Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-09-2000 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2000 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theatre, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chairwoman Bernald called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Jackman, Kurasch, Page, Patrick, Roupe, and Chairwoman Bernald Absent: Commissioner Barry Staff: Director Walgren PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES - January 26, 2000 IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 26, 2000, AS SUBMITTED. PASSED 6-0. (COMMISSIONER BARRY ABSENT) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Walgren declared that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 4, 2000. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET No corrections were noted. CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC HEARINGS If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PAGE 2 FEBRUARY 9, 2000 1. V-99-012 (517-07-024) − CONGLETON, 14771 Bohlman Road; Request for Variance approval to permit a previously constructed six-foot fence where only a three-foot fence would otherwise be allowed. The site is 1.3 acres and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 1/26/00) Director Walgren presented the staff report. He said on January 12, 2000, the Planning Commission considered a request for Variance approval for a six-foot open wrought iron style fence to be located in a front yard where only a three-foot fence is allowed. The staff recommendation was that there was not evidence to support the variance; there were no special circumstances applicable to the property. He reported that the Planning Commissioners visited the site, conducted their public hearing, took testimony, and the discussion centered around the issue of accident history at the base of Bohlman Road. The applicants stated their historical knowledge of the numbers of accidents that occurred and their belief that a three-foot tall fence being one to two feet below the roadway would be less effective in stopping vehicles coming down Bohlman Road. The item was continued at that time in order to research the traffic issue with the Sheriff’s Office and the City’s Code Enforcement and Engineering staff. Staff concluded that there was a higher incidence of traffic on the curve of Bohlman Road than found on similar rural hillside roads. The applicants provided supporting documentation including information that the Santa Clara County Survey staff went to the site and located two of the roadway rights- of-way markers which indicated that part of Bohlman Road was outside the right-of-way and closer to the property owner’s fence. Based on the accident history reports and other documentation provided by the applicants, staff feels there are applicable special circumstances that would warrant variance support and recommends approval of the Variance application. Director Walgren reported for the record that the Commissioners were handed a petition which was distributed after the staff reports went out. The petition was signed by approximately 22 residents within the vicinity of the applicant’s home in support of the applicant’s variance request. He added that staff received no correspondence opposing the variance, and Commissioner Barry submitted a letter supporting the Variance request. Commissioner Barry’s letter also recommended that a fine be levied for installing the fence without proper approvals. Chairwoman Bernald asked if a fine has been levied. Director Walgren said the Municipal Code allowed for a daily $250 fine per violation. In this case, about five working days occurred between the applicant being notified of the violation and their submitting the application to the City. He suggested a $250 fine times five days would be reasonable. Commissioner Patrick said it was her understanding that if the fence was placed farther back outside the setback, a variance would not be needed. Director Walgren explained that if the fence was 25 feet back from the edge of the road right-of- way, a variance would not be required. Commissioner Page said he understood some changes might be made to Bohlman Road and asked if staff knew what the changes might be. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PAGE 3 FEBRUARY 9, 2000 Director Walgren explained that an exhibit in the staff report, dated February 9, 2000, showed the anticipated improvements as a result of the Sobrato residential subdivision up the hill at the Sisters of Notre Dame Property. The road would widen on the uphill side from its current 14-15 feet to a consistent 18 feet paved surface. Commissioner Page recalled at the prior meeting, there was discussion about the gates which were 6 1/2 to 7 feet tall. He asked if there was further discussion with the applicant, noting that the ordinance called for five feet. Director Walgren responded that there was no further discussion about the gates. Commissioner Kurasch noted that although she was absent at the prior meeting, January 12, she reviewed the minutes and tapes and is prepared to consider the application at this meeting. She said that both applications focused on the safety of the fence. She asked in what cases would a six-foot fence be stronger than a three-foot fence, both being of the same construction. Director Walgren said the applicant made the statement. The applicant felt that a three-foot fence that was two feet below grade would provide little deterrence to keep a vehicle from going over the fence. He explained that staff’s basis was the number of accidents that occurred in the vicinity and the grade change that is present. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Ford Congleton, 14771 Bohlman Road, Saratoga, thanked Mr. Pearson and Mr. Walgren for their input and support in helping him put together something that would help the Planning Commission understand his concern with the safety of Bohlman Road. He said Mr. Pearson told him that Bohlman was an unsafe road. During the Commissioner’s visit to the site, it was evident that there is considerable traffic on the road. With the addition of the new development, there will be more traffic on the road. He was informed by Mr. Pearson that the road in front of his house would be changed very little, if at all. He explained that he searched the Internet and found that Bohlman Road was one of the steepest hills in Saratoga, with a 24 percent grade in some areas. He added that cars come down the road quite quick and often some of the cars’ brakes become overheated. Drivers have stopped and asked to use his garden hose on their cars. As cars came to the curve of Madronia, about 70 feet from his house, the road turns about 65 degrees and the hillside drops about 6 1/2 feet to the end of his house. Those issues are enough to cause traffic to come down the hill in excess of 25 miles per hour. His main concern is safety of his property and people in his yard and to keep people from jumping a three- foot fence to intrude on his property. With regard to the issue of a six-foot versus three-foot fence, he contacted a structural engineer, Jason Fishpaw, who told him that in some instances, depending on the construction of a fence, a three-foot high fence can be half as strong as a six- foot fence. He referred to a picture in the staff report, 000038, which showed a six-foot high fence on Bohlman Road that had been hit by a car straight on but did not go through the fence. He was told by Mr. Fishpaw that a fence with more linear runners at the top was more rigid than a fence with one or none. He did not believe a six-foot fence created a health or safety problem but would enhance the property. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PAGE 4 FEBRUARY 9, 2000 Commissioner Patrick asked Mr. Congleton if he considered sinking posts into the ground with no connection between the posts instead of putting up a fence. Mr. Congleton said he never considered placing only posts in the ground because he has grandchildren and the posts would not stop people from coming onto the property. Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Congleton for an explanation on how the fence was constructed without appropriate approval. Mr. Congleton said several years ago, he contracted a contractor to put up a fence and gates, do the electrical wiring and obtain the necessary permits. The contractor quit working before the job was complete, without obtaining the permits. He contracted with another contractor who finished the job. In the interim, he talked with Mr. Pearson about what was needed to be done. Commissioner Roupe asked if Mr. Congleton was advised in the early portion of the process by Mr. Pearson or Mr. Walgren that he would need a variance to continue construction of the fence. Mr. Congleton said that was advised by staff prior to completion of the fence. Commissioner Kurasch said she had concerns with the engineer’s opinion about the strength of the fence. She asked if Mr. Congleton asked the engineer to evaluate the strength of a six-foot fence versus a three-foot fence of the exact same construction. Mr. Congleton said the engineer told him that it would depend on how deep the fence posts are sunk in the ground, the size of the posts, and how the fence is constructed. The engineer did not tell him if his fence was stronger or weaker. Commissioner Kurasch said Mr. Walgren pointed out at the last hearing that a three-foot fence could be stronger than a six-foot fence which was related to the size of the posts, the proximity to each other, and the amount of bracing. Using the example Mr. Congleton gave about the six- foot chain link fence, she asked what he based his statement on that the six-foot fence would stop a car where a three-foot fence would not. Mr. Congleton said Mr. Fishpaw told him that a six-foot chain link fence was twice as strong as a three-foot fence. Commissioner Page asked if Mr. Congleton would consider lowering the gates if the Commission thought that was a viable option. Mr. Congleton said he instructed the individual who did the construction on the property to make the gates five feet tall, but the construction did not occur as he planned. He added he would agree to lower the gates. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ROUPE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 8:15 P.M.). PASSED 6-0. (COMMISSIONER BARRY ABSENT) PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PAGE 5 FEBRUARY 9, 2000 Commissioner Roupe said he would support the variance but would defer to Director Walgren on the matter of the fine. Commissioner Kurasch tried to understand the relation between the argument of the height of the fence and protection against traffic. She noted that a portion of the property was below the road grade and would imagine that a slightly higher fence would be acceptable. She was not able to support the six-foot fence with the argument of safety. She said a three-foot fence might be stronger because some members might be closer and would be able to bind the posts and verticals with the horizontals of the fence. She said she would vote to deny the variance. Commissioner Page said he did not support the variance at the January 12, 2000, meeting. He appreciated the additional research and said there were conflicting elements. He said he would support the variance for the six-foot fence, but would want to see the gates lowered to six feet. Commissioner Jackman realized there was a traffic problem but was concerned that the applicant built the fence knowing that a variance was necessary. She felt the six-foot fence would be obtrusive and would not vote for it. Commissioner Patrick said the Commission recently approved fencing around a multi-acre parcel for safety and privacy, and she felt the Congletons were entitled to the same consideration. She agreed a fine should be levied. Chairwoman Bernald said the gates should be lowered to six feet and the Commission should defer to staff the right to determine the fine. She added that the topography, location, and surroundings could support the fact the property should have a fence. The variance was not a special privilege because many properties in the neighborhood had similar fences, and a next door neighbor was allowed the same privilege. The fence would protect rather than be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare or injurious to properties. COMMISSIONERS ROUPE/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE V-99-012, WITH CONDITIONS THAT THE GATES BE LOWERED TO SIX FEET AND THAT AN APPROPRIATE FINE BE IMPOSED SUBJECT TO THE DISCRETION OF DIRECTOR WALGREN. PASSED 4-2 (COMMISSIONERS JACKMAN AND KURASCH OPPOSED, COMMISSIONER BARRY ABSENT) 2. Appeal-00-001 (397-07-111) – MARINO, 15185 Quito Road; Appeal of an Administrative denial of a tree removal permit application to remove five cedar trees. The parcel is 40,000 square feet (net) and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting that the application is an appeal of an administrative decision to deny a tree removal permit. He explained that as part of the development review process when the house was built in 1996, much effort went into tree preservation, including the five Cedar trees that are subject to the appeal. The current owners PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PAGE 6 FEBRUARY 9, 2000 applied for a tree removal permit through the Staff Administrative process. The inspector would have otherwise gone to the property to determine if the trees could be removed based on findings outlined in the staff report. The findings typically include that the trees are dead or diseased or cause structural damage. Another finding was that trees might need to be removed for personal enjoyment of the property. In the particular case, staff did not feel it was appropriate to consider approving the tree removal permit at the staff level since it was the City Arborist, staff and Planning Commission who originally determined the trees needed to be retained. The Planning Commission is being asked to determine if the trees can be removed to allow a reasonable enjoyment of the property; in this case, based on the applicant’s assertion that the pollens released by the trees made the property unsuitable for the use of the property owners. If the Planning Commission agrees to allow the removal of the five trees, staff recommends full replacement value as suggested by the City Arborist. Commissioner Roupe noted that a couple of trees had disappeared between the original approval and the current date. Director Walgren said staff responds often to reports of tree trimming and tree removal with the assistance of the Code Enforcement Officer and Sheriff’s Department. In the current case, it is difficult to know who removed the trees. Commissioner Jackman noted that if the five trees were removed, they would be replaced with Crape myrtles and Maytens. She was not familiar with the Mayten and looked it up in the Sunset Garden Book which indicated the Mayten was 12 feet tall at 20 years. She said the existing trees were taller, and she would like to see a tree that would grow larger than the Crape myrtle. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 8:37 p.m. Charles Marino, 15185 Quito Road, said his wife developed allergies to the trees and respiratory problems and was unable to enjoy the use of the property. He did not have a problem with replacement of the trees. Commissioner Roupe noted that on the Saratoga Notice of Hearing, the applicant’s name was spelled “Moreno” and the staff report showed the name as “Marino.” Mr. Marino said the correct spelling was “Marino.” He noted that the packet included two letters of support from adjoining neighbors. He presented an additional letter of support from Jeannette and Jan Henshaw. Commissioner Kurasch asked how the Cedar pollen was identified as the problem. Mr. Marino said it was identified through testing. He noted that the trees create a tremendous amount of pollen. Commissioner Kurasch noted that there were several large cedars on the south side of the property and asked how the Marino’s knew those trees were not causing the problem. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PAGE 7 FEBRUARY 9, 2000 Mr. Marino said they had not noticed pollen from the other trees, and the pollen was accumulating in the driveway and near the kitchen area. Commissioner Jackman asked if Mr. Marino would be willing to replace the trees with redwood trees. She said the #15 Deodara Cedar looked like the roots were cut where trucks went into the back yard for construction. She asked if Mr. Marino wanted to preserve the tree. Mr. Marino said he would take measures to preserve the tree. Chairwoman Bernald said the Planning Commission frequently asks for an arborist to be on site during construction and asked if Mr. Marino would agree to have an arborist on site to provide information on protecting the root system of the tree. Mr. Marino was agreeable to that suggestion. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 8:45 P.M.). PASSED 6-0. (COMMISSIONER BARRY ABSENT) Commissioner Jackman said the trees should be removed so that Mrs. Marino would be able to enjoy her home and that a replacement be worked out with the Planning Department. Commissioner Patrick concurred with Commissioner Jackman. She said staff should make sure there were native-type replacement trees of a suitable size and an arborist should be on site to protect all the trees. Commissioner Page supported the removal of the trees with the condition that an arborist be on site. He suggested that a bond be required for the full value of tree #15 and the replacement of the trees to be removed. Commissioner Kurasch said she had not seen such a case for removal of trees so there was no precedent. The trees appeared to her to be healthy, but she had concerns about the testimony. She was unsure which trees created the specific problem. She was diligent in asking for the replacement of trees and supervising the work that was impacting the existing trees. Commissioner Roupe supported the request for removal of the trees and concurred with the idea of a bond and the appropriate replacement of the trees. Chairwoman Bernald said she would support the request with the proposed conditions. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/ROUPE MOVED TO APPROVE APPEAL 00-001 WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT AN ARBORIST’S ANALYSIS OF THE PROPERTY BE PERFORMED PRIOR TO REMOVAL OF ANY TREES, A BOND BE HELD BASED ON THE ORIGINAL VALUE OF TREE #15, AND REPLACEMENT OF THE TREES WITH NATIVE TREES SUCH AS REDWOOD OR OAKS ON APPROPRIATE PLACES ON THE PROPERTY. PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER BARRY ABSENT) PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PAGE 8 FEBRUARY 9, 2000 3. DR-99-048 (503-78-009) – CARSTENS, 22188 Villa Oaks Lane; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,536 square foot, two-story residence. The property is 2.5 acres and is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting that the application is a request for Design Review consideration to build a new two-story home on an undeveloped 2.5 acre hillside parcel. This lot was more constrained than other lots in the subdivision. He said the application was designed to be consistent with the original subdivision conditions and meets all minimum zoning requirements in terms of building height, allowable lot coverage, and allowable building floor area. The building was designed to cut into the hill which resulted in large grading numbers. The Planning Commission needed to grant an exception to the 1,000 cubic yard grading limit for the hillsides. Staff supported the grading exception and felt the findings could be made. The building is designed with a good amount of roof articulation and would be finished with brick veneer around the elevations to tie the building in with the natural environment. Chairwoman Bernald mentioned the scenic easement and asked if the low height of the house falls within the scenic easement. Director Walgren explained that the objective of the scenic easement was to keep the area open and scenic from off site. The scenic easement ran across both perimeters of the subdivision which confined the building to the proposed location. Commissioner Roupe said in reviewing the plans, the lower floor plan appeared to indicate that a kitchen area was proposed as well as a kitchen and dining area on the main floor. He recalled there were prohibitions against second unit housing. Director Walgren said staff included a condition in a corrected resolution that would require the kitchen to be removed from the downstairs because second dwelling units are not allowed in the City’s hillside zoning districts. Commissioner Kurasch asked about the slide, the bowl area outside the buildable envelope. She asked if there were other outside areas that needed repair. Director Walgren understood the only landslide necessary to be repaired was the one at the building footprint. He explained a significant landslide repair occurred two years prior above the property. The area in question was a small area of unstable fill soil. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 9:16 p.m. Chris Carstens, 800 Chatsworth Lane, Redwood City, said he spared no cost to try to comply with the City’s requirements. The soil that will be replaced is from the original slide. The outside of the house will have bricks down to the dirt level. About one-third of the house is a two-story, and the attempt was to design the house to look like one story from the road. He explained that the lower kitchen was designed for his mother-in-law who will be living in that PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PAGE 9 FEBRUARY 9, 2000 portion of the house. He was willing to remove the kitchen. Commissioner Kurasch asked about the slide in the bowl area, off Villa Oaks Lane above the house site. Mr. Carstens explained the area was reconstructed from the former slide. He is restricted to a small area on the property to build his house. Where the property was reconstructed, the area is not buildable. Commissioner Kurasch noted a concern with the two garages that there was an area on each side that required driveways. She said one side was close to the edge of a very steep drop. Mr. Carstens said he worked with the geotechnical people who required they put in a specifically designed retaining wall in that area which will be supervised during the construction. In response to a question by Commissioner Kurasch about the need for two garages, Mr. Carstens said due to the skinny site, it was difficult to design a house to accommodate what they wanted. He said his hobby was collecting cars which he did not want sitting out on the driveways. He was willing to sacrifice interior space in order to hide the cars. Mike Vierhus, Architect, pointed out that the site plan showed that the driveway would be located on a 23 foot flat area with a two foot retaining wall at the far end of the driveway. He said the approach was to not concentrate all the garages in with the visibility of the site. He added that the downhill slope would essentially hide the garage where the cars are stored. Commissioner Jackman asked if the proposed waterfall in the entry would run at all times. Mr. Carstens said his interior designer recommended against the interior waterfall, so that would be removed. Chairwoman Bernald asked Mr. Carstens if the Commissioners spoke to him during the site visit about fence regulations. Mr. Carstens said he read documents about fencing, but there were no plans for fences at this time. Bill Cooper, 22737 Mount Eden Road, presented his written comments, including photographs, to the Planning Commission. He said the proposed structure was a bulky structure of maximum size with architectural features that have a maximum impact on the skyline from the west and northwest. The proposed siting directly blocks the views from 22600 and 22701 Mt. Eden Road. Although the geologic setback, as well as the scenic easement, created constraints on the project siting, he believed that positive modifications of the project are possible, will lessen the impact on the neighborhood, and will be more consistent with the Hillside Design Guidelines. He proposed four modifications to the site plan and design of the house: (1) Reduce the mass of the building by lowering the finished floor elevations 5-10 feet; (2) Reduce the bulk of the building by changing the roof slopes from 8/12 to a lower slope (4/12) and by lowering the turret; (3) Allow encroachment into the geological setback with appropriate repairs; and (4) PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PAGE 10 FEBRUARY 9, 2000 Modify the scenic easement and move the structure as far as geologically possible down the hill. He said that every foot that the roofline is dropped, helps reduce the negative impacts of the structure. He appealed to the Planning Commission to reduce the mass and bulk of the structure, to allow geographic encroachment, and to modify the scenic easement. He believed the measures would lower the overall profile by at least 10-15 feet without changing the living area. Chairwoman Bernald asked from what vantage point were the pictures taken. Mr. Cooper said one photograph was taken from his uncle’s property and the other was taken from his mother’s. The two properties are north and northwest of the subject property. Chairwoman Bernald asked Mr. Cooper what power he believed the Planning Commission had to change scenic easements. Mr. Cooper said the scenic easement was established when the subdivision was set up and no one had gotten into the details of the geography. The slide two years prior was followed with the geologic setback. His documents to the Planning Commission included a drawing which showed the geologic setback, the existing setback, and where the house could be moved down the ridge. He added that because of the geology, latitude could be given to move the house. Commissioner Roupe said his understanding was that the scenic easement was put in place to protect the uphill properties from the south. Director Walgren said the open space was seen from the southeast views across the valley. Mr. Vierhus said with regard to Mr. Cooper’s issue about lowering the house 5-10 feet, that would be a huge difference. He said that might have been explored except that more grading would be required and the geologic issues on the site limited the footprint. He added that the area that was repaired did not expand the geologic footprint. Mr. Carstens said he looked at the photographs and did not believe he was blocking any views. He added that he drove to the properties above his to look at the view and noticed that the trees were higher than the house. He felt one of the photographs misrepresented the facts. He indicated that changing the roofline would change the architectural appearance of the house. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 9:50 P.M.). PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER BARRY ABSENT) Commissioner Page said there was limited area for siting of the house and the house will block some view. He expressed concern about what he considered a lot of brick. Commissioner Kurasch said in the absence of geologic reports, she had no perspective on how the house could be moved. She thought the house was well designed but that there might be some possibility for redesign in order to lessen the impacts from two garages and driveways. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PAGE 11 FEBRUARY 9, 2000 Commissioner Jackman said the house was basically one story and a change to the roofline would change the character of the house. Commissioner Patrick felt the house was located in the only area it could. She suggested an enhanced wetbar approach in place of the kitchen. COMMISSIONERS JACKMAN/ROUPE MOVED TO APPROVE DR-99-048 WITH THE DOWNSTAIRS KITCHEN ADAPTED PER CODE. PASSED 5-1. (COMMISSIONER KURASCH OPPOSED, COMMISSONER BARRY ABSENT) 4. V-99-011 (393-45-003) – GHAFFARIPOUR, 13765 Heritage Creek Court; Request for Variance approval to construct a new 441 square foot, attached two-car garage only one foot from the front property line where a 30 foot setback is required. The Zoning Ordinance requires every residence to have a two-car garage and the property is currently not in compliance. The site is 17,138 square feet and is located within an R-1- 20,000 zoning district. Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting the application was a request for a Variance to construct a two-car garage to be located one foot from what was technically measured to be the front yard of the property where 30 feet would otherwise be required. Staff and the City Arborist reviewed the proposal and came up with the configuration of the garage access internal to the property. The staff report indicated a detached building in the rear of the property that might originally have been a garage and was converted to a second dwelling unit. He said a second dwelling unit was not permitted on the property and would be removed. A two-car garage is a requirement in Saratoga. Staff finds there are special circumstances applicable to the property. It is an old historic parcel built in a manner that did not allow for a garage location that would meet setbacks. Staff recommends approval of the Variance. Commissioner Roupe said while visiting the site, there was a question about the appropriateness of a front entry into the garage as opposed to a side entry, given the structure of the trees. Mr. Walgren said he had not looked at that option and noted it developed as a recommendation from the City Arborist. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 10:05 p.m. Parviz Ghaffaripour, 13765 Heritage Creek Court, said the recommendation for the garage entrance came from the Planning Department and the Arborist. Having the internal garage door will not conflict with the neighbor’s garage. He said the kitchen would be removed from the accessory building. He explained that he bought the house in April 1999 and was led to believe the cottage was legal. While dealing with the Planning Department, he found that the accessory unit could not be converted back to a garage because of the additional remodeling that was done 12-15 years ago. He said he was led to believe he needed to connect the house to the City sewer, which he did, but found out after it was done that it was not necessary. The tree might PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PAGE 12 FEBRUARY 9, 2000 have been damaged from that work. Commissioner Page asked if Mr. Ghaffaripour would consider changing one fireplace to gas burning. Mr. Ghaffaripour said he would be willing to make that change. Commissioner Jackman said one of the recommendations from the Fire Department was for a better finish on the road, and she asked if Mr. Ghaffaripour approached his neighbors. Mr. Ghaffaripour said he approached all the neighbors about his remodeling. In terms of paving the street, he agreed to make the repairs where the sewer connection was. Commissioner Patrick asked if Mr. Ghaffaripour intended to remove the accessory building. Mr. Ghaffaripour said he did not want to remove the accessory building because he felt the additional space would be necessary for his family. He added that removing it did not add much benefit to the neighbors. Commissioner Page asked if the dumpster would be moved because it appeared to be damaging the roots of the trees. Mr. Ghaffaripour said the dumpster would be moved after the roofing material was removed. He would then put a fence around the tree. Director Walgren said the plans were originally submitted and reviewed by the Arborist who recommended the building be shifted 15 feet. That happened in conjunction with the Plan Check Staff noting that the door could not open to the alley. The Arborist was asked to take a second look at the plan and that is when the conditions were revised to require that the asphalt not be removed. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the applicant had an objection to retaining the existing asphalt paving. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ROUPE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 10:15 P.M.). PASSED 6-0. (COMMISSIONER BARRY ABSENT) Commissioner Kurasch supported the Variance. Commissioner Roupe said the site was difficult and constrained, and he supported the Variance. Commissioner Patrick asked if the total floor area listed in the staff report includes the storage area. Director Walgren reported that the storage structure was included in the total floor area. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PAGE 13 FEBRUARY 9, 2000 Commissioners Patrick , Jackman, and Page supported the Variance. COMMISSIONERS KURASCH/ROUPE MOVED TO APPROVE V-99-011 WITH THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN THE ARBORIST’S REPORT, REMOVAL OF THE DUMPSTER AWAY FROM THE ROOTS OF THE TREE WITHIN ONE WEEK, THE INCLUSION OF ONLY ONE WOOD BURNING FIREPLACE, AND THE INSTALLATION OF A FENCE AROUND THE TREE PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE ZONING CLEARANCE. PASSED 6-0. (COMMISSIONER BARRY ABSENT) 5. DR-99-051 (503-27-068) – QIAN, 14261 Springer Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 1,170 square foot, single-story residence and construct a new 2,787 square foot, two-story residence The maximum height of the new residence will be 20 feet. The site is 7,492 square feet and is located within an R-1-10,000 zoning district. Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting that the application has requested Design Review approval to demolish an existing 1,170 square foot, single-story residence and the construction of a new 2,787 square foot, two-story residence. He said the property was 7,492 square feet and considered nonconforming in area and width for the R-1-10,000 zoning district. The original application had a building that was abrupt and not an architectural style consistent with others approved in the area. The applicants did make improvements to the building to incorporate horizontal breaks, some articulations to the elevations, changes to the colors and materials, and incorporation of a stone wainscoting. Staff can support the project but noted the Planning Commissioners might have some concern with the design. One additional remedy might be to discuss with the applicant wood siding on the building. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 10:20 p.m. Eddy Shen, LRS Associates, representing Mr. and Mrs. Qian, requested approval of the two- story house. He said he reviewed the conditions and resolution and has no problems with them. He was agreeable to a different material siding. Linda Clark, 14214 Springer Avenue, said she reviewed the plans with the applicant and liked the changes recently made to the design including the addition of the stone facing the front, the window boxes, and the arched windows. The changes were similar to the design of her own home. She liked the contrast between the stone and stucco. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 10:25 P.M.) MOTION PASSED 6-0. (COMMISSIONER BARRY ABSENT) Commissioner Page commended the applicants for a nice design on a constrained lot and he liked the fact that the applicant worked closely with the neighbors. He was pleased to support the project. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PAGE 14 FEBRUARY 9, 2000 Commissioner Kurasch said the design fit the area, but she would like to see more texture. The idea of siding was excellent and could have the same warm feel, specifically if it was a lighter color. She would like to see the siding with the stone. Commissioner Page and Jackman supported the project. Commissioner Patrick said the design was nice and fit into the neighborhood. She preferred wood and stone. Chairwoman Bernald supported the horizontal wood siding and brick. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KURASCH MOVED TO APPROVE DR-99-051 WITH THE MODIFICATION OF WOOD SIDING REPLACING THE STUCCO. PASSED 6-0. (COMMISSIONER BARRY ABSENT) DIRECTOR ITEMS - None COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Roupe referenced a letter written to the City Council, dated January 24, 2000, from Commissioners Barry and Jackman, and discussed at the Joint Meeting of the City Council on January 25, 2000. He felt the letter was inappropriate and inaccurate. He said the purpose of raising this issue at this time was to give other members of the Planning Commission a chance to comment as they might not have seen the letter. He was considering the option of taking the comments in the letter and incorporating them into a letter to the City Council. He wanted to get his concerns regarding the letter on the record since the Planning Commission will be reconsidering the matter of the fencing. He had no issue with the fact that individual members of the Planning Commission disagree with the majority opinion, nor did he have any problem with the letter having been sent to the City Council in the spirit of open communication. The issue of inappropriateness arose in the fact that the letter was sent to all members of the City Council, but not sent to the other members of the Planning Commission when it was clear that the letter and points raised in it would be the subject of discussion. He felt there was no reason why the Planning Commissioners should not have received a copy of the letter. The first issue in the letter indicated that the discussion of fencing occurred at a late hour. He said the fencing issue was the last item on the agenda, after five individual applications were heard. He imagined the discussion on fencing began between 10 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. and agreed the concluding remarks could have been made as late as 11 p.m. He questioned the statements in the letter that the Planning Commission was “really tired” and “very little actual time was spent on this serious issue.” He did not recall that any of the Planning Commissioners were tired. The minutes of the meeting reflected that considerable discussion was spent on the issue. He felt the matter received a fair and open discussion. Commissioner Patrick recalled that the meeting in general did not go that late and agreed with Commissioner Roupe’s recollection of the timing. Commissioner Page agreed. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PAGE 15 FEBRUARY 9, 2000 Commissioner Jackman said she would like to discuss the matter with a facilitator during the Planning Commission’s retreat. Commissioner Roupe said when the two issues were out on the table, the facilitator format would be a great idea and basis for constructive discussion. Commissioner Jackman noted that someone had handwritten “Kurasch ?” on the letter. She made it clear that Commissioner Kurasch was not involved with the content. Commissioner Kurasch explained that Commissioner Barry’s computer was down and was asked by Commissioner Barry if she and Commissioner Jackman could use her computer to e- mail the letter to the Council Members. She added there was no way at that point to inform the other Commissioners about the letter because she thought that would have represented a Brown Act violation. Director Walgren explained that the action would not have been a Brown Act violation because the letter was public correspondence to the City Council and the item was no longer before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Roupe said the second point raised in the letter was that there was no discussion by the Planning Commission of the rationale for the change in fencing allowances. He noted that the background on the issue was discussed at a September 1999 joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission, and he recalled there was a reasonable turnout of the public who voiced their views at that time. He added that at the January 12 Planning Commission meeting, the staff report provided background on exemptions that were requested during the past several years, the history of the current fencing ordinance was discussed, the idea of changing one acre minimums to two acre minimums was raised, and the fact of how the ordinance fit back into the 1980s and the changes that evolved in time were also discussed. He disagreed with the idea that there was no rationale and said it was a reasonable rationale in which the Planning Commission could proceed to a decision. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with Commissioner Roupe. She said the staff report was a good summary, concise and to the point. Commissioner Patrick recalled the percentages in particular were discussed quite extensively. She thought the basis had been elaborately established both by the City Council and by the staff report. Commissioner Page said the City Council was very clear about what it wanted the Planning Commission to do. The staff report prepared him adequately. Commissioner Patrick commented that the Planning Commission made a recommendation to the City Council. She thought the fencing issues were appropriate to raise to the City Council for its review and recommendations. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PAGE 16 FEBRUARY 9, 2000 Commissioner Jackman said the issues could be discussed when the fencing issues comes before the Planning Commission again. She said she had concerns about communication and wanted to discuss this further at the retreat. Chairwoman Bernald said this was a good opportunity to open up communication. The Planning Commission had talked about wanting debate, and she thought it was important to have the opportunity to bring things out in the open. She said Commissioner Jackman’s feelings were strong regarding item 2 in the letter and asked what Commissioner Jackman would like to have heard from staff or the Planning Commission that were not done. Commissioner Jackman again said she would like to discuss the matter further during the retreat with a facilitator present. She did not think it was appropriate to discuss it at the current meeting. Commissioner Roupe said the third item in the letter focused on the failure to read two relevant letters. He noted that both letters were available to the Planning Commissioners prior to the start of the meeting, the existence of the letters was acknowledged, and it was indicated that the letters would be attachments to the recommendations that would be forwarded to the City Council. He said that the key issues of Commissioner Kurasch’s letter were noted, including the suggestion of a 20 percent limit and the cap at 15,000 square feet. He recalled that the comments made by Director Walgren at the meeting were reasonably objective and did not badly misrepresent the intent of the letter or take on an inappropriate advocacy role. Commissioner Page stated he had an opportunity to read the letters and felt he had a good basis of understanding. He added that Commissioner Kurasch’s letter specifically talked about the cap and he doubted the Planning Commission would have discussed it had it not been for her letter. Commissioner Kurasch recalled the recommendation from Director Walgren that communications would be read into the record at the end of the staff report. The purpose of her letter was to be included in the discussion since she was unable to be at that meeting. Director Walgren clarified that the phrase “reading into the record” means the author and position of the letter is mentioned for the purpose of making the record available to the public. Commissioner Roupe noted that the fourth issue of the letter indicated that there was no discussion or vote on the matter of a cap. As he previously indicated, Commissioner Kurasch’s letter addressed a cap which was discussed by the Planning Commission. There was ample opportunity for the matter of the cap to be included as a motion or as an amendment to the recommendation that was made. There was nothing that precluded the Planning Commission from making a motion or amendment. Commissioner Page said at the time he did not support a cap because it gave another arbitrary number that someone had a right to appeal. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PAGE 17 FEBRUARY 9, 2000 Commissioner Kurasch thought the public would be better served if this matter was discussed in a fencing hearing where the public would have the ability to observe and comment. Chairwoman Bernald said she would give every attempt to people to speak on matters, but the Planning Commission was in a position where it could not second guess what people’s concerns are unless those concerns are raised. Commissioner Roupe said the fifth issue of the letter indicated that the agricultural exemption was not well defined. He responded that the agricultural exemption was discussed. He recalled it was also one of the principle concerns raised at the joint September meeting. People who seemed most vehement were those who had vineyards and orchards to protect. He felt it was reasonable to reserve to the discretion of the Planning Commission the opportunity to handle issues on a case by case basis. Commissioner Roupe noted that the sixth item in the letter indicated there was not discussion of keeping the current 4,000 square foot limitation. He said the matter of the current limit was discussed with regard to the history of the current ordinance. He recalled the matter was discussed at the joint meeting with the City Council, and the Planning Commission’s charge was to consider some alternatives in light of the exemptions that had been coming forward and to find some way to cut down on the exemptions. Commissioner Page agreed that the mission of the Planning Commission was made very clear. Commissioner Roupe said item 7 of the letter indicated the negative declaration was not properly presented. He recalled that a copy of the negative declaration was not made available to the Planning Commission prior to or during the meeting; however, a copy was available at the meeting, and the contents were read into the public record. The Planning Commission was assured that the negative declaration would be attached to the recommendation when it went to the City Council. Director Walgren reported that the negative declaration was part of the package; the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) checklist was not included. Commissioner Roupe noted that item 8 of the letter indicated there was no discussion of the impact on wildlife. He said the matter of wildlife was considered as part of the Planning Commission’s recommendation; the selection of the 20 percent limit assured that 80 percent would be left as open space. In particular, he was taken by the staff’s recommendation that there were appropriate setbacks on all sides of the fenced area in order to have corridors for movement of wildlife. Chairwoman Bernald recalled discussion of corridors and riparian easements. Commissioner Jackman said she did not think the wildlife issue was fully explored. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PAGE 18 FEBRUARY 9, 2000 Commissioner Roupe said the ninth issue of the letter indicated that a deliberation format was not followed. He recalled a deliberation format was proposed by Commissioner Barry and discussed briefly. He added that Commissioner Barry made a motion that the Planning Commission pursue the deliberation format but was not brought to a vote because there was no second to the motion. Chairwoman Bernald said it was suggested to her that she might not have allowed enough time for a “second” to occur. Commissioner Roupe specifically recalled Chairwoman Bernald asking if there was a “second” and silence followed. Commissioners Page and Patrick agreed. Chairwoman Bernald thanked Commissioner Roupe for bringing up the issue of the letter. She said the Planning Commission had expressed that public debate, public discussion, openness, and accuracy were essential for the Planning Commission to proceed effectively. She hoped that the Commissioners would continue to work together and deal openly with concerns. Commissioner Kurasch said she was glad the matter was brought up and appreciated the thoughts. She asked that Director Walgren consider the appropriateness of the outline presented by Commissioner Barry for fencing hearings. Two specific areas she requested to be included were defining agricultural areas in square footage or in types of land use, and the research for deer. She requested that a form of public input that the Planning Commission would receive be developed. She asked what was the proposal for the type of survey or type of input. Commissioner Patrick said the public was noticed of public hearings. Regarding a survey, it was determined by a majority that the Planning Commission was not going to ask the City to pay for a survey. The Planning Commission felt it could make a recommendation to the City Council. She was troubled by the letter because it appeared that a minority of the Planning Commission did not like the decision made and felt the decision was made with little information. She also felt that the letter violated the Brown Act. The letter appeared to her to establish conflicts where she believed none existed. Commissioner Page noted that the Planning Commission makes recommendations to the Council, and he did not believe that the Commission should always agree on all issues. Chairwoman Bernald said a former Planning Commissioner took it on herself to be vigilant and watch over the cleanliness of Starbucks. It was her understanding that a decision was made that a pressure washer could not be used outside Starbucks. Director Walgren reported that a complaint was made at the last City Council meeting during Oral Communications that the pressure washer was operating too late and making too much noise. Staff was asked to follow up on the matter. The direction of the Council was that the pressure washer not be operated too late in the evening. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PAGE 19 FEBRUARY 9, 2000 COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN - City Council minutes for special joint meeting of January 14 and regular meeting of January 19, 2000 - Noted. - Notices for regular Planning Commission meeting of February 23, 2000 - Noted. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chairwoman Bernald adjourned the meeting at 11:30 p.m., to Wednesday, February 23, 2000, at the Civic Theatre, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Ruth Swanson Minutes Clerk MINUTES AMENDED AND APPROVED BY: James Walgren Secretary to the Planning Commission