do not apply for the pillars for that
wall.
Ms. Alison Knapp agreed that the proposed wall is 180 feet away from the front setback and that there
is no height regulation at that distance.
Chair Barry:
• Pointed out that the applicants voluntarily agreed to move the two upstairs windows as a good
faith gesture.
• Expressed agreement with the comments on retaining the balcony, saying that if it were larger she
would not support it but since it is but three-feet deep, this balcony will only allow access for
looking at views and would in no way interfere with existing views and/or privacy of neighbors.
• Reminded that Mr. Chenault has offered to remove the hedges should the Pacemans wish him to
do so.
• Agreed that this proposed home does not look like a Hillside home but neither do many other
homes in the area.
• Said that it is important to use natural colors and materials.
• Suggested that the entryway feature be cut down and said that a redesign to a one-story element
may be in order.
• Said that use of oak trees is reasonable.
• Stated that the architects have sited this home sensitively.
Commissioner Jackman inquired how the architect felt about changing the entry feature.
Chair Barry:
• Suggested directing the architect to work with staff to lower this entry element, leaving the details
on how to accomplish that task to him and staff.
• Said that the only deer fencing used on site should be to protect specific trees and garden areas.
• Supported the use of oak trees.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 14
Commissioner Jackman asked if high fencing on a nearby property is legal as it appears to be more
than six-feet in height.
Director Sullivan said that it does not appear that this fencing is legal as it is located within the
required front yard setback area.
Chair Barry sought clarification that the landscaping plan would be approved prior to issuance of final.
Director Sullivan agreed that this would occur and that the plan will include fencing proposals that are
consistent with ordinance requirements.
Chair Barry once again clarified the amended Conditions as follows:
• That oaks can be used in the landscaping plan and that the landscaping plan be approved prior to
issuance of building permits and should include landscaping on the east side;
• That the front entry feature should be redesigned to the satisfaction of Planning staff so it is not
prominent;
• That the windows in an upstairs bedroom be moved from the left to right side and
• That the small balcony be retained.
Director Sullivan suggested that the Public Works Condition of Approval regarding the Grading and
Drainage Plan be amended to include runoff coefficient and volume in a 100-year storm.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the
Planning Commission approved DR-01-015 & BSE-01-021 to allow the
construction of a new 5,837 square foot, two-story residence with basement on
property located at 21345 Saratoga Hills Road, with the following modifications
and/or additions to the Conditions of Approval:
• That oaks can be used in the landscaping plan and that the landscaping plan be
approved prior to issuance of building permits, including landscaping on the
east side of the property;
• That the front entry feature be redesigned to the satisfaction of Planning staff
so it is not as prominent a design element;
• That the windows in an upstairs bedroom be moved from the left to right side;
• That the small balcony be retained off the upstairs child’s bedroom; and
• That the Grading and Drainage Plan be required to include data regarding
runoff coefficient and volume in a 100 year storm.
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Jackman and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Hunter, Kurasch and Roupe
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Barry advised that there is a 15 day appeal period before this action is final.
***
PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 4
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 15
V-01-007 (386-18-003) – NGUYEN, 18621 Kosich Drive: Request for Variance approval to construct
a new 439 square foot garage in the rear yard setback approximately five feet from the rear property
line. The proposed garage will be attached to the existing single-story house. Maximum height of the
structure will be 12 feet, 11 inches. The 10,788 square foot parcel is located in the R-1-10,000 zoning
district. (LIVINGSTONE)
Mr. John Livingstone, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicants seek two Variance approvals to accommodate a residential
remodel/addition.
• Said that one Variance is sought to place an addition to an existing bedroom 13 feet into the
required 25-foot required sideyard setback for a corner lot.
• Added that the second Variance is to allow the construction of a new garage five feet into the
required 10-foot rear yard setback.
• Informed that the existing garage would be converted into a new master bedroom with a new
garage to be constructed to replace it.
• Said that the site is 10,788 square feet within an R-1-10,000 zoning district. The existing home is a
three-bedroom, 2,200 square foot structure and the applicants wish to add 866 square feet for a
total of approximately 3,000 square feet.
• Cautioned the Commission that it must make all three mandatory findings required under State
Law in order to approve these Variance requests. Staff does not believe that the findings can be
made. No specific circumstances exist that prevent the applicants from fully enjoying the use of
their property. There is an existing functional home on the site with three bedrooms and a two-car
garage, typical for the neighborhood.
• Recommended denial of this request.
Commissioner Garakani asked for more information on the mandatory findings.
Associate Planner John Livingstone pointed out page 5 in the staff report, where the findings are
outlined.
