Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-23-2000 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/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 Barry, Kurasch, Patrick, Roupe, and Chairwoman Bernald Absent: Commissioners Jackman and Page Staff: Director Walgren PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES - February 9, 2000 IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONERS KURASCH/ROUPE THAT THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 9, 2000, BE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS. PASSED 5- 0 (COMMISSIONERS JACKMAN AND PAGE WERE ABSENT.) Page 4, paragraph 5, line 2: “....Mr. Pearson or Mr. Walgren that he would need a variance and to continue..” Page 9, last paragraph, line 3: “...size with architectural feathers features that have a maximum....” Page 15, last paragraph, line 1: “Commissioner Patrick commented that the Planning Commissioner Commission made a recommendation...” Page 18, paragraph 3, line 3: “Chairwoman Bernald thanked Commissioner Page Roupe for...” Page 10, second to last paragraph, line 3: “....some possibility for redesign in order to lessen the impacts from two garages and driveways.” Regarding Item #4, Commissioner Kurasch requested that a question she asked be made part of the minutes, and added the following to page 12: Commissioner Kurasch asked if the applicant had an objection to retaining the existing asphalt paving. Page 15, paragraph 4, line 1: “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....” Page 18, paragraph 4, line 2: “She asked that Director Walgren consider the appropriateness of the outline presented by Commissioner Barry for fencing hearings. Two specific areas she noted PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 2 FEBRUARY 23, 2000 requested to be included were defining agricultural areas in square footage or in types of land use, and the research for deer. She asked about the requested that a form of public input that the Planning Commission would receive and if it included advanced notices or articles be developed.” Page 18, 3 paragraphs from the bottom, line 2: “....and he did not believe that the Council Commission should always agree on all issues. Page 3, paragraph 7, line 9: “.....He added that cars some come down.....” Page 11, paragraph 4, line 1: “Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting the application was a request for a Variance to construct....” Page 13, paragraph 5, line 3: “He was acceptable agreeable to a different material siding.” Page 13, paragraph 6, line 1: “Linda Clark.........reviewed the plans with the applicant and liked the changes...” ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There was no one present who wished to speak. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Walgren declared that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 18, 2000. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET Director Walgren announced that the packet had the following two corrections: 1. Under Item #1, Pierce public hearing, the staff report is inadvertently missing page 2, an Executive Summary containing application dates, project summary, and list of attachments. He said none of the information is missing from the actual report and distributed a copy of the Executive Summary for each Commissioner’s perusal. 2. Under Item #3, Lustenader public hearing, the project was advertised correctly as a two- story home, but in the staff report it is described as a 26’ tall single-story home. He stated that it is a two-story building and that the square footage totals are correct in the staff report, although not broken down by first and second floors. He distributed a breakdown of the square footage for each floor. CONSENT CALENDAR - None. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 3 FEBRUARY 23, 2000 1. DR-99-062 (503-81-001) – PIERCE, 12936 Pierce Road; Application for Design Review approval to add a 440 square foot second story to an existing single story residence. Maximum height of the residence is proposed to be 21 feet. Proposal also includes the addition of 1,401 square feet to the existing first floor. Total floor area for the site is proposed to be 4,776 square feet. The parcel is 40,300 square feet (net) and is located within an R-1-40, 000 zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting this is a design review request to add a first and second story addition totaling 4,776 square feet to an existing single-story home located on a corner lot off Pierce Road and Paramount Drive. The property is just under one acre within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. He said the application meets all minimum zoning requirements. Staff has visited the property, reviewed the plans, found that the building meets the City’s design criteria, and is recommending approval of the application. He noted the conditions include that the trees to be removed to facilitate the renovation are to be replaced with native replacement trees within the front of the property and that the apron paving next to the proposed new garage be eliminated or changed to a pervious material to reduce the amount of paved surface visible from Pierce Road. Commissioner Roupe commented that in looking at the plans and visiting the site, it seems as though there is a nonconforming fence shown on the plans and at the site. He said he understood that the fence would be brought into conformance as a condition of approving the application. Director Walgren responded that he was uncertain this issue had been addressed in the resolution. Commissioner Roupe, noting he could be mistaken, rephrased his question, asking whether the 6’ high fence on the exposed side was a conforming fence. Director Walgren stated that the code would require that the fence intersecting with the Pierce Road be no more than 3’ in height and measure 30’ back from the road right of way. He said if the fence was taller than 3’ it would be a nonconforming fence, and it would have to be determined whether it is a legal nonconforming fence or whether it was built more recently. Director Walgren responded to questions from Commissioners regarding the fence and stated that if the structure were an illegal, nonconforming, older fence, the Commission could condition the permit to remove the fence. He suggested that the question regarding the fence be posed to the applicant during the public hearing. Commissioner Roupe noted that it appeared that the application had two operating wood burning fireplaces, and stated that it would be the Commission’s desire that only one wood burning fireplace remain after the renovation. Director Walgren went back to the fence issue and quoted from the staff report that there is an existing nonconforming fence and staff suggests as a condition of approval that all fencing PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 4 FEBRUARY 23, 2000 adhere to current code requirements. However, he noted that existing fences are allowed to remain. New fences would be limited to 3’ in height. If the Commission wants to specifically require that the existing fence be reduced in height, it would have to be clarified in the resolution. Commissioner Barry noted that the first item (d) on page 7 of the staff report addresses the wood burning fireplace issue. Director Walgren clarified that the resolution wording needs to be modified to reflect that this is an existing residence with two existing fireplaces. He said the ordinance would allow two existing fireplaces to remain; however, if the Commission considers the renovation significant enough, it has the discretion to ask for a nonconforming fireplace to be removed. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 7:53 p.m. Bill and Kristi Pierce, 12936 Pierce Road, submitted a couple of letters of support to the Commission, and stated that they had spoken to the neighbors directly adjacent to their property and asked for their support. Mr. Pierce stated that the existing fireplace is accessible from the living room and the family room. He said half of it would be walled off and would be accessible only from the living room. Another gas fireplace would be added in the family room; thus eliminating a two-way fireplace, and adding a new gas structure. Mr. Pierce addressed the fencing issue, noting that the plans are not drawn properly. He said the fence referred to by Commissioner Roupe is only about 30’ in length, not the entire length of Paramount Road. He said it was put in strictly for safety issues, noting they have two small children and they did not want large neighborhood dogs or people to access their back yard. Commissioner Roupe stated that as he drove on Paramount Road, it seemed like there was a 6’ high wooden fence that ran for 100’ or more. Mr. Pierce responded that the property has huge juniper shrubs running along most of Paramount, and the fence starts where the junipers end and goes down to the easement. He noted the length may be closer to 40’, but is not the entire length of the home as most of it is juniper shrubbery. Gary Ahern, AIA, Focal Point Design, 1150 El Camino Real, Menlo Park, addressed the Commission as project architect, noting that the project started out to be a single-story house, and the intent was not necessarily to get a second floor, but to try to do something to sort of spice up the garage and add a little bit of visual interest to that space. Consequently, it became a second floor. He clarified the drawing indicating that the wood fence begins at the edge of the rear most portion of the living room whereas his drawing shows it at the furthermost point of the dining room. He said that at the end of the Pierce property, the fence line has been picked up by the adjacent property, and it might appear that the fence extends beyond the edge of the Pierce PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 5 FEBRUARY 23, 2000 property. In response to a question from Commissioner Roupe regarding a creek or small drainage area, fenced as it went away from the road, Mr. Ahern responded that was the end of the property. Responding to a question from Commissioner Kurasch regarding a certain portion of the fence, Mr. Ahern said that the original intent of that portion of the fence was to re-route deer around the yard. He said if that portion of the fence was contentious, the applicants would be willing to remove it. Commissioner Kurasch noted that the intent of the City code is also visibility on streets and curves. She noted this was in the front setback and would require a variance. Mr. Ahern said that his clients would come back before staff or the Commission for approval of a landscape design, at which time the issue of the fencing could be addressed. Commissioner Roupe commented that the landscaping and fence issues could be held in abeyance pending approval from staff and, if necessary, from the Commission. There was no one else who wished to address the Commission on this matter. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ROUPE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 8:05 P.M.) PASSED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS JACKMAN AND PAGE WERE ABSENT.) Commissioner Roupe stated that overall he could support the project with conditions regarding the existing fireplace and holding the fencing and landscape as a separate issue to be brought back to staff and Commission, as appropriate. Commissioner Kurasch commented she would like to hear more about fireplaces. Chairwoman Bernald and Commissioner Roupe clarified that it had been stated that the applicants were willing to install a gas fireplace in the family room, so only one wood burning fireplace would remain. Commissioner Kurasch indicated she would agree with the staff recommendation to reduce the area of impervious coverage in front as it had quite an impact on Pierce. Commissioner Patrick said that her reading of the plan indicated there was only one wood burning fireplace. She said the fireplace in the family room is noted as zero-clearance, or non- wood burning. She stated the design was well-thought out and appropriate for the site. She said she was not in favor of any fencing over 6’ within the setbacks because of visibility. She conveyed that any fencing on the property would have to be according to code, and she would like to see a landscape design for the property per notes in staff’s report. She said she would concur with the staff recommendation. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 6 FEBRUARY 23, 2000 Commissioner Barry agreed with staff recommendation that the extra little pad to the right of the driveway be eliminated. She said she understood the applicants have a big motor home for which they need to find parking; however, there is a lot of driveway and the motor home would be visible to anyone driving on Pierce Road. She suggested that it would be better to park the motor home where it wasn’t so much in sight. She noted that she would want to follow the precedent set by the Commission and ask for only one chimney and one vent when two fireplaces are part of the plan. Noting there are two chimneys in the plan with one a non-wood burning fireplace, there was no reason why it could not be vented. Commissioner Patrick noted that design-wise, she had no objection to the two chimneys. Commissioners Kurasch and Roupe pondered the chimney issue raised by Commissioner Barry. Chairwoman Bernald commented that these types of issues should be brought up when the applicants appear during the public hearing agree to one chimney and one vent. The applicants motioned that they would be agree to one chimney and one vent. Chairwoman Bernald stated she appreciated that there was only one wood burning fireplace. She noted her personal preference was to remove all the palms and install as much screening as possible. She conveyed that it is the applicants’ right to have their motor home on their property. She would prefer that it be placed behind the garage, and proposed installing screening for it not to be so obtrusive to the neighborhood. She would want both the fencing and landscape issues to come back before the Commission. Additionally, she would support the project with the elimination of the second fireplace. Commissioner Roupe requested clarification of the connection between the motor home and excess pad which staff is recommending be removed. Director Walgren clarified that when the staff report was written, the intention was not to eliminate the parking pad for the motor home. He said the staff planner focused on the amount of paved surface on the circular driveway, and it was when the site visit was made that the owner mentioned the purpose of the pad was for the motor home. Commissioner Barry asked whether another option was available to make the driveway semi- pervious to address the concern of too much driveway. Director Walgren responded that could address part of the concern of having excessive tarred, paved surface on the property. COMMISSIONERS ROUPE/BARRY MOVED TO APPROVE DR-99-062 WITH THE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS THAT A FENCE AND LANDSCAPING PLAN BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE STAFF AND IF NECESSARY, TO THE COMMISSION; THAT THE ISSUE OF THE PAD BE ADDRESSED BY MODIFYING IT TO A PERVIOUS COVERAGE; THAT THE FIREPLACES BE ONE WOOD BURNING AND ONE GAS; AND THAT THE CHIMNEY BE ELIMINATED ON THE GAS BURNING FIREPLACE AND A VENT BE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 7 FEBRUARY 23, 2000 USED IN ITS PLACE. PASSED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS JACKMAN AND PAGE WERE ABSENT.) 