Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-10-2000 Planning Commission MinutesMINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chairman Page called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners, Barry, Kurasch, Patrick, Roupe and Chairman Page Absent: Commissioners Bernald and Jackman (Excused) Staff: Director Walgren PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – September 13, 2000, and September 27, 2000. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the Planning Commission minutes of September 13, 2000, were approved as presented. (4-0-2-1; Commissioners Bernald and Jackman were absent and Commissioner Patrick abstained, as she was not present at this meeting. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Planning Commission minutes of September 27, 2000, were approved as presented. (3-0-2-2; Commissioners Bernald and Jackman were absent and Commissioners Kurasch and Roupe abstained as they were not present at this meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Walgren announced that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET None. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. DR-00-027 (386-54-048) – TEAGLE, 12400 De Sanka Avenue: Request for Design Review approval to construct an 1,198 square foot second story addition to an existing 1,987 square foot single story residence. Ninety square feet will also be added to the first floor. Maximum height Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 11, 2000 Page 2 proposed is 23 feet. The parcel is approximately 11,250 square feet and is located in an R-1- 10,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 9/27/00) 2. UP-00-010 (397-24-088) – PINN BROTHERS, 18895 Hayfield Court: Request for Use Permit approval to construct a new 468 square foot Cabana within the rear setback of the property, 12 feet from the rear and 15 feet from the left side. There is an existing 4,558 square foot house on the site proposed to remain. The 26,515 square foot site is located within an R-1-20,000 zoning district. 3. SD-99-003 & DR-98-070 (397-27-031) – NAVICO, Inc., 14230 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road: Request for Tentative Map and Design Review approval for the subdivision of a 24,391 square foot parcel into six parcels ranging in size from 2,300 square feet to 3,320 square feet. The remaining 7,451 square feet will be common area. Six townhomes will be constructed on the new lots. The site is located within the R-M-3,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 11/08/00) Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, Consent Calendar Items No. 1 and 2 were approved and Consent Item No. 3 was continued to the November 8, 2000, Commission meeting. (5-0-2; Commissioners Bernald and Jackman were absent. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 4 UP-99-021 & DR-99-052 (517-10-015 and 009) - OUR LADY OF FATIMA, 20400 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road: Request for Use Permit and Design Review approval to replace an existing Convent, Priest Quarters, Chapel and Visitor’s Apartments with an Assisted Living Facility for the elderly, and the interior conversion of an existing Skilled Nursing Facility into Assisted Living units. Total number of existing units is 42; total number of Assisted Living Units proposed is 41. Existing floor area is 50,372 square feet; proposed floor area is 68,955 square feet. An Environmental Initial Study has been prepared, and adoption of a Negative Declaration is also requested. This project is being noticed a second time to add the following information: An existing house facing Oak Street will be demolished to accommodate an additional 10 parking spaces. (CONTINUED FROM 9/27/00) Mr. James Walgren, Community Development Director, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this application was continued from the September 27th meeting as no quorum was available at that meeting. The item was moved to Oral Communications to allow oral comments from those present. • The application is for a Use Permit to allow a Senior Care Facility to be expanded within a residential district. • The Our Lady of Fatima facility pre-dates the City’s incorporation and is considered an existing non-conforming use. • The proposed expansion will modernize the facility and make it more successful. • The current and proposed facility has the same number of units. However, the type of units will change. While there are currently 85 skilled nursing beds, following this renovation, there will be 62 skilled nursing beds. Currently there are 18 assisted living units and 41 are proposed with the renovation. It is possible that the assisted living units could be occupied by couples but 95 percent of the time, the units are single occupancy. Therefore, if there is a slight increase in population, it will be negligible. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 11, 2000 Page 3 • As part of the Environmental Initial Study, the trees on site, the site geology, noise and traffic impacts are studied. Traffic for independent living units is less than traffic for assisted living units. There will be a negligible, and technically no change, in traffic trips that are generated by the project. • The Design Review Request seeks to give a more cohesive and upgraded architectural appeal to a facility built in the early 1950s and added onto and expanded over the years. This is an upgrade to the existing facility. • Advised that two minor corrections to the staff report are necessary. One is to reflect that, rather than shingle siding as stated in the report, horizontal siding is proposed. The second is a clarification about the building height allowed. A small segment of the building is proposed at 33 feet in height. The staff report indicates that the maximum allowable is 30 feet. The correct statement is that with a Conditional Use Permit, the proposed portion that is 33-foot height would be allowable. • The Commission will be asked to adopt an Environmental Negative Declaration. The Environmental Report was previous provided. It contained a grading analysis, a geo-technical review, a traffic analysis, parking analysis, noise assessment and tree preservation assessment. Based upon these studies and the Conditions contained in the attached Resolution, staff is comfortable in recommending a Negative Declaration for the project. Measure G is not applicable for this project. • Reminded the Commission that several letters from immediately adjacent neighbors were received and were either included in the staff report or provided this evening. The immediate neighbors are fairly supportive but some have concerns. • Some neighbors have stated that some of the uses on this site are less residential in character and therefore generate more noise than standard residential uses. Specifically mentioned is noise associated with the laundry facility. With this substantial renovation project, there is an opportunity to lessen the noise associated with the laundry facility through modifications rather than sustaining the status quo. The applicant has expressed willingness to attenuate the noise of the laundry facility. • Neighbors request that limits be placed on those uses not residential in character to typical workday hours, Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. This would include truck deliveries and use of the laundry facility. • Additionally, it is suggested that late shift staff be required to utilize parking areas furthest from the adjacent single-family residential uses. • Finally, neighbors ask that a facility manager be available by phone seven days a week, 24 hours a day, to respond to neighbor concerns. • Suggested that a Condition be imposed that would not allow occupancy of Phase I until the completion of Phase II. Commissioner Roupe questioned plans for traffic management during construction as well as where construction staging can occur that would minimize the impact on an already congested area, Saratoga- Los Gatos Road. Director Walgren replied that he was not aware of such construction phasing plans at this point. Added that such a traffic management plan has been required with past projects. Commissioner Roupe inquired whether any of these assisted living units could be qualified under the City’s Overall Housing Plan and, if so, in what category. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 11, 2000 Page 4 Director Walgren advised that to date there has been no proposal to restrict any units with this project in any manner that would give the City credits toward its Housing Plan. The City does not yet actually have a Housing Plan in place and will not have one for about six to nine months. That is a reasonable question to pose to the applicants. If properly timed with the City’s development of its Housing Plan, it is possible that a certain number of these units could be restricted to Below Market Rate (BMR) units and counted. Commissioner Roupe asked whether occupancy of Phase I would be possible before Phase II is completed. Director Walgren replied that Phase I could not be occupied until Phase II is completed if final occupancy of Phase I is tied to the completion of Phase II. Added that the idea of holding up final occupancy of Phase I is intended to ensure the completion of Phase II. However, there are other means available to ensure completion of Phase II including not releasing performance bonds, entering into a Development Agreement or allowing some sort of temporary occupancy of Phase I. Commissioner Roupe asked whether asking for a bond is a reasonable remedy. Director Walgren replied that it was. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the Traffic Consultant is present this evening and, if not, whether the traffic analysis would be discussed separately another time. Director Walgren stated that it would depend on what questions there are on the traffic report. Added that he has reviewed the traffic analysis and that it appears straightforward. Commissioner Barry asked about the differences between this project and the Saratoga Retirement Community (Odd Fellows) regarding affordable housing (BMR) units. Director Walgren: • Advised that the City is negotiating with the Saratoga Retirement Community to secure about 10 percent of their units as BMR units. • Added that the City might well be in the same position with this development. It will be more a process of negotiation than a requirement. These BMR units are a great benefit and provide credits towards the ultimate City’s Housing goal. ABAG has not yet provided the goal number of units. • Advised that two letters were distributed that were received following the distribution of the staff report. One is from Mr. Paul Kelker, 13783 Fortuna Court, Saratoga, in support of the project. The second is from Commissioner Jackman, which asks the Commission to consider seeking the relocation of the freestanding identification sign for this facility further into the interior of the site and off Highway 9. Chairman Page opened the Public Hearing No. 4 at 7:56 p.m. Mr. Preston Wisner, President and CEO, Our Lady of Fatima, 20400 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road: • Advised that Our Lady of Fatima was established at this location in 1948 and that he has served as President since 1988. In 1985, the facility included 22 skilled nursing beds. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 11, 2000 Page 5 • Stated that the market has changed and fewer skilled nursing beds are needed. The current demand is for assisted living units. • Informed that each month, they refer three or four people to facilities outside of Saratoga. The demand for assisted living units exceeds that currently available. • Stated that the two Phases will be concurrent. Advised that Phase I includes the demolition and reconstruction of portions of the existing facility. Phase II will include the gutting of a wing and the reformatting of existing interior spaces. • Agreed that Phases I and II could be tied together with a Performance Bond. • Mentioned that there is a licensed nurse on site 24-hours a day, seven days a week, who serves as the on-site manager. This manager has the ability to reach him at all times. They can respond quickly and often do. • Stated that it would be possible to get some units designated as BMR. Not sure what the definition is but said that they would be willing to work with the City to get some units recognized as BMR. Asked what the market rate is for Saratoga, a million dollars? • Added that their target population has a household income of $50,000 per year for a couple. The cost for room and board at their facility is between $2,500 and $3,000 per month. • Suggested potential solutions to neighbor concerns: o Laundry Facilities: In order to make the laundry facility use more palatable for the neighborhood, there are several options, including the elimination of any weekend laundry or the installation of an additional machine to increase production by 50 percent. Added that with more assisted living units, the laundry demand would be reduced. Skilled nursing patients, who are bed bound, require many more linen changes than do assisted living residents. It is anticipated that laundry may well be reduced from 1,200 pounds a day to 900 pounds. o Deliveries: Advised that deliveries to the site generally occur during the workweek. The exception is the early morning compact unit pickup by Green Valley. This occurs once a week between the hours of 5:30 and 6 a.m. Stated that they have no control over that schedule as Green Valley is permitted to operate at that time. o Parking: Advised that they have already instructed staff to park on the side furthest from the residential properties. o Meetings: Advised that three neighbor meetings were held in May 2000 and a fourth meeting in August 2000. o Assured that they will work to be a good neighbor. Commissioner Roupe questioned Mr. Wisner about plans for traffic mitigation on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road during construction. Mr. Wisner advised that they have an excellent working relationship with the Federated Church. Federated Church will allow the use of their parking area during construction. Commissioner Roupe asked how ingress and egress would occur during construction. Mr. Wisner: • Replied that all egress is from Oak Street with the exception of some trucks that cannot navigate out of Oak Street. • Added that they have posted a “No Left Turn” sign to limit traffic onto Saratoga-Los Gatos Road to right turns only. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 11, 2000 Page 6 • Added that they will add two more feet of width to the driveway and the fence on the north side of their property will come down. The neighbor has also agreed to reduce their fence by three feet in height to help improve visibility when exiting. Commissioner Kurasch questioned plans for on-site circulation and asked whether the applicant supports the requirement to remove one space to help create a 22-foot wide driveway and two spaces near the existing garage to accommodate truck traffic on site. Mr. Wisner replied that he did agree with those requirements. Commissioner Kurasch asked whether the applicant has considered utilizing off-site laundry services. Mr. Wisner responded that that option is not viable with the amount of laundry their facility creates. Some of the skilled nursing residents require bedding to be changed two to three times each day. That results in a lot of laundry. Commissioner Kurasch questioned whether the facility could limit laundry service to Monday through Saturday, eliminating any Sunday use. Mr. Wisner agreed that a compromise could be reached. Commissioner Kurasch sought assurance that the stone wall was not slated for removal. Mr. Wisner advised Commissioner Kurasch that the stone wall would not be touched. Commissioner Barry: • Expressed appreciation to the applicant for the efforts made to address neighbor concerns. • Suggested the creation and maintenance of an on-going log of complaints, listing the date, time and nature of any complaints. This information should be evaluated after six months so that the neighbors, facility staff and the City can work together to resolve any issues. • Stressed that without a documented record, necessary adjustments are not possible. Mr. Wisner said that all calls are logged. Advised that he was unaware of any neighbor concerns about their facility until just recently. Added that they have responded as they learn of any issues. Added that he would be happy to keep track of phone calls, stating that this is a reasonable request. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Wisner if he had any problems with the idea of moving their freestanding sign to comply with City codes. The City Code does not allow a private sign within the public right-of-way. Mr. Wisner replied that he is happy to comply with City Codes and that he thought they were in compliance. Director Walgren advised that he did not believe the sign was in the roadway. Stated that the sign could actually be located within the public right-of-way with the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. Added that it is, however, within the purview of the Commission to seek the relocation of the sign, pushing it back further onto the site, simply for aesthetic purposes. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 11, 2000 Page 7 Mr. Wisner cautioned that visitors have difficulty in finding their location. Again stated that he is happy to come to a compromise placement to make everyone reasonably happy. Mr. Sandy Barker, Project Architect, Barker Associates, 114 Santa Margarita Avenue, Menlo Park: • Explained the change in the aging population and the need for more independent care facilities. • Stated that they are taking advantage of the City zoning and slope to compact the footprint and therefore provide more park-like land. They will take advantage of the number of Oak and Redwood trees and allow more of the site to revert back to a natural state. All mature trees will be retained. The removal of the old house, which is considered an eyesore, allows the creation of a park area. • Advised that the side yards will be 75 feet versus 15 required. • Said that the extensive existing mature vegetation screens visibility of this site from the public right-of-way. • Added that they seek to create a very nice, historically accurate type of facility that represents a de- institutionalized senior care facility. • Discussed building height. Advised that at the heart of the existing building the highest point of the building is 33 feet and represents a small area of the project. Added that the proposed height is lower than the existing chapel on this property. Through the use of trellis and lower roof elements, the building will appear to be two stories. However the front entry, which will be three stories, is carved into existing grade and appears lower. • Stated that the parking lot will appear very residential. The stone walls will be continued, a four- foot fence installed and landscaping added to both the front and back. The driveway will be widened by two feet. • Advised that they have established a good working relationship with the City. In addition, meetings with neighbors have brought forth issues, which can be mitigated. They have tried to respond to feedback and continue to work with the City and Community. • Displayed a color board that depicts the proposed muted color pallet. • Informed that the site used to have trash pick up twice a week. Trash pickup was reduced to once a week after they installed a trash compactor on site. • Stated that the traffic report was revised and actually predicts a net decrease in trips to the site by approximately five. • Added that they will continue to work on noise solutions, including the screening of the generator. Advised that this generator will no longer be needed following the completion of Phase II and can be removed altogether at that time. • Said that Charles Salter conducted a second Noise Study, testing all the kitchen equipment. All equipment generated noise readings that were under 6 decibels. • Stated that by increasing the capacity of the laundry facility, fewer laundry hours will be necessary. Laundry can occur at mid-day rather than in the early morning or evening hours. • Said that this project will enhance the community, taking it from a more institutional to more residential appearance. • Declared that this is a much-needed facility and that the Commission’s support would be appreciated. Commissioner Kurasch asked for clarification on where the height exceeds 30 feet on this structure. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 11, 2000 Page 8 Mr. Barker: • Replied that the three-story entry element is actually only 30 feet high because they will cut down into the natural grade to create this entry element. • Added that only a small area exceeds 30 feet in height and that area is located at the center of the building. • Advised that the stone wall, which Commissioner Kurasch mentioned earlier, is actually not on the subject property and would not be touched. Commissioner Barry asked if all the recommendations from the Environmental Impact Studies would be included in the plans for this site. Mr. Barker replied that all traffic mitigation measures have been incorporated as well as tree protection. Commissioner Barry asked about the noise recommendations included in the EIR. Mr. Barker replied that the generator would be removed following completion of Phase II as it will no longer be needed. A defective boiler was recently replaced in an existing mechanical room. The laundry room actually fell below 6 decibels. Suggestions for mitigation include blocking off windows, redirecting fans and fixing the swamp cooler. Commissioner Barry asked what kinds of windows and doors will be utilized in the new construction. Mr. Barker replied that there are State requirements that interior spaces should not be impacted by area noise. There is noise from the busy roadway. The noise mitigation recommendations will be incorporated. Commissioner Roupe asked how the generator could be removed when there is still skilled nursing occurring on site. Mr. Barker: • Advised that this is the only building on the site still utilizing such a generator. The use of that building will go from a skilled nursing to assisted living use. The newer buildings have or will have generators located within the buildings’ basements. • Said that by the conclusion of Phase II, this facility will have licensed two-room units for assisted living and licensed beds for skilled nursing. • Again stated that the need for skilled nursing care is dropping. • Assured that construction parking can be worked out with the Federated Church. Mr. Bob Dunnett, 20477 Forrest Hills Drive, Saratoga: • Informed the Commission that his home shares a common fence with this site. • Advised that he has written letters concerning this project and met with Director Walgren this morning. • Said that while he supports the need for such a facility, finding it to be a valuable asset for the City of Saratoga, he has concerns with the operation of a 24-hour-a-day business within a residential area. • Asked that definitive Use Permit be approved. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 11, 2000 Page 9 • Asked whether this evening’s hearing represents his last opportunity to comment on this project. Director Walgren advised Mr. Dunnett that definitive Conditions of Approval would need to be developed for this project. Mr. Bob Dunnett continued: • The laundry facility is located near his side rear yard. • Suggested some sort of sound barrier and a solution to the exhaust fan located on the laundry facility roof. • Added that perhaps this is a good time to move the laundry facility elsewhere on the site where it is not so close to residential uses. • Suggested limitations in the use of the laundry facility including the out-sourcing of laundry service when there are laundry needs after normal daytime business hours. • Stressed that it is most important to mitigate these concerns through the Conditions of Approval. • Sought assurances that Phase II will actually occur. If Phase I is completed without Phase II being completed, there will be an increase in residents on site rather than staying exactly the same as is projected. Director Walgren suggested approving the project with deferred Conditions to be worked out prior to the issuance of building permits. The deferred conditions would include: the applicant being required to return to the Planning Commission with a proposal for BMR units; a construction traffic/vehicle plan and a sound attenuation plan for the laundry facility. This deferral will give staff several months to work out the details. Mr. Charles Leiter, 20483 Forrest Hills Drive, Saratoga: • Stated that he has three issues of concern: the trash compactor being used in the early morning hours (3 to 4 a.m. on a recent Sunday); the prohibition of deliveries at night (site should be limited to daytime deliveries) and the laundry facility. Stated that an extra dryer and washer might be added and a limitation of days and hours for the use of the laundry facility, Monday through Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. • Added that another issue is 24-hour staffing. Described a situation a few weeks ago where he attempted to reach an on-site manager to deal with a persistent and loud banging noise occurring on this property in the middle of the night. No one was able to assist him and the noise proceeded for more than an hour before quieting. Ms. Abby Krimotat, Executive Director, Saratoga Chamber of Commerce: • Advised that as baby boomers come of age, their parents are aging. There is a high demand for quality assisted living facilities. • Informed that by the year 2030, 25 percent of the population will be over 65 years of age. • Said that the Chamber of Commerce receives inquiries daily about available facilities for seniors. • Stressed the importance of allowing seniors to continue to reside within their own community. • Said that this facility is highly regarded by the Chamber and that the Chamber’s Board of Directors hopes the Commission will approve this project. Ms. Lea Ann Hernandez, 16160 Jacaranda Way, Saratoga: • Stated that she has several friends who have had to place parents in assisted living facilities. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 11, 2000 Page 10 • Advised that one friend placed a parent at Our Lady of Fatima and found the experience to be a positive one. • Encouraged approval of this application. Mr. Gene Longinetti, 18734 Cabernet Drive, Saratoga: • Said that this proposal is necessary to help Our Lady of Fatima serve the special needs of seniors. • Added that this proposal helps provide options for Saratoga residents. • Stated that this project is functional, attractive and in keeping architecturally. Ms. Peggy Corr, 19224 DeHavilland Drive, Saratoga: • Said that the need for senior housing is increasing and that there is a mass exodus of seniors from the area. • Stated that this is a good proposal and asked the Commission’s support for it. Mr. Bill Cooper, 14503 Big Basin Way, Saratoga: • Stated that he has great respect for Our Lady of Fatima. • Added that he has aging parents and feels that it is important to have local facilities offering quality care. • Asked the Commission to support this upgrade. Ms. Laurel Smith Stoner, 19715 Vineyard Lane, Saratoga: • Advised that she is on staff at the Saratoga Federated Church as well as being a registered nurse by training and on the Board of Directors for Good Samaritan Hospital. • Said that she is often asked for referrals to senior care facilities. • Asked that this plan be approved. Commissioner Barry asked Ms. Stoner for her opinion about the need for skilled nursing care in the future as many facilities switch over to assisted living. Ms. Stoner replied that there are enough skilled nursing beds but that their quality is an issue. Chairman Page offered Mr. Wisner three minutes to address the Commission in rebuttal of any comments made. Mr. Preston Wisner reiterated the fact that there is a diminishing need for skilled nursing. They have an 85 percent occupancy rate for their skilled nursing beds. They used to operate at 99 percent occupancy. Commissioner Roupe commended Our Lady of Fatima but expressed doubt that there is any priority offered to Saratoga residents. Mr. Preston Wisner advised that most of their residents come from within a 25-mile radius. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 was closed at 9:08 p.m. (5-0-2; Commissioners Bernald and Jackman were absent) Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 11, 2000 Page 11 Commissioner Roupe stated that he felt it was a good plan to revisit the Conditions of Approval. Suggested pursuing preferential acceptance of Saratoga residents by Our Lady of Fatima. Director Walgren advised that there was such a stipulation with the Odd Fellows facility. Some sort of commitment in writing would be acceptable. Commissioner Roupe suggested including such a stipulation as a Condition of Approval. Commissioner Kurasch: • Advised that she is looking favorably upon this project, reviewing it both objectively and architecturally. • Stated her support of Director Walgren’s deferred Conditions, which include: BMR designated units; operational issues such as the laundry, trash and deliveries; sound attenuation and preferential acceptance of Saratoga residents by the facility. • Suggested a six-month review for noise problems and possibly restricting laundry hours. • Stated that the physical configuration fits well. The structure will be more visible from the street, including three stories from the driveway side, but it is well articulated. The bulk and height work visually. The structure will be more visible from the street but it is well articulated. This is a pretty well developed site and will be an attractive building. Commissioner Patrick stated her concurrence with Commissioner Kurasch’s comments with the exception of the six-month review, which she feels is unnecessary. Commissioner Barry: • Stated that she is concerned about monitoring for the Conditional Use Permit. • Suggested a bi-monthly report to the City of any calls received by this facility with a 60-day review after the site is operational. This would allow the City to monitor the implementation of the Conditional Use Permit. • Advised that she can identify with the neighbors as her residence is situated between West Valley College and the Odd Fellows Home. • Added that she believes the proponents will act in good faith and monitor their use but that the monitoring needs to be built in and more immediate than six months. • Suggested the maintenance of a separate log for community calls as well as a log of calls returned by the Our Lady of Fatima Director to neighbors who have called in concerns. • Said that she is comfortable with the project and likes the structure. Her only concern is the impact on the neighbors. • Expressed support for the four deferred Conditions of Approval. Director Walgren suggested that it should be the responsibility of the applicant to forward a summary report of complaints to the Chairman and/or a designated Commissioner. Suggested the appointment of a designated Commissioner to serve as the point person for the Commission regarding this project. Chairman Page: • Stated that this project meets the requirements and needs of the community and is architecturally appropriate. The height is appropriate. • Said that he supports the Negative Declaration and the suggestion to appoint a Commissioner to serve as the contact for the community regarding this project. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 11, 2000 Page 12 Commissioner Kurasch stated that her concern regarding the placement of the sign in the public right- of-way has not been handled. Asked whether an encroachment permit is required for this sign’s placement. Director Walgren advised that the sign is in the State’s right-of-way and not the City’s. The sign is placed behind the retaining wall. Caltrans would issue any encroachment permits. Added that this is more an issue of aesthetics. Commissioner Roupe suggested placing the issue of the sign placement with the deferred Conditions and pursue it at that time. Commissioner Patrick stated that this is not a City encroachment permit and that she had no objection to the current placement of this sign. Commissioner Barry cautioned that people need to be able to see the entrance to this facility when driving past. The aesthetics are a secondary issue. Director Walgren advised that the Traffic Engineer has reviewed the sign and does not find that it has a negative impact on traffic views. Commissioner Roupe stated that this is an aesthetic judgement and not an encroachment issue. Commissioner Kurasch suggested moving the sign back into the planter area, adjacent to the rock wall. Commissioner Patrick stated that a sign could also be placed on the rock wall itself but it would not be as visible. Director Walgren advised that at one point there was a second sign but that the City asked that it be removed. It was removed. Commissioner Kurasch stated since no one else objects to the signs placement, she is willing to let the issue rest. Director Walgren mentioned the potential to limit deliveries and use of laundry facilities from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. Another alternative is from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Sundays would be prohibited for both laundry and truck deliveries. Commissioner Kurasch suggested allowing longer hours during the week but fewer on Saturdays, limiting to no later than 4 or 5 p.m. with no hours on Sunday. This restriction is reasonable due to the close proximity to residential uses. Commissioner Barry suggested that this matter become part of the sound attenuation plan, suggesting to completely restrict evenings and Sunday and with quite limited hours on Saturday. Commissioner Patrick clarified that the Commission is really speaking of laundry and trash collection. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 11, 2000 Page 13 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Commission voted to approve a Negative Declaration. (5-0-2; Commissioners Bernald and Jackman were absent) Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Commission approved UP-99-021 with five Conditions of Approval being deferred as follows: 1. The approval of a BMR plan; 2. The preparation of a construction vehicle plan; 3. The preparation of a sound attenuation plan for the operation of the facility, specifically the use of the laundry facility and the delivers to the site; 4. The preparation of a proposal to ensure the preferential acceptance of Saratoga residents by this facility; and 5. The establishment of a monitoring plan, with a Commissioner to be appointed to serve as a liaison, to receive any complaints. Commissioner Barry offered to act as the Commission’s liaison effective 60 days following the full operation of the renovated facility. (5-0-2; Commissioners Bernald and Jackman were absent) Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Commission approved DR-99-052. (5-0-2; Commissioners Bernald and Jackman were absent) Chairman Page advised that there is a 15-day appeal period before this action is final. Chairman Page called for a five-minute break at 9:34 p.m. Chairman Page reconvened the meeting at 9:40 p.m. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 5 DR-00-031 & V-00-014 (503-55-032) – ALMAN, 21063 Bank Mill Lane: Request for Design Review approval to allow a 1,073 square foot addition to an existing 2,900 square foot residence. Variance approval is also requested to allow a nine-foot front yard setback compared to a 30-foot minimum required setback. The parcel is approximately 42,122 square feet in size and is located in an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Director Walgren provided the staff report as follows: • Advised that this application consists of a Design Review approval, to allow the demolition of an existing garage and the construction of an addition, and a Variance approval to allow an addition to be located nine feet from the front yard setback when a 30-foot setback is required. • Stated that this residence, which has a Bank Mill Lane address, is actually located off of a private access road that is really not much more than a driveway that provides access for approximately half a dozen or so homes off Bank Mill Road. This is a private access easement that is crossing the property diagonally. That is from where the setback is measured. The parcel is also constrained to Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 11, 2000 Page 14 some degree by the existing pad being in this vicinity and not allowing easy access down slope. The Variance is to allow the addition to be nine feet from that access corridor. • Staff is supporting the Variance request and finds that special circumstances exist. First, there is an access easement that crosses diagonally through the property, which is unique in itself. Second, this is a private road with a development pattern that has been established over the years prior to the City adopting its current codes. As one travels up the private Bank Mill Lane, the existing homes are also this close to the street in many cases. It appears to be consistent with existing homes and therefore not a grant of special privilege. Commissioner Roupe asked for clarification that the existing structure is already at nine feet and whether the new structure does not encroach any more than the existing structure does. Director Walgren clarified that the existing structure already encroaches by 10 feet and will encroach by an additional 9 feet, with this addition, closer to Bank Mill Lane. Commissioner Kurasch asked why the right-of-way is so skewed. Asked if there was the possibility that in the future the City would have to use that area. Director Walgren responded that this is a private road. There would be no reason that a City project would go there. The road would have to be doubled in width and curbs, gutters and storm drains installed in order for it to become a public road. Added that he did not see any near future City project that would have to use this road for any type of public facility. Commissioner Kurasch asked why this road was allowed to be established in the first place. Director Walgren replied that it was probably created over time without having to go through any type of review process, perhaps pre-dating the Subdivision Map Act and/or under County jurisdiction. Chairman Page opened Public Hearing No. 5 at 9:45 p.m. Motion: Upon motion of Commisioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5 was closed at 9:46 p.m. (5-0-2; Commissioners Bernald and Jackman were absent) Commissioner Kurasch stated that, while she does not see the logic as to how the configuration of the property and street right-of-way were created, she agrees with staff’s evaluation that there is merit in granting a Variance to allow this addition. Commissioner Patrick stated that she had no objection. Commissioner Barry said that she had no objection. Suggested adding to the Findings justifying the Variance that the addition is in keeping with the existing development pattern on the street. Commissioner Roupe had no further questions. Chairman Page also had no questions and stated that he liked the project as it is. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 11, 2000 Page 15 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Patrick, the Commission approved DR-00-031. (5-0-2; Commissioners Bernald and Jackman were absent) Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Commission approved V-00-014. (5-0-2; Commissioners Bernald and Jackman were absent) *** PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 6 DR-99-024 (503-12-038) – C.W. DEVELOPMENT, 22657 Garrod Road: Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,155 square foot two-story structure on a vacant lot. The proposed design is at a maximum height of 26 feet. The 1.9-acre site is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. Director Walgren presented the staff report as follows: • This application is a request to build a new, two-story, 6,155 square foot home, with a maximum height of 26 feet. The site is a vacant 1.9-acre hillside lot, located in the City’s northwestern hills, off Garrod Road, a private road that provides access for approximately a half a dozen parcels. • This particular lot is lot four of a four-lot subdivision approved in the early 1980s under a very different set of rules and regulations than are currently in place for hillsides. The lot pre-dates the Hillside Specific Plan. It is located on a minor ridgeline, which is not permitted to be built on currently. It was a lot that was approved through the process that was in place at that time. It is a legal lot of record. This is the fourth and last lot to be developed. The other three lots have been developed with similarly sized and varying architectural style, large estate homes. This is a large estate home and will therefore match the architecture of the other buildings. In fact the architect for this home also designed the home to the right of it. • Staff is recommending approval of this application, with Conditions. One, that a plan be developed that emphasizes native trees to provide a more vertical landscape emphasis on the property. There is a lot of ground cover on the adjacent lot but not a lot of tree cover, other than the native tree cover that surrounds the lots. Another added Condition is that the second-story entry element be pulled in closer to the home and reduced in size to a single story element to reduce its mass and scale from the Garrod Road views. Commissioner Roupe asked staff to point out the Condition that pertains to the entry element, as he could not locate it within the Resolution. Chairman Page pointed out Condition 2-D, which requires the applicant to provide a revised front elevation (north) with a revised front entry redesigned to be a single story. Director Walgren added that Condition 2-B regarding landscaping would be expanded. Chairman Page opened Public Hearing No. 6 at 9:53 p.m. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 11, 2000 Page 16 Mr. Scott Stotler, Stotler Design Group, 18624 Sutter Boulevard, #900, Morgan Hill: • Advised that his clients are also friends for more than 17 years. They have been Saratoga residents for several years now. • Clarified that this parcel is actually lot 3 of the 4 lots. There are three existing homes that have been constructed over the last several years. His company has been involved with two of the three that are there now. • Informed that the lot will not require any grading. The slope where the building pad will go is between two and three percent. There is a large backyard area beyond the building pad with just a two and three percent slope. • Said that the second-story of the residence represents only 27 to 28 percent of the actual footprint area of the lower level. Added that they have been responsible in maintaining a well-balanced architecture so as not to have too much verticalness or a dominating two-story on the house. • Advised that when he designs homes on larger lots, he does not orient garages at the front so as to buffer the view of vehicles from the street and to limit the obvious presence of paving and impervious surfaces at the front. This home will have a side load garage. • Other houses in the immediate area have two-story entry elements. This design’s entry element is lower than others in the area. • Said that they have been developing this design for almost two years. It has been redesigned in order that it be compatible with the neighborhood, represents a responsible design that is in compliance with the City’s guidelines as well as meeting the owners’ requirements. • Requested that the two-story entry element be approved as submitted. Commissioner Roupe asked Director Walgren to help define the proposed changes to the entryway. Director Walgren replied that the scale would be brought down toward the horizontal line to give it a one-story scale. Mr. Scott Stottler distributed photographs of the houses on either side of the subject site which depict similar two-story entry elements. Said that the elevation provides good width and height perceptions but not depth. Director Walgren stated that the photograph depicting the home on Lot 1 is an example closer to reflecting what staff is recommending, a single story element. The recommendation is still that the element that is projecting be brought in and the element that is recessed be brought down. This can be done without making the building too monolithic. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Commission closed Public Hearing No. 6 at 10:02 p.m. (5-0-2; Commissioners Bernald and Jackman were absent) Commissioner Patrick stated that she would prefer to see a different design for the house but it is compatible with the neighborhood so she will concur with the staff report. Commissioner Barry: • Stated her agreement with Commission Patrick. • Added that this is a rural hillside area. The other houses in the neighborhood do not reflect the character of the hillside or the rural area in which they are located. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 11, 2000 Page 17 • Advised that a compromise is to agree to this construction style, which while it does not fit the area it does fit in with the houses next door, but with the reduced front entry as staff has suggested. That is the best the Commission can come up with at this point. • Said that, while she respects the architect’s efforts to be compatible with the homes next door, in her perspective those houses should not have been allowed to be built on the hillside because they are not appropriate for the hillside or for the rural area. Commissioner Roupe stated his concurrence with the staff report and the Condition to reduce the mass of the entryway. Commissioner Kurasch: • Stated that she did not believe that bad precedent should be compounded. • Existing conditions are two big bulky buildings. Adding a three large building creates a large apartment-like density. • There is a platform for reducing the size of this home simply because the others are already so large and bulky. The area is almost maxed out. That is one of the problems with this design, the size. Director Walgren stated that Commissioner Kurasch makes a very valid observation. This four-lot subdivision does not integrate well with the natural environment. A pretty strong mitigating factor, however, is the fact that the area is only visible from a limited range from off-site. This represents the fourth large home on a relatively confined ridge area. Commissioner Kurasch: • Added that she sees a lot of large unarticulated walls that are pretty uninteresting. • Wondered if the articulation could be improved, especially from the side elevation, which really will be visible from the neighbors’ home. • Advised that she did not like the design and would favor a redesign. • Stated that she would like to see the turf pulled back as it is inappropriate to have turf under the Oak trees. Suggested appropriate under-plantings for beneath the Oak trees. • Supported the addition of native plants for screening purposes. Chairman Page agreed with the other Commissioners and stated that he can support this project with a landscape plan that includes more trees and adjusts the plantings under the Oaks per Commissioner Kurasch’s suggestion. Commissioner Barry: • Expressed her agreement with Commissioner Kurasch that this project is maxed out and stated that she does not want to support it. • Said that she understands the amount of time that went into designing this house and is willing to agree to it at this point with a major change in the front elevation. • Asked for many more screening trees as part of the final landscape plan. • Stated that she will support the project reluctantly. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Patrick, the Commission approved DR-99-024 with the added Conditions that appropriate landscaping be incorporated in the final landscape plan and that the applicant Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 11, 2000 Page 18 follow the staff recommendation and redesign the front entry element reducing the height to a single-story element. (4-1-0-2; Commissioner Kurasch voted against and Commissioners Bernald and Jackman were absent) *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 7 DR-00-034 (503-27-109) – TOOYSERKANI, 14315 Paul Avenue: Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 2,868 square foot residence, including a 948 square foot second story. The maximum height proposed is 26 feet. The parcel is approximately 7,789 square feet and is located in an R-1-10,000 zoning district. Director Walgren presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this a request to demolish an existing home on Paul Avenue and construct a new two- story home consisting of 2,868 square foot, including the garage, in its place. The subject parcel is just less than 8,000 square feet in area and the home is proposed to be 26 feet in height which is the maximum height permitted in Saratoga. • Stated that the Commission has reviewed a large number of redevelopment applications in this particular neighborhood. For the most part, they have been two-story based on the constraints of the parcels, although not necessarily in this case. There is a fairly strong pattern of two-story homes as well as existing low, very flat roofed, single-story homes that were part of the original subdivision construction. Staff therefore feels that a two-story home of this architectural style is appropriate for this particular neighborhood. • This application is a little bit unusual in that it is coming before the Planning Commission in a form that does not conform yet to the allowable floor area requirements. Normally this would not be on the Planning Commission agenda at this stage. There are several reasons why staff made the decision to keep it on the agenda with a recommendation that it be approved. A Condition that the height be brought down, because the allowable floor area is based upon the height of the building, will be imposed. The FAR is reduced for each foot that exceeds 18 feet in height. There will also be an accompanying reduction in floor area and the rear elevation will be looked at and perhaps some greater articulation required to reduce the vertical mass of that rear elevation. A requirement to reduce the amount of glass area off that back elevation will also be required. Small lot subdivisions typically create pretty immediate privacy impacts. The reason this application was kept on the agenda is the fact that the applicants have been very cooperative and worked on this design extensively from long distance (architect from out of state). They have provided two to three versions of this plan, as staff did not support the original ones. Also these mistakes were caught so late by staff. Therefore, the City has some responsibility to the applicant, who had already made airline reservations to attend this hearing. Based on those factors, staff felt it was reasonable to schedule this item and recommend approval with the conditions that the mentioned alterations are made to the plans prior to issuance of permits. Chairman Page opened Public Hearing No. 7 at 10:15 p.m. Mr. Stu Alderman, Project Architect, 2525 Wallingwood Drive, Suite 1500, Austin, Texas: • Stated that he appreciates this opportunity to present this project at this stage. • Advised that he has done several other projects in Saratoga. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 11, 2000 Page 19 • Said that this project’s variation from the rules was the result of a misunderstanding that no one caught until very late. • Stated that they are in complete concurrence with staff and the proposed Conditions. • Informed that the owners have met with the neighbors, advising them of their plans. • Identified that one issue dealt with was pushing back the two-story element. • Added that the house will take up less space on the lot as it does not go back so far. • Said that he would be happy to articulate the rear elevation in a way that is more traditional. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the Commission closed Public Hearing No. 7 at 10:27 p.m. (5-0-2; Commissioners Bernald and Jackman were absent) Commissioner Barry: • Stated that she liked the look of this house, finding it compatible with the neighborhood, and supports staff’s recommendations. • Added that since there are no letters of objection from the neighbors there appears to be no issues. Commissioner Roupe stated that he had no objections but questioned whether the upper story windows would be translucent as they will provide a view into the neighbors’ yards. Chairman Page advised that the number and size of windows on the upper level will be reduced per staff recommendation. Commissioner Roupe added that there is potential for privacy issues, as the lots are so close together; however, there appears to be no objections from the neighbors. Suggested that perhaps the elevation of the windows could be raised to preserve privacy for the neighboring properties. Director Walgren suggested that the upper floor windows could either be reduced in area, raised in height or translucent glass used to prevent privacy impacts from occurring. Commissioner Kurasch stated that she concurred with those concerns and staff recommendations. Commissioner Patrick stated that she likes the design of the house but is concerned that a neighborhood is being created where one does not see the sun due to houses that are so big and tall. Said that a 4,500 square foot house is too big for a lot of this size. Added that this house is too big and she will not support this application. Chairman Page stated that the design is appropriate and he will support the project. Commissioner Kurasch asked what changes could be made to make the project more acceptable to Commissioner Patrick. Suggested options including reducing the square footage, adding to the Conditions or recommending a complete redesign. Commissioner Patrick replied that a redesign would be required based upon the size versus what is left of the lot once the house covers it. Commissioner Kurasch asked if reducing the height would help address some of the solar concerns. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 11, 2000 Page 20 Commissioner Patrick replied both the height and floor area would have to be reduced. Director Walgren advised that the proposed Conditions would require both the lowering of the height and the reduction in square footage. Commissioner Patrick stated that if the structure were kept to one story with a basement that would be sufficient house for the neighborhood rather than create this high density, no sunlight area. Therefore, it would require a major redesign. Commissioner Kurasch questioned how this application could be denied when the Commission just approved a similar two-story just this evening. Commissioner Patrick advised that the previous approval was located on a substantially larger lot. Commissioner Kurasch asked if Commissioner Patrick would only support a one-story structure on this lot. Commissioner Patrick replied yes. Added that this is not an area suitable for 4,500 square foot houses. Offered that when someone buys a small lot that person must accept that they are going to have a smaller house on that lot. Chairman Page asked for typical coverage ratios. Director Walgren agreed that the proposal is pretty typical. Added that the 4,500 square feet includes the basement. The above grade area consists of 2,800 square feet, which includes 2,300 square feet of living space and a 500 square foot garage. This is typical for this neighborhood. Commissioner Kurasch asked for clarification that lot coverage includes impervious area not just the house. Director Walgren replied that she is correct. Commissioner Barry stated that she wanted to make a comment about affordability. Said that since staying in place and remodeling is often necessary in this housing market, as long as what is proposed is acceptable to the neighborhood, the Commission needs to respect that fact. Said that she cannot see a reason to deny this application. Motion: Upon motion of Commisioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Commission approved DR-00-034 with the Conditions to reducing height and floor area as proposed by staff and with the further understanding that attention will be given to the issue of privacy as impacted by the second-story windows from both side elevations. (4-1-0-2; Commissioner Patrick voted against the project and Commissioners Bernald and Jackman were absent) Chairman Page advised that there is a 15-day appeal period. *** Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 11, 2000 Page 21 PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 8 V-00-016 (517-14-025 & 517-14-026) – KOSMATA, 15315 Kittridge Road: Request for Variance approval for the construction of an 820 square foot addition to an existing 2,388 square foot, single- story residence. The area of the addition exceeds 30 percent slope, the maximum slope permitted beneath a structure. The site is 1.56 acres and is located within the Hillside Residential zoning district. Director Walgren presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this is a request for a Variance to allow an 820 square foot single-story addition to an existing 2,300 square foot residence. The parcel is just over 1.5 acres in size and is located off Bohlman Road at Kittridge Road. • Informed that the existing house is nestled in the primary level portion of the parcel, which does restrict the home from expanding onto slope that doesn’t exceed 30 percent. This is why the Variance is required. The average slope is 26 percent. The Code reads that one cannot build on slopes with an average grade of 30 percent nor can one build at any one point on area that has a slope of greater than 40 percent without a Variance. There are portions at the base on one side of the proposed addition where the slope is 70 percent. The Variance in necessary to build on that grade. Staff is recommending approval of this Variance based on special circumstances. The property is developed with a single-family home. There are a limited number of ways to add onto the home, either going out off of the slope or up above in a second story addition. The applicants have expressed their desire not to do a second-story addition for lifestyle reasons. They are also willing to enter into an agreement not to pursue a second story addition on this property in the future in exchange for approval of this Variance. There is a hillside view protection benefit from an agreement like that as well. The property is isolated and should have no effect on neighbors’ views up towards this property. There is an Ordinance requirement that under floor area not exceed five feet in hillside areas. The down slope portion of this building will exceed five feet in under floor area and be approximately seven feet. That factor is not part of the Variance but does represent a design exception. A whereas statement has been added to the Variance Resolution that acknowledges that under-floor exception. Commissioner Roupe asked if the final geo-technical review would come back to the Commission if major modifications were required. Director Walgren replied that if major modifications were required, following the final geo-technical review, it would come back to the Commission. Added that staff does not anticipate any problems. Chairman Page opened Public Hearing No. 7 at 10:30 p.m. Mr. Steve Benzing, Project Architect, 14630 Big Basin Way, Saratoga: • Stated that they looked in several different directions in developing the design for this addition and ran into obstructions in exploring those. • Advised that a large oak tree prevents an addition to the existing master bedroom. • Explained that the issue of going up presented several problems, including physical accessibility for the owners who are older. Therefore, a second-story addition was unacceptable to them. • Advised that as an architect, from a point of structural compatibility, the house being built 40 to 50 years ago causes some concern regarding adding a second story. There were some concerns about the cost involved in going up and seismically having to deal with that issue of adding a second story on a house built so long ago. Consequently the affordability came into play. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 11, 2000 Page 22 • Said that the project would have been considerably smaller or completely abandoned if a second story was the only option. That left the only option of adding out on the single story residence, which was the owners’ preference. The only option to go out was over the slope. That’s where they ended up. In working with City staff, they discovered they could not do this without a Variance. That is why they are here this evening. Commissioner Kurasch asked for clarification that the carport would also be converted. Mr. Benzing replied that Commissioner Kurasch is correct. Motion: Upon motion of Commisioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Commission closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 8. (5-0-2; Commissioners Bernald and Jackman were absent) Commissioner Roupe: • Stated his support for approval of the Variance. • Expressed that there is a special topography issue here. • Said that the house is not excessively large and fits well into the hillside. • Added that this is a better alternative than going up. • Opined that it is in the applicants’ best interests that the house will be sound geo-technically and that this addition can be built in a way that will be structurally sound. Commissioner Kurasch: • Stated that she supports the project but disagrees with the requirement for an agreement restricting future two-story expansion. • Suggested striking that requirement and simply considering this Variance on its own merits. • Added that such a restriction may force future owners into the same dilemma as the current owners regarding a need for additional living space with even more limited options. • Added that this site is isolated and has no effect on neighbors. Views don’t seem to be a reason. • Offered an alternative, which might be to restrict any future second story addition being constructed over this new area proposed to be built over the slope. Commissioner Patrick said that in an ordinary situation she would not support building on such a slope. Added that she supports limits on the size. Director Walgren suggested putting language into the findings that support the basis for this Variance approval. The finding can be used by future Commissions if another request should come forward for further expansion of this residence. Commissioner Roupe concurred with Director Walgren. Said that it bothered him to overlay future owners. Added that having a basis for this decision included within the Findings would satisfy any concerns. Director Walgren stated that the Findings language that currently reads “shall” would read “should.” Commissioner Kurasch expressed confusion about the need for restrictions as the Commission has approved Variances for much larger homes in the past. Questioned why restrictions should be placed Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 11, 2000 Page 23 on future owners strictly because of the slope on which this addition will be constructed. Stated that she could support additional Findings. Commissioner Patrick cautioned that the slope is 70 percent for this project, which is quite a slope. Commissioner Kurasch stated that less than 25 percent of the new construction would be on 70 percent slope. The majority of the new construction will not be constructed on 70 percent slope. Stated that the Commission has to be consistent with other applications. Suggested dropping the restriction for one-story. Commissioner Roupe stated that the compromise that the Commission is trying to strike is not a restriction but rather an added Finding to serve as a guide in the future. Stated that building is not supposed to occur on 70 percent slope without a Variance. Commissioner Barry asked what impact the revised Findings will have on the project. Director Walgren replied that it bolsters the decision made by the Commission as it will outline what factors led this Commission to approve this Variance. Commissioner Kurasch asked what the basis would be to limit the structure to one story. Director Walgren replied that a Finding could be made that acknowledges that this Variance was approved in order to keep the structure a single-story. Another alternative is to focus on square footage for the structure. Commissioner Patrick added that this Finding does not restrict future Planning Commission action but just explains why this Commission took the action it did. Chairman Page stated that he likes the idea to include a Finding as it lays the decision out nicely. Commissioner Barry expressed support for the Finding and suggested the added language that “there is no negative impact on the lot when building on the slope in this particular circumstance.” Commissioner Patrick added that the use of piers is not the issue but rather building on the slope. Commissioner Barry stated that she is prepared to support the project. Chairman Page stated that the project is reasonable, fits in well with its environment and that he would support it. Motion: Upon motion of Commisioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the Commission approved V-00-016 with the added finding outlining the criteria used for this Variance approval. (5-0-2; Commissioners Bernald and Jackman were absent) Chairman Page advised that this action is final following a 15-day appeal period. *** Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 11, 2000 Page 24 DIRECTOR ITEMS DR-99-058 (397-02-111) – BELLICITTI, 18500 Marshall Lane: Request for modification to an approved Design Review application. The new residence is proposed to be relocated 10 feet further from a mature oak tree. Director Walgren presented the staff report as follows: • Stated that this item is being brought to the attention of the Commission, as there is a policy that if any deviation from an approval occurs, that is greater than 6 inches, it requires notification of the Planning Commission. • Advised that this subject property is a 10-acre parcel off of Quito Road. A pre-fabricated home will be installed on a traditional foundation. The placement of the structure needs to be moved 10 feet, due to a change in foundation design, to prevent negative impacts on an existing mature oak tree. As the parcel is so large, there is no significant impact. Chairman Page asked if there are any other ramifications of this change. Director Walgren replied no. Added that a different foundation requires the move. The original foundation that would have allowed placement of the home closer to the tree was found to be too costly. This alternative foundation requires the additional distance from the tree to prevent any impact on the health of the tree. Commissioner Patrick asked whether the structure would be more visible as a result of the move. Director Walgren admitted that it would be closer to Marshall Lane. Commissioner Patrick stated that she would be opposed for that reason. Commissioner Kurasch asked if screening was required. Director Walgren replied that he did not believe so. Commissioner Barry stated that the Commission should ask for screening at this time. Director Walgren replied that a requirement for screening was fine. Commissioner Kurasch asked where the installation of screening would be required. Director Walgren answered from all public views, including Marshall, Quito and Sobey. Commissioner Roupe stated that the structure will be more in view from Quito Road and that the impact from Marshall is more limited. Commissioner Barry emphasized that adequate screening is necessary, even if one row of grapevines from the proposed vineyard has to be sacrificed to provide that screening. *** Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 11, 2000 Page 25 COMMISSIONER ITEMS Commissioner Kurasch informed the Commission of a Community Rally scheduled for October 12, 2000, at 7:30 p.m. This Rally will be held in the Saratoga High School Gym and deal with the subject of affordable housing for teachers. The event is being jointly sponsored by the PTSA, members of the business community, school administration and Jim Cunneen. COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN 1. Library Design Workshop Meeting: A memo and meeting notice were distributed inviting the Commissioners to participate in a Joint Boards and Commissions Meeting to be held at 7 p.m. on October 17, 2000, regarding the library expansion. This meeting will be held in the Adult Day Care Room located at 13777 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga. Commissioner Roupe asked about the sequence and timing for this library expansion project. Director Walgren advised that this project is on a fairly aggressive track. Council approved the use of one large joint meeting to obtain the input from the various Boards and Commissions to allow the project to go directly to Council more rapidly. Commissioner Roupe asked whether the Planning Commission was simply providing guidance and not an approval. Director Walgren advised that the library expansion might come to the Planning Commission but not for approval. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chairman Page adjourned the meeting at 10:55 p.m. to Wednesday, October 25, 2000, at the Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn Minutes Clerk