Chair Barry asked staff how it made the determination that there are no special circumstances since
there is clearly a problem backing from this property driveway onto busy Saratoga Avenue.
Associate Planner John Livingstone said that when comparing this home to the others along Saratoga,
there is no specific circumstance that impacts just this property. In fact, the property has the advantage
of being a corner lot with potential access from two sides, an advantage not available to similar but
interior lots.
Chair Barry questioned whether the existence of the five-foot wide bike lane, narrower than anywhere
else on Saratoga, doesn’t constitute a special circumstance.
Associate Planner John Livingstone said that this is not sufficient to warrant a Variance.
Commissioner Garakani agreed that other options are available to the applicants.
Chair Barry questioned why Variances were more easily granted in the past.
Director Sullivan said that the three required findings have been a part of State Law for many years.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 16
Commissioner Jackman asked Director Sullivan if the Variances previously granted by the
Commission were inappropriate.
Director Sullivan replied that in his opinion they were if they did not satisfy these required findings.
Added that staff applies the findings and denies applications if they cannot be substantiated. The
applicants subsequently can appeal to the Planning Commission.
Chair Barry asked Director Sullivan what occurs if the Commission agrees with the applicant’s
position.
Director Sullivan replied that the Commission would need substantiate how the findings can be made
and direct staff to create a Resolution approving the Variance for return to the Commission under
Consent at the next meeting.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:30 p.m.
Mr. David Zamora, Zamora Associates:
• Advised that this is his home and that his family, including four children, loves it. They just want
to make it a little larger.
• Pointed out that when they purchased this home plans had been approved by the City for a new
garage. However, this proposed garage encroached into an existing utility easement and could not
be built per those plans after all.
• Said that they simply want a 20 by 20-foot garage, adjacent to their home and to utilize an existing
Kosich Drive driveway for access.
• Stated that this is a life safety issue for his family and the community.
• Said that the traffic on Saratoga makes backing from his driveway a challenge.
• Said they simply want to be able to enjoy the use of their home for their family.
Mr. Bob Desparza, Project Designer:
• Said that they seek rear and side yard Variances and they are trying to show that the findings can
be made in support of these Variances.
• Said that the reason for the change is to allow better use of the home.
• Stated that this property is somewhat unique since it is possible to enter the property from two
sides.
• Said that this project will eliminate a hazard on Saratoga Avenue and the existing garage space
would be used for a kitchen. The existing driveway on Saratoga will be walled off to provide
outdoor space for use by the family.
• Pointed out that Kosich Drive has much lower and slower traffic.
• Informed that they have neighborhood support and six letters have been obtained from the
contiguous neighbors.
• Said that the front Variance will allow an interior wall to be pushed out.
• Advised that a letter from City Planner Phil Bloch dated May 8, 2001, suggested that the Variance
request would be supported. Based upon that letter, the applicants had plans done, demolished
some portions and began some construction in a phased project.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 17
• Suggested that they meet all three required findings and will be improving public safety by
abandoning the Saratoga Avenue driveway. Added that they are willing to lower and clean up
existing hedges along Saratoga.
Chair Barry:
• Asked Mr. Desparza if they had considered bring the garage forward by five feet so the rear
setback is not required.
• Added that actually, the rear setback Variance is not the problem but rather the side yard setback
Variance is a problem.
• Questioned if the front and side yards can be redesignated.
Associate Planner John Livingstone replied no.
Director Sullivan added that doing so would simply redistribute the current setback problems along
alternate street frontages.
Mr. David Zamora advised that there is no other place for the garage due to existing power poles,
mature trees, etc.
Chair Barry asked staff how they felt the site could be utilized to meet the applicant’s desired new
space and garage.
Associate Planner John Livingstone clarified that there exists a functioning three-bedroom home with a
two-car garage on this property. The owners want to do an addition. There are other places for the
bedroom addition but a more extensive remodel would be required. Additionally, if necessary, a
portion of the existing home could be redistributed into garage space and required setbacks satisfied.
These options are more costly and require a more extensive remodel of the home.
Mr. Bob Desparza said that denying these Variances deny the applicants the privilege of full
enjoyment of their home.
Associate Planner John Livingstone disagreed, restating that there exists a viable house on this lot.
Staff is not saying the applicants cannot remodel their home but simply that the required setbacks must
be satisfied.
Mr. David Zamora presented a brief video demonstration of the traffic he faces along Saratoga Avenue
as he attempts to back from his driveway.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 10 p.m.
Commissioner Garakani:
• Thanked Mr. Zamora for his video footage.
• Agreed that a safety issue exists and that the Saratoga Avenue garage needs to be moved.
