Loading...
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