2. DR-99-061 (386-52-019) – DING/ZHENG, 20297 Seagull Way; Request for Design Review approval for the demolition of an existing 1,483 square foot, single story residence and the construction of a new 3,686 square foot, two-story residence. The maximum height of the new residence will be 24 feet. The site is 14,256 square feet and is located within an R-1-10,000 zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report, stating this is a request design review request. He said the neighbors have seen a significant amount of redevelopment in recent years. He conveyed that the entire length of Seagull Way is comprised of a 60-40 single story/two-story split, and the southeast end of Seagull Way is virtually a single-story home area. He noted that in the last several years there have been several remodels resulting in two-story homes. Currently, a two-story home near completion is directly adjacent to this project. He reported that staff’s evaluation of the plans found that they met all minimum zoning standards. Upon visiting the site, staff found that the building was massed appropriately and there was a sufficient number of two-stories to find that this two-story home could be considered compatible with the overall neighborhood fabric. Staff worked with the applicant on the architecture proposed and the applicants made some amendments to the plans as a result of staff’s recommendations and requests. He said staff has recommended approval of the project that horizontal wood siding be used to further integrate the home into this older established neighborhood. Director Walgren conveyed that as the staff report was going out, staff received considerable neighborhood opposition to another two-story home on this street. Five letters opposing the proposal are attached to the staff report. He said that during site visits, staff and Commissioners have met with the Nunnenkamps who live behind the property and who are directly behind the current home under construction. The Nunnenkamps shared their concerns with the Commissioners regarding their views that would be obstructed and additional windows that would be perhaps looking into their rear yard area. Finally, Director Walgren commented that clearly after viewing the site and looking at the site plan again, the lot is deep enough to accommodate a single story versus a two-story design, which is often not the case. Commissioner Kurasch asked if there was a range of compatibility values, or a definition of compatible versus incompatible on the City’s part. Director Walgren responded that it is always a judgment call on the Commission’s part, noting that compatible means a design will fit in and not stand out. He said theoretically a neighborhood could be entirely single-story but if a very low two-story home utilizing a dormer window were put in, it might fit the neighborhood. He said it is not necessarily a two-story versus a one-story. The architectural fabric needs to be considered. He cited as an example a street of 13’ tall Eichler homes, suddenly followed by a vertical 26’ two-story building as being incompatible with the architectural fabric. Chairwoman Bernald asked what would be the height limit that a single-story home could achieve PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 8 FEBRUARY 23, 2000 without coming before the Commission, and Director Walgren replied that the limit is 18’. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 8:20 p.m. Charles Brown, 3415 Victoria Avenue, Santa Clara, addressed the Commission as the project architect, stating he worked with the clients to develop a design that meets their requirements and worked with the City to meet its requirements. Commissioner Roupe asked whether the applicants had considered a single-story design early in the process, and if so, why it was rejected. Mr. Brown responded that a single-story design was never considered, and because of the considerable number of trees, the intent was to keep the existing landscape and the rear of the property intact. Responding to a question from Commissioner Kurasch regarding the neighbors, Mr. Brown said he had not discussed the plans with any of the neighbors. He said that starting out the project by going to the neighbors would bring about a negative beginning. He conveyed that to him, it is better to work with the clients and the City to develop a design that meets all the City requirements, is considerate of the neighborhood, and then present the plan to the Commission for consideration. Furthermore, he said that his clients do not live in the neighborhood and have not developed any relationships with the neighbors yet. Commissioner Patrick asked if there was a problem with wood siding, and Mr. Brown said there was none. He said that as far as making something less bulky, he did not know that wood siding would necessarily resolve that issue. He said perhaps color was a more appropriate way of doing it. A color board was submitted to the Commissioners for their perusal. Chairwoman Bernald stated that one of the neighbors had submitted a letter to the Commission, quoting from the City’s residential handbook. Chairwoman Bernald paraphrased the neighbor’s quote, “that the rural residential character of the City has been created and maintained through low residential densities....and the relatively low profile and height of residences. The protection of views from the hillsides to the valley and from the valley floor to the hillsides, has also been an important part of Saratoga’s physical development.” Chairwoman Bernald asked Mr. Brown whether he had taken the information she quoted into consideration when designing the home. Mr. Brown said he had not considered the information, noting that in meeting the City’s requirements, he stepped the second floor back to avoid casting shadows on the adjacent properties to allow as much view as possible and still maintain the design. He reiterated there was no communication with any of the neighbors. He conveyed that he has done many second-story additions in the past few years and communicating with the neighbors is seldom the process regardless of the city in which the project is located. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 9 FEBRUARY 23, 2000 Chairwoman Bernald asked Mr. Brown whether he had done any such projects in Saratoga, and he responded he had not. Mr. Brown responded in the affirmative to a question from Commissioner Barry regarding whether the applicants intended to live in the house once it was remodeled. Jack Lucas, 17171 Zena Avenue, Monte Sereno, addressed the Commission noting he has served the City of Monte Sereno for the past 15 years as Council member, 8 years as a Design Review Committee member, and most recently just completed a stint as Mayor. He stated that tonight he was not representing the Council nor the City of Monte Sereno, but rather as a friend and colleague of Marvin and Sharon Nunnenkamp who reside behind the proposed project. He said a home is currently being built has obliterated the Nunnenkamps’ view of the hills up to 50 percent. If this proposal goes in, it will obliterate all of the view of the Nunnenkamps. He asked the Commission to be very vigilant in implementing the tenets of the City’s General Plan, as it protects the citizens of Saratoga. He said monsters homes are being seen too often throughout the Bay Region, blocking views, and particularly in the West Valley cities such Saratoga, Monte Sereno, andLos Gatos. He asked the Commission to consider the General Plan and the impact that this would have on the Nunnenkamps as well as the entire neighborhood. Marvin and Sharon Nunnenkamp, 12343 Ted Court, appeared before the Commission, stating they have lived at this location for 23 years, and that their back yard is a flag lot, fitting behind the proposed home. Ms. Nunnenkamp said they came to tonight’s meeting already impacted by the 21’ two-story residence currently in construction at 20283 Seagull Way behind their home. She said the home has taken a portion of their view of the Santa Cruz Mountains and the windows look into their back yard to their family room and bedrooms. She conveyed that this proposed home would take away the rest of their view of the Santa Cruz Mountains. She expressed that she and her husband are very upset with the proposed construction and feel it ignores the Saratoga Design Review findings to their detriment, their peace of mind, their iew, their privacy, and decreased value of their home without the view. Ms. Nunnenkamp commented there was plenty of room to build a single-story residence on the lot. She said the project was massive and bulky in relation to the other homes in the neighborhood. She asked the Commission to consider the option of a lower profile. Mike Frazier, 20308 Knollwood Drive, stated he and his wife are neighbors behind and to the left of the proposed property. He said among other factors, privacy was important in their decision- making process in selecting Saratoga as their home. He said the proposed project interferes with their privacy and that of their neighbors. He said the windows look directly into his backyard. Additionally, he said the trend that is being created along Seagull Way and the neighborhood is going to damage the unique charm that attracted many to Saratoga. He encouraged the Commission to help the neighbors maintain the neighborhood charm and maintain the privacy of the neighborhood. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 10 FEBRUARY 23, 2000 Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Frazier how he would characterize his neighborhood, and he responded that all the homes on Knollwood are one-story homes, are approximately 10,000-11,000 square-foot lots, and have very small back spaces compared to the Seagull neighbors who have very deep lots. He said he was attracted to the neighborhood because the neighbors in the back are 35-50 feet away. Mr. Brown referred to the existing trees directly to the rear of the house. He said eye level from the second floor is about 16’ above grade and the trees are approximately 20’ high. He said the second floor is about 86’ from the rear wall of the property line. He referred to his experience in working with other cities where lots are not so large and noted that he always considers privacy a key issue when adding a second story. He said it was difficult for him with this great distance and screening of the existing trees to see an impact on neighbors’ views and other issues. He asked the Commission to consider the design. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ROUPE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 8:40 P.M.) PASSED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS JACKMAN AND PAGE WERE ABSENT.) Commissioner Barry stated this is a very difficult issue. She commented that at the site visit yesterday, looking from the Nunnenkamps back yard to the house that is in process and trying to visualize the new two-story house, two-story homes would significantly change the character of the neighborhood. She said that that neighborhood preservation is something that the City has decided is a value and is important. She noted that in this case, there is a very large backyard and the applicants will be able to construct a larger house on their property. They won’t be restricted in their use of their property. She said she would like to continue this because it seems like there would be significant negative impact on the neighbors and that it would begin a trend of changing the neighborhood to two-story houses. Although there are parts of Seagull Way that are primarily two-story, this particular part of Seagull Way is not primarily two-story. She said to begin two- story houses here would really change this part of the neighborhood, and she would have a problem with approving the proposed project. Commissioner Patrick expressed that this was not a good design for the neighborhood and it appeared there was no attempt to fit the home into the site or the neighborhood. She said since there had been such poor care of the current landscaping, it did not bode well for future landscaping to ameliorate any of the difficulties that had been expressed tonight. She stated she could not approve this and stated that more serious consideration was necessary to make the home fit into the site and neighborhood. Her additional comments included that she could not approve the project. She said she would not want to continue this item because her experience has been that when items are continued and attempts are made to redesign, the results are not good. She would prefer to either approve or not approve. She noted that one of the factors not considered was a basement which would provide more space without interfering unreasonably with the neighbors’ views. Furthermore, she noted that in Saratoga, typically in virtually all projects, the neighbors have been consulted, and while their comments are not used as a benchmark for what is or is not approved, their opinions are considered regarding potential impacts as described by the neighbors. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 11 FEBRUARY 23, 2000 Commissioner Kurasch concurred with Commissioners Barry and Patrick. She said she could not envision the house on this lot simply because her test of fairness is to ask whether there are other options and to respect the character of the neighborhood which is also the Commission’s obligation. She said the design is at the maximum of allowable square footages. She has not seen an attempt to try to reconfigure. She said that the relationship of percentage of new construction over the original is getting larger. She did not see the proposed project as compatible with the homes. She further noted that perhaps the Commission needs to define the neighborhoods in terms of viable areas. She would not be able to support the project and is not in favor of continuing the project. Commissioner Roupe concurred with his fellow Commissioners. He said that the house is not appropriate to the neighborhood, noting it has a severe impact on the neighbors, and there is a way to try to be reasonable to all parties involved because this is a deep lot. He stated that a single-story house could be accommodated within the setback areas, and while some trees would need to be removed, they are not the classic Saratoga oak, and could probably be replaced with indigenous trees. He said he could not support the project and would want a vote to approve or not approve rather than continuing the application. Chairwoman Bernald concurred, stating that she did not feel the design was compatible. She explained that the nearby house under construction was approved because it was only 21’ high and it was placed on a smaller lot that did not have the option of building out. She said a single-story house in the nearby lot would have been more invasive to the neighbors. She said a two-story home at 24’ high is not a solution for the neighborhood. She noted that with the house next door, the design would exacerbate a bulky feeling that is incompatible with the neighborhood. She acknowledged that seven letters had been received from various neighbors who expressed that this is primarily a one-story neighborhood, and that there are problems with privacy with the proposed plan. She noted that the large lot could easily accommodate a 3,500 square foot single-story home. She would strongly recommend that any project resubmittal be one-story and wood-sided with consideration to the designs that exist on Ted Court. She said that in Saratoga, the Commission does not look to change all single-story homes to two-story homes, and where neighborhoods filled with two-story homes exist, the overall result with the citizens’ acceptance of the neighborhoods has not been positive. COMMISSIONERS KURASCH/PATRICK MOVED TO DENY DR-99-061. PASSED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS JACKMAN AND PAGE WERE ABSENT.) 3. DR-99-059 (503-30-022) – LUSTENADER, 14220 Pike Road; Request for Design Review approval for the demolition of an existing 3,030 square foot, single story residence and the construction of a new 4,664 square foot, single story residence. The maximum height of the new residence will be 26 feet. The site is 48,535 square feet and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting this request is for design review consideration to demolish an existing home and construct a new residence. He said the lot is at the very top of Pike Road adjacent to the Pike estate. He said the applications meets all minimum zoning PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 12 FEBRUARY 23, 2000 requirements and staff feels that design review findings can be made for approval. He said the building would be finished with wood siding and painted in earth tone colors. He conveyed that the property is isolated and would not be seen from many vantage points within the immediate neighborhood. Staff supports the project with conditions as outlined in the resolution. Commissioner Barry asked whether procedurally there was any reason why the Commission cannot notice the dozen or so homeowners that live across the valley and have a clear, unobstructed view of the house. She asked whether the Commission could continue the item so that it could be noticed to the homeowners. Director Walgren said it would be difficult to identify the homeowners; however, it could be done. He said it would take approximately an 8-week continuance to identify the properties and get the legal notices distributed. Commissioner Barry expressed that this was an issue which does not come up often. She noted that, as expressed by Director Walgren earlier, from the road the property is an isolated house, however, from the back yard it is going to be the centerpiece of the view of many houses in the adjacent hillside. She said there are no dark trees or anything else that would obstruct the house as there are in some of the houses next to it, and those that may have the most vested interest in this design have not had an opportunity to be advised or to register support or nonsupport. She stated this could be an unusual situation, and she would like the Commission to consider her request. Director Walgren commented that the homes across the valley are on south-facing hills that do not have the tree cover that these hills have. He noted that sites on the south-facing hills see a very densely vegetated hill when looking near the Pike estate and the homes integrate much better in that setting. He said when looking toward the Mt. Eden Valley one sees primarily new stucco homes sitting on hilltops that have no natural vegetation around them, providing a different view. Responding to a question from Commissioner Kurasch regarding noticing of the project, Director Walgren clarified that the notice went out correctly and that the advertisement was for a two-story home. Commissioner Kurasch stated that it was a good point to define who is going to be impacted and the definition that would be used as criteria for who should be noticed. She said she was uncertain whether a mechanism for this currently existed. Director Walgren said that if the Commission wanted to pursue noticing, it would set a very difficult precedent as the homes which would be identified are one mile or several miles away. He explained the City’s current process to notice homeowners is based on the assessor parcel number (APN) of the subject property. Through a computer program, staff can generate a 500’ radius from that APN to identify everybody whose property touches within that radius. He said staff could expand the radius to one mile (approximately 5,000’) and begin to include more properties; however, it would be very difficult to identify individual sites up in the county areas PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 13 FEBRUARY 23, 2000 and make sure that those persons received a notice. Chairwoman Bernald expressed that story poles and rear patio were a combined concern of hers. She said that the proposal contains “bare bones” details, and it is unknown what is going in on the second floor. She said she spoke to the neighbor who resides below the subject property who was surprised that no story poles would be installed. Chairwoman Bernald pondered continuing the item to install story poles and get better plans to understand how the entire facility is going to be used. Director Walgren said that the City does not sustain a requirement for height poles on developed sites, although it does for undeveloped sites. A discussion ensued pursuant to Chairwoman Bernald’s suggestion that it might be helpful for the Commissioners to drive offsite for a view of the poles. Commissioner Barry commented it would be helpful and if orange netting were part of the plan, there might be a chance that residents across the valley would see it. Commissioner Roupe concurred that possibly a continuance should be considered and put some height poles installed as this is a totally different structure than what exists there. Noting he did not attend yesterday’s site visit; however, as he looked up at the propery,, it seems to sit on the ridge line. He remarked that the immediate neighbors might benefit by putting up height poles and going back and taking a look at the plan more carefully. Commissioner Kurasch stated she was uncomfortable with trying to analyze something that she cannot define. She said she did not know how to make sense out of the space or even understand the logic of what is being reviewed if it is not finished. She asked what the unfinished space would be used for and noted she would rather have a continuance and perhaps more detail on the design would help. Commissioner Patrick indicated she had no questions of staff. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 9:05 p.m. Kurt Cline, Rockwell Design, 14544 Big Basin Way, addressed the Commission as architect of the project, noting that the second story spaces are undefined on the ends because the space is presenting being built as unfinished space. The applicants wanted to develop a space that was economical to build and break down the massing of the house in fairly simple forms; yet, give it an attractive look. He said the house probably will not have any finished spaces in the upstairs portions and it will be finished off with drywall. Responding to issues from across the valley, he said that was one of the design concerns considered, noting that the house is a two-story; however, it has a lot of characteristics of a one and one-half story home. He explained that the plate heights in the second story are not at 8’; that the plate heights of the roof have been taken down and the dormers fill out the space. He said the house is well suited for the neighborhood, and the site, is heavily wooded, and is a response to a family get-together place in Nova Scotia PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 14 FEBRUARY 23, 2000 that was very important to the applicants. He said the materials are reflective to fitting in with the area. Thomas and Caroline Lustenader, 14220 Pike Road, addressed the Commission. Mr. Lustenader stated he spoke to the neighbors down the hill this afternoon and fully agreed with their concern about any lack of privacy. He surveyed the second floor deck of his property from the neighbors’ property, and it was agreed that the issue could be addressed with landscaping on the Lustenader side of the fence. Ms. Lustenader stated that the motivation for the project was to allow room for teenage children. She described the property, noting that the unfinished space will work as a family room with a large open space. She stated they are anxious to begin the project and she has informed the architect to fill the design within three-four weeks. She said they would be happy to put up poles. She said the homes on the opposite hillside are very visible and she hoped that her home would not look like those homes. She noted that an enormous amount of trees have been cared for and maintained for foliage and invisibility. She added that they have discussed their plans with their neighbors. Responding to a question from Chairwoman Bernald, Ms. Lustenader and Mr. Cline described the areas for the four bedrooms and the bathrooms. Jon Witkin, 14020 Pike Road, conveyed he has lived in the neighborhood for 15 years in a two- story house. Three years ago the Commission allowed a two-story home to be built on a third of an acre right behind his property which looks down into his property. He voiced his support of the project, noting that the way the property is set will not be intrusive to anybody and will not be a problem. Voiced his support of the project. Jerry Ceppos, 14550 Pike Road, noted he is the closest neighbor to the Lustenaders. He expressed that he and his wife feel that the proposed house would enhance the neighborhood, noting it is tasteful and modest and would fit in well. He said he is in a two-story house also. He said the house would meld just beautifully in the heavily wooded hillside. The Lustenader home probably has more trees than any property except for the Pike estate. He conveyed the home would fit in very well and would be some contrast to the Mt. Eden area which is a bunch of homes without vegetation that stand out more. Peter Noonan, 14123 Pike Road, stated he resides directly across the street from the applicants. He said the Lustenaders have always maintained a lot of vegetation around their house and he cannot even see their present house. He said he did not believe the new house would be noticeable with the heavy trees and vegetation from directly across the street which is a dead-end street. He said he has never seen anyone putting up flag poles or poles on a home that is almost two miles He stated that the home would fit in very nicely in the neighborhood. Mrs. Lustenader described the rows of 40-50’ tall poplar trees along the Pike estate and additional trees on her property. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 15 FEBRUARY 23, 2000 COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ROUPE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 9:25 P.M.) PASSED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS JACKMAN AND PAGE WERE ABSENT.) Commissioner Barry commented that she was pleased to hear from the neighbors; however, she was still in favor of continuing the item to see a final design and to notice the property owners across the valley. Commissioner Kurasch concurred with Commissioner Barry. She would like to see a continuance of the item. She would also like to see a landscape plan, especially for the screening from across the valley view. Commissioner Patrick indicated she would vote to approve the proposal. She did not see the relevancy of trying to determine what the interior use of a building is as this was not within the Commission’s purview as long as it is within the code. She expressed concern about the notice request since it is a discretionary notice in that the City would have to determine who would be noticed that a building is being put up. She said the parameters are too arbitrary for someone to determine who is noticed. She said either everybody is impacted or very few people are impacted by these projects. She said it is important for the residents to know what is going on in Saratoga and that is done through the newspaper. Additionally, she noted that the 500’ radius notice requirement, which is beyond what the law requires, is adequate and serves well. She noted she was concerned about the deck on the second floor but as long as the staff and applicant can address the issue with the neighbor, she has no problem with it. She conveyed that adding height poles would not change the height of the building. Commissioner Roupe concurred with Commissioner Patrick, particularly the point regarding the interior of a building, as it is within code and the applicants have indicated their intent. He said the design has the appearance of a tall structure, and perhaps it is because of the way it is architecturally treated. He commended the applicants for working with the neighbors. He stated it would be appropriate to see height poles and look at it from the rear neighborhood point of view. He would suggest that the applicant finalize the design, add some height poles, and have the Commission review it again. Commissioner Kurasch asked what would be appropriate for looking at the interior. Director Walgren responded that the interior is something normally seen in plans; but it is not relevant. He said the rooms are treated as if they are all going to be habitable rooms, what the views would be, and what the impacts on neighbors’ views would be. He added that the Commission has parameters if the building changes such as the architecture, the footprint, the finish, the envelope, the height, the square footage, the placement, etc. and the plan would be required to come back to the Commission. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with Commissioner Patrick that it would be very difficult to determine who would be noticed and determine who should and should not have a say-so in the applicant’s property. She commended the neighbors for coming out. She said she was uncomfortable with receiving plans that are so far less detailed than what is expected. However, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 16 FEBRUARY 23, 2000 it has been explained that the unfinished spaces will be inhabited. She said she did not think that the bathrooms or windows on either of the unfinished spaces would make any difference to anyone in the neighborhood. She would still prefer to see story poles because it is a drastic difference and she would have liked to see more details in the drawings. She noted that given the amount of neighborhood participation tonight; the wooded nature of the area; the fact that the homes in the area pre-date story limitations, and many of them are 30’ high; and combined with the fact that this is a very pleasing design; that it is a more compatible design to this site, she can support it with a mild amount of concern just because she would have liked to have seen more than what was presented tonight. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ROUPE MOVED TO APPROVE DR-99-059. PASSED 3-2 (COMMISSIONERS BARRY AND KURASCH OPPOSED; COMMISSIONERS JACKMAN AND PAGE WERE ABSENT.) DIRECTOR ITEMS - DR-98-049 – NOBLES, 20801 Pamela Way; Proposed modification of a previously approved Design Review application. Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting this item was a request for modification to a design review application recently approved by the Commission. He said the proposal was to raise the side of a single-story garage from the approved 15’ in height to 18’ in height. He said the objective was to construct a loft area into the under-roof area. He said originally it was a full story, later revised to a loft in an attempt to not have it count as square footage. The home was approved at its maximum permitted square footage and there is no allowance for any additional square footage. When the loft was designed the applicant was told that it still would be counted as square footage. He said the only way to exclude the square footage was to have the loft fully enclosed with no light or ventilation to the room. This would defeat the purpose of the intended use of the room, and even with the modification to exclude the square footage, it would still result in a awkward one-story building elevation with very tall 18’ wall expanses and very tall roof area of the garage door that would detract from the original design. He said staff was recommending that the proposed modification not be approved. Director Walgren noted there were two letters in the agenda packet from the immediately adjacent neighbor opposed to the proposed modification. He said this was the neighbor who was actively involved with the original review of the application. He distributed a letter from Betty Riley, 20792 Pamela Way, opposing the modification, and a second letter from Mary Lynn Dutro and Sons regarding a compromise that would lower the height from 18’ to 17’ that may be acceptable. However, he said staff recommendation would remain the same. Wayne Nobles, 20801 Pamela Way, provided a brief background of the project, noting that the purpose was to increase the storage capacity of the home. He described the changes that have PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 17 FEBRUARY 23, 2000 been made to try to accommodate the issue of habitable floor space. He said he is willing to make any changes to the interior that removes the concern of whether this is actually habitable space. He said there is clearly no intention of making it anything other than storage space as his family is in dire need of such space. He commented they are concerned with the aesthetics and appearance of their home and how it impacts the neighborhood. He believes the proposal is attractive and would enhance the neighborhood. Mr. Nobles conveyed that he has discussed changes with Ms. Dutro and proposed lowering the roof to 17’ so it would only be two feet above the previously approved level and proposed reducing the dormer size on the front of the home from 9’ across to 7’ across. He said other changes include reducing the skylight window in the garage from 3 1/2’ to 3’, and moving the peak of the garage 2’ back from the proposed design to move the mast of the side of the building farther back from Ms. Dutro’s home. He said he received a copy of Ms. Dutro’s second letter in which she still had concern with a side wall. He has discussed this issue with the architect, and they would be willing to try to work with Ms. Dutro for a conclusion. Mary Lynn Dutro, 20825 Pamela Way, stated she is the neighbor to the west of the Nobles property. She said after speaking with Mr. Nobles, she still feels the height of the garage addition takes away from the good lines of their original design. She is pleased to turn the entire matter over to the Commission, noting that photos of the properties and associated problems have been submitted to the Commission. She expressed concern with the size of properties that are being put in small lots that have been country cottages through the years. She said the Nobles have done a tasteful job in their remodel plans until this modification. She appreciated the Nobles’ willingness to work with her. Commissioner Kurasch recalled this design when it first came before the Commission, stating it was very tasteful and fit very well into the lot. She recalled the concerns regarding the visibility and felt it was fine as approved. She said she would prefer to leave well enough alone and would agree with staff. Commissioner Roupe concurred with Commissioner Kurasch. He said as he looked at the building, even with a reduction of one foot, it seemed to change the whole architectural elevation and looked cumbersome. He said he appreciated the applicant’s intention and efforts to assure that the space would be limited to storage; however, he did not find the change appropriate and could not support the modification. Commissioner Patrick concurred with staff, stating that she appreciated a need for storage, but did not see that a garage of this size would accommodate that need. She said that the height would make a difference to the design of the house. She recalled the original design which was very well done, and she recalled Ms. Dutro’s property next door and her concerns about it obscuring her side of the house. Commissioner Barry stated she was not part of the discussion regarding the original design, but she liked it very much. She agreed with her fellow Commissioners, noting she could not support the modification. She considered the neighborhood issues of the size and bulk changing the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 18 FEBRUARY 23, 2000 character of the neighborhood and did not see a strong enough reason to approve the modification. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with her fellow Commissioners. She said the original design was delightful. She recalled that Ms. Dutro’s concerns were there with the first design. She said that with the modification, the garage becomes more invasive and cumbersome, almost an industrial look to it, and she could not support it. CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION WAS TO SUPPORT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. - UP-97-009 – SARATOGA FEDERATED CHURCH, 20390 Park Place; Notice of construction schedule. Director Walgren indicated that this was an information item. He said that the construction plans for the church’s renovation and expansion were approved by the Commission a year or two ago. He noted the church now plans to begin work in the spring, and for approximately ten months will lose 20 parking spaces due to temporary storage buildings, temporary office/trailers, and a temporary playfield moving into the parking area. He stated that the church has made arrangements to replace the 20 spaces with approximately 30 parking paces on adjacent commercial properties. Additionally, due to the severe parking situation in the Park Place neighborhood, staff suggested that the neighbors be noticed of this parking situation and that the Commission be notified. The church has notified the neighbors within 500’ with assistance from staff. COMMISSION ITEMS Director Walgren noted that the issue of monster homes has become an issue in the valley and in the country, noting that other jurisdictions such as San Jose, Campbell, and Monte Sereno are either just beginning to address or have addressed the issue. He said it is important to give Saratoga a certain amount of credit because it has had had Design Review processes and floor area limits in place now since the mid 1980’s, and those are processes that many jurisdictions use as models. Commissioner Kurasch responded that Saratoga’s neighborhoods are quite different than San Jose and some areas that are now considering those monster homes. Palo Alto is the most recent that I know of. They are unique in each area and I think where we are similar is that looking at a percent of an original home or say percent enlargement as it relates what these neighborhoods have been defined as or what would be the status quo or the norm in the neighborhoods. I think that is alike in all of these communities. I think that my suggestion and touching upon it is things that I have heard from the community. She said Commissioner Jackman had also expressed a desire to look at “monster home” issue. She agreed that the City has a good system of looking at floor area ratios and appropriate size of homes to the lots; however, none of those look at PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 19 FEBRUARY 23, 2000 percentages of new construction over what is existing construction, as it would be a different relationship. She said that would relate to what is in the neighborhood. She said looking at a floor area ratio to the size of a lot would be one relationship of lot-by-lot. However, this does not speak to the relationship to other homes that may have similar lots nor does it look at the impact on the relationship to other homes. She conveyed that we can see percent or whatever percent it is compared to the lot but it does not say what the final result is going to be, what the impact would be, and we really don’t know what it is going to look like, and what the community responds to is a lot of surprise, that they really don’t know what can be developed on these lots, based on our formulas they are very good, they are responsible and they are trying to get something proportional but no one knows what they’re going to look like, and that has resonated through every city that has these monster home kinds of ordinances. She described her experience as a former resident of Santa Monica and said that another way of looking at this issue could be based on percentage – by determining the amount of increase over what is already existent in the neighborhood. Director Walgren responded that the things Commissioner Kurasch was talking about are right out of the pages of the City’s Design Review handbook. He said his comments earlier were to state that jurisdictions which are barely addressing the issue now are adopting ordinances that the City of Saratoga has had in place for quite sometime and many jurisdictions have modeled their ordinances after the City of Saratoga’s ordinances. A discussion ensued regarding monster homes. Commissioner Barry commented that the design review guidelines are enormously helpful to her as a Commissioner and for applicants who take them seriously, they also provide a lot of guidance. She said the Commission has a dilemma in that compared to other things that are being built in the City, the 3,500 square foot house considered earlier is a modest home; however, it is the neighborhood change that is the issue. She said to find the path and a way to give guidance is the Commission’s dilemma. Commissioner Roupe commented that the City has a case by case design review process based on design review guidelines with compatibility being a key issue. He said people buy property with an understanding of what they are allowed to build, and to suddenly place an ad hoc, secondary criteria against that would be taking away from the owner’s right to develop a property and use it within the constraints with which it was purchased. Commissioner Patrick noticed that a good design is always compatible and acceptable to the neighbors and is never a monster home. She said monster homes are always the homes that the neighbors perceive as being objectionable because they do not think the design is good. Through the years she has seen the Commission struggle with those kinds of issues. She said a house with flat sides that goes straight up always looks more monster than something which is better articulated. Commissioner Barry added that Commissioners also get guidance and support from the General PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 20 FEBRUARY 23, 2000 Plan. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Responding to a question from Commissioner Kurasch, Director Walgren said he thought her letter for the Commission retreat was intended for him. She indicated she had a copy of her letter to distribute to the Commissioners and read it into the record. She stated for the retreat’s discussion topics, she was interested in defining the Commission’s role as a deliberative body; interaction with community, staff, and Council; the expectations that these roles involve; discussing the larger view in developing a sense of the Commission’s vision or mission statement in helping define what the community’s values are and in planning what Saratoga will remain or become. She would like to discuss the how and why of the (Commission’s) decision making. She requested that the facilitator be provided with tapes of recent Commission hearings, including the January 12 fencing hearing, the January 25 joint Council/Commission meeting and the February 9 Commission item discussion where those questions were raised and challenged. She also requested that other resources regarding California land use and planning law be made available as references at the retreat. Director Walgren said he had planned to share the letter with the facilitator and that the session would include a team-building exercise. He said the facilitator would be contacting each Commissioner for an interview and to prepare for the retreat. A discussion ensued regarding the retreat which is to include the topic of water quality and associated copper issue. Commissioner Barry stated that some Commissioners have been very clear they did not want team-building to be the focus of the retreat, but rather a facilitated discussion. She suggested that perhaps the Commissioners could set up the agenda with the facilitator. Director Walgren stated that the facilitator is experienced and well known in his field. He said his discussions with the facilitator have included a hybrid of what has been discussed tonight. Director Walgren noted there was sufficient time to refine the retreat agenda and is something that can be focused on when Commissioners meet individually with the facilitator. COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN - City Council minutes for adjourned meeting of January 25 and regular meeting of February 2, 2000 - Noted. - Notices for regular Planning Commission meeting of March 8, 2000 - Noted. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chairwoman Bernald adjourned the meeting at 10:20 p.m., to Wednesday, March 8, 2000, in the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 21 FEBRUARY 23, 2000 Council Chambers/Civic Theatre, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: MINUTES AMENDED AND APPROVED BY: Lynda Ramirez Jones James Walgren Minutes Clerk Secretary to the Planning Commission