• Added that requiring a complete redesign would represent a financial hardship and requiring the
cutting into the house by five feet along the length to accommodate a new garage would result in
the loss of too much existing living space.
• Said that if the adjacent neighbor agrees to the reduced rear yard setback, he would be comfortable
supporting the rear yard Variance.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 18
Commissioner Zutshi agreed that this location seems to be the only reasonable place to place the new
garage.
Commissioner Jackman:
• Agreed that there is a big problem backing into the heavy traffic on Saratoga Avenue.
• Pointed out that there are existing tall shrubs on both sides of the driveway that need to be removed
to improve visibility.
• Said that she is not willing to go along with the five-foot rear yard Variance because while the
current neighbor may not mind, future homeowners of that property may not like that proximity.
• Cautioned that she has a five-foot setback at her own home, a legal non-conforming situation, and
that it is too close.
• Stated that she cannot support this Variance.
Chair Barry:
• Said that required Finding No. 1 can be made on the basis of the narrowness of the bike lane along
Saratoga Avenue in front of this property that widens at the next property.
• Added that refusing this Variance would deprive the applicant of the privilege by strictly enforcing
the setback requirement.
• Said that approving the garage Variance would not be a special privilege nor a detriment to the
public health and/or safety.
• Said that while logic may suggest that the owners should be allowed to square off their home to
accommodate the bedroom addition, the Variance for the front of the home cannot be justified.
• Suggested an increase of the existing cement pad.
Director Sullivan cautioned that the fact that this is an existing legal but non-conforming house is
clear. The issue is that increasing the area that is non-conforming is making that non-conforming
situation worse.
Commissioner Zutshi agreed and stated that once a Variance at the front is allowed, the applicants may
seek to extend that further in the future.
Chair Barry said that she can support the garage Variance but not the Variance required for the
remainder of the addition.
Commissioner Jackman said again that she is not comfortable with the five-foot rear setback for the
garage.
Chair Barry said that nothing can be done regarding the traffic along Saratoga Avenue, which is no
doubt much worse than it was when the house was constructed. Stated that the Commission
respectfully disagrees with staff and asks them to come back to the Commission with an affirmative
finding for the garage Variance. However, the Commission cannot find a basis to support the second
Variance request for this site.
Chair Barry reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 10:17 p.m.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 19
Ms. Hoa Thi Nguyen, Applicant, asked the Commission to help support their request for a Variance to
accommodate a second bathroom in their home to serve the needs of their large family, which includes
four young children.
Chair Barry reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 10:20 p.m.
Director Sullivan asked the Commission to provide the language for the findings to support within its
motion.
Motion: Upon motion of Chair Barry, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning
Commission directed staff to bring an affirmative Resolution to the next
Commission meeting as a Consent Calendar Item granting a Variance to allow a
five-foot rear setback to accommodate construction of a new garage on property
located at 18621 Kosich Drive with the necessary Finding of support for this
reduced rear yard setback due to the reduced five-foot width of the bicycle lane in
front of this property that other neighbors do not have and due to the proximity of this
property’s driveway to Lawrence Expressway. The Commission was unable to make
the required Findings to support the second Variance request for this site.
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Jackman and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Hunter, Kurasch and Roupe
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Barry advised that there is a 15-day appeal period before this action is final and the applicants
have the option to appeal this action to Council within that time frame.
DIRECTOR ITEMS
Director Sullivan advised that the Joint Meeting of Council and the Planning Commission set for
Saturday, August 11th, has been cancelled. Asked the Commission to provide staff with available
Saturday dates through the next three months so a new date can be set.
COMMISSION ITEMS
Neighbor/Commission Involvement in Development Review
Commissioner Garakani reiterated his request for earlier participation by the Commission and
neighbors in the development review process. Asked staff when the draft memo outlining a proposed
format would be provided to the Commission for consideration.
Director Sullivan assured the Commission that this policy memo is in the works. Cautioned that there
are a number of timely priorities and reminded that the department is still not fully staffed. Promised
to get this information to the Commission as soon as the draft memo could be accomplished in the
work program.
Library Groundbreaking Ceremony
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 20
Commissioner Zutshi encouraged the Commissioners to participate in the groundbreaking ceremony
on September 8th at 1 p.m. Added that the new library furniture has been selected by the Library
Committee.
Inclusionary Housing
Chair Barry asked Director Sullivan if the requirement for inclusionary housing is being publicly
disseminated to all affected parties.
Director Sullivan replied yes.
Absences from Next Meeting
Commissioners Jackman and Garakani advised that they will be unavailable for the August 22nd
meeting.
COMMUNICATIONS
There were no communication items.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Chair Barry adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday,
August 22, 2001, to begin at 7 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk