HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 Planning Commission Minutes. .i
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, July 25, 2001
PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Chair Barry called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Roupe and Zutshi
Absent: Jackman and Kurasch
Staff: Director Tom Sullivan and Associate Planner John Livingstone
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of July 11, 2001.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
Regular Planning Commission minutes of July 11, 2001, were approved with
the following amendments:
• Page 9 — changing Saratoga Lefts to Saratoga Oaks.
• Page 11— added text to the motion as follows... V -00 -018 and V -01 -004 with
conditions previously outlined by Chair Barry to allow...
• Page 15 — ... Informed that a groundbreaking ceremony will occur on
August September 8, 2001, at 1 p.m.
(5 -0 -2; Commissioners Jackman and Kurasch were absent)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no oral communications.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this
meeting was properly posted on July 19, 2001.
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET
There were no technical corrections to the packet.
CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no consent calendar items.
Saratoga Planning Commiss, Minutes of July 25, 2001 Page 2
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1
DR -01 -001 (397 -16 -128) — RAHIM, 14350 Taos Drive: Request for Design Review approval to
construct a new 6,308 square foot two -story residence and demolish an existing 4,015 square foot
house. Maximum height of the structure will be 26 feet. The 56,626 square foot parcel is located in
the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. (KNAPP)
Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report:
• Said that the applicant is seeking approval to demolish a 4,015 square foot residence and construct
a new 6,308 square foot, two -story residence with a maximum height of 26 feet. The project site is
56,626 square feet within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district.
• Advised that staff is recommending approval as this project meets the design policies and
guidelines including:
• Minimizing the perception of bulk;
• Building on a flat portion of the lot;
• Using 13 variations on the roof;
• Use of material and color to reduce the perception of bulk;
• Fitting within the existing neighborhood;
• Locating the building so as to minimize the privacy impacts. There are no privacy issues.
Pointed out a letter from an adjacent neighbor indicating that they have worked out a
compromise on the placement of windows.
• The use of a basement.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing No. 1 at 7:11 p.m.
Mr. Rahim, Applicant, 2079 Russell Lane, Saratoga:
• Advised that his family resides in Saratoga and loves it.
• Said that they purchased the property on Taos Drive with the intent to building a new home.
• Promised that this home will be a nice addition to the neighborhood
Mr. Fred Luminoso, 12772 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga:
• Identified himself as an advisor to the Rahims.
• Said that they had sent 45 letters to surrounding neighbors, inviting them to meet and review the
plans for this new home.
• Advised that a few responded including Mr. Wong who resides to the north.
• Said that their design minimizes bulk and mass through several means including articulation to the
roofs.
Mr. Jun Siliano, Project Architect, International Design Group, 721 Lighthouse Avenue, Pacific
Grove:
• Thanked staff for their assistance with this project and concurred with staff's recommendations and
Conditions of Approval.
• Said that this is an unusual site that offers a unique opportunity due to the large lot size and mature
existing perimeter landscaping.
• Said that the house was angled in order to break up the mass and bulk.
• Added that the house can hardly be seen from the road.
Saratoga Planning Commiss; Minutes of July 25, 2001 Page 3
• Pointed out that the dormers on the northeast corner will not include windows in order to retain the
neighbor's privacy.
• Indicated that design features include a full slate roof, cornice molding, stone veneer, stucco, corbel
design to give articulation and wrought iron railings.
• The project meets the intent of the City's residential design guidelines.
• Said that he was available to respond to any questions.
Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Siliano whether the entryway and grand salon are open above into the
second floor and if so whether that space has been counted against the square footage as should be
done when heights exceed a certain point.
Director Sullivan clarified that such vaulted space has been counted against FAR (floor area ratios).
Mr. Jun Siliano said that the maximum ceiling height is 14 feet, 10 inches and that there is no opening
to the grand salon.
Commissioner Roupe remembered that heights exceeding 15 feet are where second floor ceiling
heights are counted into the square footage.
Director Sullivan added that the area is not double counted until the ceiling heights exceed 15 feet.
Chair Barry inquired how many bedrooms and bathrooms are included in this home, including within
the basement.
Mr. Jun Siliano replied that there are four bedrooms, including the master bedroom, and that there are
no bedrooms within the basement space.
Commissioner Zutshi asked if details are available for the iron railing.
Mr. Jun Siliano said that the wrought iron railings will be forged and hand made but are only a concept
at this point, to be defined later.
Commissioner Roupe asked about the hardscape on this site. Said that there appears to be a lot at the
front of the house and advised that the Commission ask applicants to do everything possible to
minimize the amount of hardscape. Added that it is important that water be retained on site.
Mr. Jun Siliano said that while 35 percent hardscape coverage is allowed, this project has but 24
percent hardscape. Said that they plan to retain run -off water on site by providing proper percolation.
Commissioner Roupe asked what paving material would be utilized in the front.
Mr. Jun Siliano said that the materials are not finalized but that they are considering concrete pavers on
sand, which is a permeable surface.
Commissioner Roupe declared that it appears this applicant is taking concerns about paving into
account.
Mr. Jun Siliano agreed and stated that they are very sensitive and conscious of those concerns.
Saratoga Planning Commiss, .Minutes of July 25, 2001 Page 4
Commissioner Garakani asked about the stucco color.
Mr. Jun Siliano advised that the stucco will be a light earthtone and distributed a color board.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:29 p.m.
Commissioner Roupe stated that he visited the site and finds the project to be very sensitive to the
City's guidelines with water drainage and impervious coverage taken into consideration. Said that this
project fits into the community nicely. Asked staff what rules are in place to deal with construction
parking since there are several homes under construction in the immediate area.
Director Sullivan advised that the construction vehicles must park in a legal manner. They have the
same rights and responsibilities to park as anyone else.
Commissioner Roupe suggested that the construction parking occur on site as much as possible.
Chair Barry reopened the Public Hearing at 7:31 p.m.
Mr. Mark Thomas, Builder:
• Advised that he just completed a project in the area and that it is his practice to first fence and
screen a site prior to beginning construction. They plan to fence along Taos up to Mr. Wong's
property and will include two 12 -foot gates that will be secured after hours.
• Added that there will be on -site supervision and the site locked up after hours.
• Said that the crews can park on site as this is a large lot. However, occasionally, larger
construction vehicles will have to park on the street.
• Said that the project superintendent will handle such logistics carefully.
Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Thomas if he had any objection to a Condition requiring on -site
parking of construction vehicles.
Mr. Mark Thomas said that he has no problem with such a Condition. Added that it is actually a
disadvantage to park construction vehicles on the street as the workers need regular access to the
vehicles for necessary equipment and tools.
Chair Barry reclosed the Public Hearing at 7:35 p.m.
Commissioner Hunter said that the number of rooflines is unusual and that she is looking forward to
seeing the house once built. Added that having the garage on the side is a nice feature. Said that this
project is fine and she will support it.
Commissioner Garakani said that he is happy that the issue with windows overlooking a neighboring
property was resolved. Added that the project looks good.
Chair Barry:
• Stated that the relation between the number of bedrooms and garage parking spaces is something
that the Commission should and would be evaluating for each project. Added that a three -car
Saratoga Planning Commiss. ginutes of July 25, 2001 Page 5
garage for a four - bedroom house is acceptable but this is a real issue to her and that she wants to
raise it now.
• Said that lots of things for this project are handled nicely including the attempt to obtain
neighborhood input.
• Stated that she is happy to see that the front door is not a massive standout feature.
• Agreed that the garage placement is nice and that she appreciates the plan to use concrete pavers
with sand for the front drive.
• Supported the requirement to have construction parking on site and commended the builder on his
extra screening and site security measures as well as his distribution of his business cards to
neighbors to contact him should problems arise during the construction of the home.
Commissioner Garakani asked if the expansion of the basement is possible.
Director Sullivan replied that if the basement expansion is minimal, it can be approved at staff level
but if the basement expansion is significant, it will be returned to the Planning Commission for
approval.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the
Commission approved a Design Review application (DR -01 -001 BSE -01 -016) to
allow the construction of a 6,308 square foot two -story residence on property
located at 14350 Taos Drive with the added condition that the construction
parking occur on site.
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Roupe and Zutshi.
NOES: None
ABSENT: Jackman and Kurasch
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Barry advised that there is a 15 day appeal period.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.2
DR -01 -012 & BSE -01 -020 (397 -04 -003) — CAMPBELL, 14725 Sobey Road: Request for Design
Review approval to construct a new 6,180 square foot two -story residence and an 80 square foot pool
house for a total of 6,190 square feet, and to demolish a 4,075 square foot residence. Maximum height
of the structure will be 26 feet. The 76,040 square foot parcel is located in the R -1- 40,000 zoning
district. (LIVINGSTONE)
Mr. John F. Livingstone, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that this application is for a Design Review approval to allow a new 6,190 square foot,
two -story residence (five bedrooms) with a 2,100 square foot basement and 1,000 square foot
garage with the demolition of an existing residence.
• Stated that the project meets the City's policies and design guidelines including a detailed roof
element that varies along the front to help reduce mass and dormers to create interest and break up
the second story.
• Added that the home will be constructed on a flat portion of the site near the location of the
existing home. The existing driveway will be utilized.
Saratoga Planning Commiss. _Minutes of July 25, 2001 Page 6
• Added that existing views will be preserved and that the placement of the new home will actually
reduce visual impacts on existing and future homes in the near area.
• Said that the project is exceeding the garage requirement by providing a three -car garage and that
ample on -site paved parking will be available.
• Added that special care will be taken for Tree No. 19 (an oak), which is located near the center of
the lot.
• Said that the developer has assured staff that they will carefully preserve this tree and observe all of
the Arborist's recommendations.
• Recommended approval of this application.
Chair Barry restated that this five - bedroom home will have a three -car garage.
Associate Planner John Livingstone confirmed that fact.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 7:45 p.m.
Mr. Lyle Mosher, Project Architect, Mosher Associates Architecture, 1116 Willow Glen Way, San
Jose:
• Stated that his is a one -man office and that his specialty is work on historic homes.
• Added that he wanted the character of an older home, one that will feel like it has been there a long
time.
• Pointed out that this is a 1.75 -acre lot with mature perimeter landscaping. The site is not visible
from Sobey Road. There is a drainage creek with established landscaping adjacent to this site.
• Added that the center of this property will be undeveloped and the site of future orchards.
• Said that the house has been dropped down slope a bit, following the contour lines of the natural
grading.
• Said that the primary focus was the oak tree, which is a magnificent specimen and a welcome
feature of the property and said that the front door of the home is not oriented toward Sobey due to
the tree and the desire to have that tree serve as a featured aspect of the front entry element.
• Advised that there will be some terracing of the property and structure, including a four -foot high
stone retaining wall made of natural stone. Additionally some of the same stone will be used at the
base of the structure.
• Said that materials include a natural slate roof, copper gutters and natural wood windows. There is
a great attention to detail to reflect the flavor of an old estate.
• Said that there is potential for an additional rental property with the saving of the existing home on
the lot. Said that after the Commissioners brought up that potential, he spoke with the owner who
is willing to consider this suggestion. If it is allowable under City guidelines, they would consider
doing so.
• Said that they will install landscaping along the left side of the property to screen against the
neighboring property. A dense row of trees will be placed here.
Commissioner Roupe asked if a Variance would be needed to support a second residence on this
property. Added that he would only be willing to grant such a Variance as long as the unit is
conditioned in the deed to be treated as a low - income unit, rented at below market rate.
Mr. Lyle Mosher said that he cannot commit on the owner's behalf this evening but reiterated that the
owner is supportive of retaining the second unit if feasible.
Saratoga Planning Commiss, Minutes of July 25, 2001 Page 7
Commissioner Roupe reiterated that the only way he would support a Variance to exceed the allowable
square footage is with unit being treated as a BMR unit.
Director Sullivan stated that the existing structure would be used as a job site office during
construction so there is time to work out the details with the owner and develop any appropriate
Ordinances to accommodate the second unit.
Commissioner Roupe said again that he can't approve the secondary unit tonight without specifics but
would consider doing so at a later date.
Director Sullivan stated that Commissioner Roupe is correct.
Commissioner Zutshi asked if the second unit is planned for demolition.
Mr. Lyle Mosher said that all existing structures are scheduled for demolition with one being used
temporarily as an office during construction.
Commissioner Zutshi asked what the square footage is for this structure.
Mr. Lyle Mosher replied 850 square feet plus a garage.
Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Mosher if the adjacent neighbor on the left has been informed about
the potential to keep a second unit.
Mr. Lyle Mosher replied no.
Commissioner Garakani asked about a well house depicted on the plans.
Mr. Lyle Mosher advised that this well house covers up an abandoned well head that is capped off and
no longer in use but cannot be abandoned.
Commissioner Garakani asked if the existing wall separating this property from the adjacent property
would be replaced.
Mr. Lyle Mosher answered no but added that they plan to plant something such as creeping fig along
the wall in order to cover this wall. Said that they want the wall to look as natural as possible but that
there are no plans to replace it at this point.
Chair Barry expressed concern about only a three -car garage for a five bedroom house. Asked about
additional on -site parking.
Mr., Lyle Mosher advised that there is additional surface parking that is available for guests.
Chair Barry suggested that perhaps the garage near the potential rental unit might be retained.
Saratoga Planning Commiss. Minutes of July 25, 2001 Page 8
Mr. Lyle Mosher disagreed, advising that this garage is located under the canopy of the oak tree and
that it is a shame to park there rather than to leave the area completely open. Parking can occur at a
more discrete location.
Commissioner Roupe asked if there will be garage to house entry.
Mr. Lyle Mosher said that he would like to put a doorway there if possible.
Commissioner Roupe deferred this question to staff.
Director Sullivan agreed that a doorway between the home and garage is needed for safety.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:00 p.m.
Commissioner Garakani asked staff if the 16 -foot wide driveway is adequate.
Director Sullivan advised that the minimum standard is 14 feet.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
Planning Commission approved DR -01 -012 & BSE -01 -020 to allow the
construction of a 6,180 square foot two -story residence with a 80 square foot pool
house on property located at 14725 Sobey Road. (5 -0 -2; Commissioners Jackman
and Kurasch were absent)
Chair Barry advised that there is a 15 day appeal period before this action is final.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.3
DR -00 -060 & BSE -00 -056 (517 -22 -073) MASSIE, 15301 Peach Hill Road: Request to demolish an
existing 4,733 square foot single -story residence and construct a new two -story 5,997 square foot
residence plus a 3,620 square foot basement. Maximum height of the structure will be 26 feet. The
62,378 square foot parcel is located in a R -1- 40,000 zoning district. (LIVINGSTONE)
Mr. John F. Livingstone, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicant seeks approval to construct a new 5,200 square foot two -story residence
with a 3,600 square foot basement and 700 square foot three -car garage and the demolition of an
existing residence.
• Said that the proposal meets the five policies of the design guidelines. It is on the flat portion of
the site. It uses the existing drive and turnaround area to reduce the grading and disturbance to the
site. It will preserve the existing views of the neighboring properties. It will retain the existing
mature trees on site, which help to obstruct the house.
• Stated that the main entrance will face a large existing oak tree and landscaped area.
• Said that the three -car garage exceeds the two -car garage requirement and that there is ample on-
site parking on an existing paved area.
• Said that per the Arborist's report the garage was to have been moved to save an oak tree ( #36) but
the Arborist agreed to allow the applicants to move this tree. However, the applicants have
Saratoga Planning Commissi Minutes of July 25, 2001 Page 9
discovered that the cost of moving this tree is greater than the cost to replace the tree with five 24-
inch box trees. The Arborist has written an amendment to his tree report, supporting the removal
of tree #36 and its replacement with five 24 -inch box trees.
• Advised that staff is recommending approval.
• Clarified that Condition 14 requires that fire sprinklers be included throughout, including the
basement space.
Commissioner Roupe stated that the text within the executive summary needs to be modified to read
that the existing structure has been demolished rather than will be demolished.
Commissioner Hunter advised that tree #36 is a California buckeye rather than an oak.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:08 p.m.
Mr. Bob Flury, BF Design Group:
• Said that staff has done a great job describing this project and thanked them for their work.
• Advised that his clients, Mr. and Mrs. Massie have contacted the six adjacent neighbors and
received written responses of support from five.
• Provided a scaled model of the proposed home.
• Pointed out that the second story portion of this home does not stick out but rather is nestled in the
roof of the single story portion of the home. There is a three -car garage with a breezeway link that
is designed to accommodate a parked car.
• Said that the second floor is set back from the first floor to minimize the perception of bulk.
• Stated that he is available for any questions.
Chair Barry asked where the on -site parking is located.
Mr. Bob Flury said that the apron will accommodate three cars and that there will be no off -site
parking required.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:12 p.m.
Commissioner Hunter asked to see the color board.
Chair Barry:
• Stated her appreciation for the communication with the neighbors and the applicant's attention to
her parking concern.
• Encouraged the potential for low- income rental space in the basement.
Commissioner Garakani expressed his appreciation for the installation of story poles.
Chair Barry thanked the Mr. Flury for the model.
Commissioner Hunter asked if there is any Ordinance requirement to replace a native tree with another
native tree. Added that the buckeye is nearly extinct.
Saratoga Planning Commiss. _ylinutes of July 25, 2001 Page 10
Director Sullivan stated that a value for a removed tree is established and the replacements must be of
equal value. When possible a native indiginous tree is suggested.
Chair Barry reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:17 p.m.
Mr. Bob Flury advised that they are attempting to locate a new buckeye tree on the site but that they
have not yet found one. They will continue to attempt to find a buckeye tree.
Chair Barry reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:18 p.m.
Commissioner Barry stated that the Commissioners have requested the modification to the sprinkler
condition and the requirement that a buckeye tree be replanted on site if one can be located.
Commissioner Garakani said that he could see the neighbor's deck from this property and
recommended additional screening landscaping at the southwest corner of the property for the privacy
of the adjacent neighbor.
Commissioner Zutshi said that she has a hard time with old trees being removed.
Chair Barry asked if it was possible to redesign and retain the tree.
Chair Barry reopened Public Hearing No. 3 at 8:22 p.m.
Mr. Bob Flury said that the tree is not perceived as a specimen, Said that they did discuss redesigning
around the tree but were not able to do so. Assured that they will find a mature tree of comparable
size. Reminded that this is not a huge tree, only 14- inches in diameter.
Chair Barry reclosed Public Hearing No. 3 at 8:23 p.m.
Chair Barry stated that tree preservation is another issue for the City and Commission to consider
further in the future.
Motion: Upon motion of Chair Barry, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning
Commission approved DR -00 -060 & BSE -00 -056 to allow the construction of a
new 5,997 square foot, two -story residence plus a 3,620 square foot basement on
property located at 15301 Peach Hill Road, with the following modifications and /or
additions to the Conditions of Approval:
1. Modify the fire sprinkler requirements to include sprinklers in the basement;
2. Add a condition that one buckeye tree be planted if available;
3. Add additional privacy landscaping at the southwest corner of the lot.
(5 -0 -2; Commissioners Jackman and Kurasch were absent)
Chair Barry advised that there is a 15 day appeal period before this action is final.
DIRECTOR ITEMS
Saratoga Planning Commiss, vfinutes of July 25, 2001 Page 11
Director Tom Sullivan distributed copies of an article from Western Cities Magazine, which provides
information on the Permit Streamlining Act and current information on State law, as well as a copy of
the City's General Plan.
Commissioners' Upcoming Availability /Vacation Schedules
Chair Barry asked staff if there seems to be any problem achieving a quorum of the Commissioners for
the upcoming meetings. Said that she understood that Commissioner Kurasch has vacation plans in
August.
Commissioner Garakani stated that he too would be on vacation from August 21 to September, missing
the second meeting in August.
Update on Study Session
Director Sullivan advised that the Housing Element Study Session went well with about 15 to 20
people in attendance. Said that he is working with the consultant to implement the suggestions
received at this Study Session and that the Public Hearing process must start in August in order to meet
the State mandated deadlines.
Commissioner Roupe asked that as much advertising as possible occur to notify the public of these
important hearings.
Director Sullivan said that he would do everything possible to advertise the Public Hearings.
Chair Barry thanked Director Sullivan for his work and efforts.
Commissioner Hunter thanked staff for bringing forward three projects this evening that were done
well and allowed the Commission to approve them quickly.
COMMISSION ITEMS
There were no commission items.
COMMUNICATIONS
The Council minutes from the Regular Meeting of June 6, 2001 and Special Meeting of July 10, 2001,
were distributed in the Commissioners' packets.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Chair Barry adjourned the meeting at 8:29 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, August
8, 2001, to begin at 7 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk
P,
April 11, 2001 Planning
Commission Meeting
Was Cancelled due to
Lack of quorum
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, March 28, 2001
PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Chair Page called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Barry, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Chair Page
Absent: Commissioners Bernald and Patrick
Staff: Interim Director Irwin Kaplan, City Attorney Richard Taylor and
Planners Mark Connolly, Philip Block and Allison Knapp
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of March 14, 2001.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the
Regular Planning Commission minutes of March 14, 2001, were approved with
the following amendments:
• Page 2 —...and Use Permit approval to allow....
• Page 6 — Asked that either the City of or Builder...
• Page 7 — ...feet of retail space .
(5 -0 -2; Commissioners Bernald and Patrick were absent.)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no oral communications.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for
this meeting was properly posted on March 23, 2001.
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, provided the following technical corrections to the packet:
• Advised that Agenda Item 2 has two minor corrections. The date for the Arborist's report should
be 11/20/00 and the FAR numbers should be 3,917 for the first floor and 2,449 for the second
floor.
• Added that the Director's Item on this evenings agenda will be stricken as it was withdrawn.
Saratoga Planning Commissic Iinutes of March 28, 2001 Page 2
CONSENT CALENDAR
There are no Consent Calendar Items.
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1
DR -00 -011, SD -00 -001, V -00 -018 and V -01 -004 (517 -08 -008 & 016) — TRAFALGAR, INC., 14612
Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street: Request for Design Review, Vesting Tentative
Subdivision Map and Variance(s) approval to allow the subdivision of a 22,582 net square foot site for
townhouses and a retail commercial space. The rear yard setback variance has been requested for a
building on the CH -2 portion of the site. The Big Basin Way portion of the site is zoned CH -2 and the
St. Charles Street portion is zoned R -M -3000. This applicant has prepared an alternative for
Commission consideration, as well as a modification of the original request to reflect concerns raised
at a previous Public Hearing. Four existing residences with garages totaling 5,95 square feet and 1,000
square feet of retail space that includes a second -story flat would be demolished.
Mr. Philip Block, Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that this project was continued from the January 24, 2001, Planning Commission meeting.
Additionally a Study Session was held on February 14, 2001.
• The project was originally to include Design Review, Tentative Subdivision Map and a Variance.
The current request is for a Design Review, Tentative Subdivision Map and two Variances.
• Based upon the feedback from the Commission, the applicant has made changes to the project
including a reduction in the number of townhouse units on the St. Charles parcel. Originally there
were to be three attached units and the proposal now incorporates two detached units with private
driveways for each unit, making them more compatible with the existing single - family residences
on that street.
• The applicant also proposed a compromise by having the unit above the Big Basin retail space
constructed for office use with the caveat that it could be reevaluated after five years and perhaps
modified to residential uses. At that time, it will be clear whether office use is viable in this
location and whether available parking has increased within the Village.
Commissioner Barry asked for clarification about the access easement and whether this project is
adding substantial additional use of this easement.
Mr. Philip Block replied that the project is compatible with the easement. Added that the St. Charles
units will be accessed by its own property and not through use of an easement.
Commissioner Jackman pointed out a letter expressing concern about having a second driveway
coming off of St. Charles Street.
Commissioner Barry questioned the findings in the staff report for the rear yard variance.
Commissioner Kurasch asked what advantages and/or disadvantages exist with this five -year office use
agreement with the potential to convert to residential use. Also wondered what the impact would be on
the construction of that space.
Saratoga Planning Commissk Minutes of March 28, 2001 _ Page 3
Mr. Philip Block agreed that this is not an ideal situation. Said that it is complicated to approve a
project on a temporary basis. Advised that the Commission has to determine whether this proposal is
indeed in the best interest of the community. Added that establishing a mechanism to evaluate the use
is hard to determine.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the tabulation headings on page four of the staff report are
neither clear nor appropriate in this circumstance. Asked whether an elevator is required for the
proposed office space, as one is not depicted on the plans.
Interim Director Irwin Kaplan advised the Commission that this project is too small to be required to
meet the ADA requirements.
Chair Page opened the Public Hearing No. 1 at 8:05 p.m.
Mr. Stan Gamble, Applicant:
• Pointed out that a consensus had been reached to save the oak tree and that the townhouse units on
St. Charles were reduced from three attached to two detached units. The two units will each have
their own driveway access from St. Charles, which will provide space for visitors to park off street.
• Said that their proposal has kept as much viable commercial space as possible.
• Reminded that the zoning allows a residential flat above the retail space.
• Said that they have provided the necessary parking for the residential units and 6.5 spaces for the
retail use.
• Expressed his opinion that the viable retail uses in the Village end at 5th Street.
• Said that his compromise is to construct the office space above the retail with the potential to revert
to residential after five years in case the office use is not successful. This proposal allows the City
the opportunity to determine long -term plans for parking for the Village.
• Advised that they did a parking study and determined that there is enough on- street parking
available during the day to justify the parking variance.
Commissioner Roupe asked whether an elevator was planned in the retail/office building on Big Basin
Way.
Mr. Stan Gamble replied that he had checked with Building staff and was advised that since the space
is less than 3,000 square feet, he is exempt from the requirement to install an elevator.
Commissioner Jackman advised Mr. Gamble that there are no guarantees that uses demolished from a
site can automatically be replaced in like numbers but rather at the discretion of the Commission.
Commissioner Roupe asked about the impervious coverage calculations that he reads as being 71
percent on Lot A and 52 percent on Lot B.
Mr. Stan Gamble said that staff advised him that there are no maximum impervious coverage
limitations for these zoning designations.
Mr. Philip Block, Planner, clarified that for residential properties there is a maximum standard for
impervious coverage but not in Commercial. The structure footprint faces limitations but not the
overall use of impervious coverage on the property.
Saratoga Planning CommissiL linutes of March 28, 2001 Page 4
Commissioner Kurasch again asked what advantages there are with the proposed temporary office use
of the space above the Big Basin Way retail for a five -year period. Questioned the impact if this
project were to be sold to another owner.
Mr. Stan Gamble replied that whoever owns the property will be required to comply with whatever is
approved by the Commission.
Commissioner Kurasch reminded that at the Study Session, the Commissioners had proposed that
perhaps smaller units should be considered. Asked if the units above the retail space could be used for
affordable units.
Mr. Stan Gamble replied that the number of units on St. Charles could be expanded but those units
would be too small to be viable. The smaller units would not contain all the desired features of today's
homebuyer. Added that he was not interested in design something he had no interest in building and
that he was not willing to construct BMR (below market rate) units.
Commissioner Barry expressed concern that the size of these units suggests family use while no viable
safe play area is being provided on site for children to use. Asked why such play space is not provided
and whether it might make more sense to design units for adult use rather than family use.
Mr. Stan Gamble replied that these units are being designed more for empty nesters, who typically
would use three bedrooms as a master suite, guestroom and office /den.
Commissioner Jackman mentioned a conference she recently attended where housing needs were
discussed as well as the fact that the Council discussed its Housing Element the night before. Said that
teachers currently have difficulty in finding adequate housing. Suggested that the applicant consider
building one bedroom/one bathroom units.
Mr. Stan Gamble informed Commissioner Jackman that to do so would require the City to rezone the
property to accommodate more units. The parking requirement kills that idea.
Interim Director Irwin Kaplan agreed that a zone change would be required.
Commissioner Kurasch advised that State Code allows 25 percent over zoned density to accommodate
affordable units.
Mr. Paul Hernandez, 13020 La Vista Drive, Saratoga:
• Questioned the changes from the original plan that place buildings closer to the heritage oak tree on
his property that they are intent on protecting.
• Wondered why there are no site poles to show the impacts on the viewsheds.
Ms. Lea Ann Hernandez, 14626 Big Basin Way, Saratoga:
• Said that this is a great proposal and that there are places nearby where children can play.
• Reiterated the importance in preserving the heritage oak tree.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Ms. Hernandez to specify which tree.
Saratoga Planning Commissik dinutes of March 28, 2001 Page 5
Ms. Lea Ann Hernandez replied the large heritage oak on their property, which has been designated as
a prime specimen tree.
Ms. Marilyn Marchetti, 20701 St. Charles Street, Saratoga:
• Expressed agreement with the theory that viable retail uses stop at 5th Street and that this portion of
Big Basin may not be a good location for retail businesses.
• Said that she does not support the placement of BMR units on this street as it has the potential to
drive down their property values.
• Advised that she liked the redesign of the townhouse units so that they appear as single - family
homes.
• Asked that a strong landscaping plan be developed for the St. Charles frontage.
Commissioner Jackman disagreed with Ms. Marchetti that BMR units drive down property values.
Explained that the people who would qualify for these BMR units earn upwards of $120,000 per year
and still cannot afford to buy a market price home. Reminded of the concern for teachers in the area
who cannot find housing.
Ms. Betty Feldheym, 20184 Franklin Avenue, Saratoga:
• Said that she felt the original plan was fine with residential use above the retail on Big Basin.
• Agreed that housing shortages are a crisis in this community and throughout the region.
Commissioner Roupe advised that there is no potential for greater tax revenue in office over residential
uses. Retail use brings sales tax revenue but there is no financial incentive for office use.
Interim Director Irwin Kaplan agreed that there is no sales tax revenue for a city with office use.
Commissioner Barry clarified that the point in maintaining office /retail space in the Village is not tax
revenue but rather to encourage the viability of existing commercial uses in the Village. Said that it is
too narrow a view just to look at retail space. Office uses helps to build vitality.
Ms. Betty Feldheym again stated that housing is more necessary than office space.
Commissioner Kurasch wondered if keeping office space above the retail would retain the commercial
designation of the space where residential use would not.
Interim Director Irwin Kaplan replied that neither use would impact the existing zoning designation.
Mr. Bill Ward, 20713 St. Charles Street, Saratoga:
• Advised that he is representing his Homeowners Association, which had submitted a letter
addressing their issues.
• Said that they agree than no viable retail occurs beyond 5th Street. Said that he did not want to
encourage additional retail as it increases the need for parking in the area.
Mr. Srini Srinivasan, 14598 Big Basin Way, Saratoga:
• Stated that it is a challenging task for Mr. Gamble to design this project.
• Disagreed with the comments that commercial use is not viable beyond 5 th Street.
Saratoga Planning Commissi Minutes of March 28, 2001 Page 6
• Added that it takes time to build commercial uses and he purchased his property, adjacent to this
project site, six months ago.
• Advised that he has opened a yoga business and will open an art gallery in the near future.
• Said that it is his intention to develop this section of Big Basin Way.
• Added that the current homes on this subject property are much smaller than those proposed to
replace them.
Mr. Russ Gamble:
• Assured that they plan to work with the Arborist to take every step necessary to protect the heritage
oak tree on the motel property during construction. If necessary, they will even eliminate the
basement in Unit 2 if it compromises that tree in any way.
• Said that his development will offer an improvement to the site and the impervious coverage is
similar to Mr. Srinivasan's property.
• Added that he would be delighted to add landscaping along St. Charles per Ms. Marchetti's
request.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the
Commission closed Public Hearing No. 1 at 8:44 p.m. (5 -0 -2; Commissioners
Bernald and Patrick were absent.)
Commissioner Kurasch asked City Attorney Richard Taylor to clarify the advantages or disadvantages
to the temporary office use of the space above retail on Big Basin Way and what mechanism would be
used to evaluate this use after five years.
Mr. Richard Taylor, City Attorney:
• Advised that the mechanism is the inclusion of a Condition of Approval limiting the use of that
space for five years to office uses.
• Should the use not be compliant, the remedy for the City would be a Code Enforcement action.
• Added that any future owners will be subject to that Condition of Approval.
Commissioner Barry suggested that perhaps five years might not be sufficient time for the City to
develop a Parking District for the Village. Wondered if ten years might not be more appropriate.
Asked if it is viable that the City has new parking constructed in five years time.
Mr. Richard Taylor replied that it was feasible that the parking could be available within five years
time. Suggested that language could be added to the Condition of Approval that accepts the approval
of a parking structure even if the structure is not yet completed by 2006.
Commissioner Kurasch stated that the five -year deadline was the suggestion of the applicant and not
the Commission.
Mr. Richard Taylor stated that if by January 2006, there is no Parking District, the applicant would no
longer be limited to office uses above the retail space on Big Basin Way. Advised that the parking
variance will be in effect for 10 years. Added that the applicant always has the option to approach the
City to request a modification to this Condition of Approval.
Chair Page sought clarification that the proposed uses are legal and allowable.
Saratoga Planning Commissie /linutes of March 28, 2001 Page 7
Mr. Richard Taylor replied yes. Added that it is the job of the Commission to flesh out the Code and
determine reasonable versus unreasonable uses.
Commissioner Kurasch clarified that permitted uses still require review and approval.
Mr. Richard Taylor agreed that the Commission does determine allowable uses.
Commissioner Roupe said that he could support either proposal for office or residential use above the
Big Basin retail space. Added that his preference is for residential use of that space. Said that the
reduction on St. Charles from three to two units with individual driveways was a good move.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Said that she was not in favor of the temporary approval for the use above the Big Basin retail
space. Said that this is a cumbersome condition to apply and that no advantage has been provided
nor a need for this condition.
• Added that she prefers to see the total frontage along Big Basin Way as retail.
• Expressed that since parking in the Village is already deficient by 250 spaces, the parking
Variance would have a comparative small impact. The solution is not to decrease retail space but
rather to increase available parking as recommended in the Village Plan, No. 11, Page 17, of the
General Plan.
• Stated that this is an historic area and the existing architectural style should be embraced. Added
that visual simplicity is the intent here and this proposed design is not compatible with the design
plan for the Village. Added that the Village Plan calls for commercial purposes as much as
possible as well as pedestrian access.
Commissioner Jackman said that she could support the townhouses on St. Charles. Added that the
windows on the retail space along Big Basin Way need to be larger to accommodate merchandise
displays. Said that the 3 foot, 5 inch proposed setback between the St. Charles residential units and the
Big Basin retail building is inadequate when a 30 -foot setback is the standard requirement to separate
residential uses from commercial uses.
Commissioner Barry:
• Said that there are a lot of competing interests here. While the developer has the right to maximize
the use and development of his property, the City has the role of maximizing the viability of the
Village as well as the goals of the City's Housing Element.
• Suggested adding a Condition of Approval to require the front landscaping on St. Charles Street.
• Said that she is assuming that the Fire Department supports the entry and exit access provided in
this project.
• Said that while she can support the findings to allow a parking variance, she cannot support the
findings for the reduced setback variance. There is no hardship to the applicant to merit such a
reduced setback and that there is actually a safety issue in approving such a reduced setback.
• Added that she did not believe that the 3 bedroom/2 bath units were the best design for this
property as there is no place to play except the parking area. Rather, smaller units would be
preferable.
• 'Said that retail /office on the Big Basin Way property is the first choice.
Chair Page:
Saratoga Planning Commissk ✓linutes of March 28, 2001 _ Page 8
• Expressed his agreement with the comments made by Commissioner Roupe.
• Said that the St. Charles portion was nicely redesigned. While he would have preferred more units,
he supports the efforts to protect the heritage tree.
• Added his support for the setback and parking variances.
• Said that he would support either office or residential use of the upper floor on Big Basin Way.
• Agreed that the five -year temporary use plan is a good compromise.
• Stated his support of the EIR.
Commissioner Kurasch asked for further clarification as to what would have to be accomplished within
five years to either keep office use or allow the conversion to residential use.
Mr. Richard Taylor replied that in 2006, the City would have to re- evaluate the parking in the Village
to see if it is sufficient to support this use. This offers the greatest flexibility and is the easiest way for
the City to exercise its policy.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Chair Page, the Commission
considered approval of the EIR as well as the entire proposed project (Design
Review, Tentative Subdivision and two Variances for parking and reduced
setback) including two residential structures on St. Charles Street; retail use on
Big Basin Way with commercial above, to be re- evaluated in five years; an added
Condition of Approval to require landscaping in front of the two residential units
on St. Charles; and working with an on -site Arborist to ensure the protection of
the heritage oak tree during construction. (2 -3 -2; Commissioners Barry, Jackman
and Kurasch voted against and Commissioners Bernald and Patrick were absent.)
This motion failed.
Commissioner Jackman requested a short break.
Chair Page called a break at 9:25 p.m.
Chair Page reconvened the meeting at 9:31 p.m.
Commissioner Barry stated that she supports the parking variance but not the setback variance.
Motion: Upon motion of Chair Page, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Commission
approved V -01 -004 to allow a decrease in parking required for this project. (5 -0 -2;
Commissioners Bernald and Patrick were absent.)
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Chair Page, the Commission
denied V -00 -018 to allow a reduced setback between the Big Basin Way and St.
Charles Street properties. (2 -3 -2; Commissioners Barry, Jackman and Kurasch
voted against and Commissioners Bernald and Patrick were absent.)
Chair Page asked Mr. Gamble if he would be willing to redesign.
Mr. Stan Gamble asked the Commission to take its vote on the project this evening and he would
appeal to Council.
Saratoga Planning Commissi., ✓Iinutes of March 28, 2001 Page 9
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the
Commission denied SD -00 -001. (3 -2 -2; Chair Page and Commissioner Roupe
voted against and Commissioners Bernald and Patrick were absent.)
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the
Commission denied DR -00 -011 without prejudice. (3 -2 -2; Chair Page and
Commissioner Roupe voted against and Commissioners Bernald and Patrick were
absent.)
Chair Page advised that this decision could be appealed to Council within 15 days.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO. 2
DR -00 -054 & V -01 -002 (517 -14 -087) — MARTIN /ROSE, Kittridge Road: Request for Design
Review approval to construct a new 7,340 square foot two -story residence on a 346,173 square foot
vacant parcel. The Variance is necessary for retaining walls to exceed five feet in height and possibly
separated by less than 10 feet for parallel walls. The Variance is also necessary to exceed 15,000
square feet of impervious surface due to a long driveway. Maximum height of the structure is 26 feet
tall, located within a Hillside Residential zoning district.
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that this request is for a 7,340 square foot, two -story residence with a maximum height of
26 feet.
• Added that a Variance is required for retaining walls more than five feet in height up to 10 feet.
Additionally, a Variance is required to exceed 15,000 square feet of impervious coverage due to
the need for a long driveway to access the site.
• The property is zoned Hillside Residential.
• Advised that this lot is built on fill and the City's geologist has issued clearance. The Engineering
Department will work with the applicant to address drainage, runoff and any potential damage to
the private road.
• Said that three letters were included in the staff report as well as the minutes from the March 14th
Planning Commission meeting.
• Said that the garage was relocated off a hill.
• Staff is supportive of this proposal.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the fencing regulations mentioned on page 9 of the staff report
are standard rather than Hillside District requirements.
Mr. Mark Connolly agreed that this is in error and will be corrected to reflect the regulations from the
Hillside District zoning ordinance.
Commissioner Kurasch asked for the grading difference between the original location of the garage to
the current location.
Saratoga Planning Commissi. _✓Iinutes of March 28, 2001 Page 10
Mr. Mark Connolly replied that the original placement was at a 45- degree slope and the current
placement is between 15 to 20 feet lower down the hill.
Commissioner Kurasch asked about the amount of cut and fill.
Mr. Mark Connolly replied that the cut and fill amounts zero out. Clarifying, he advised that 1,200
cubic yards will be cut and 1,200 cubic yards will be fill.
Commissioner Barry expressed concern that the geology and hydrology reports were not provided to
the Commission. Said she was not sure how the Commission could consider approval without those
documents.
Mr. Mark Connolly advised that this is a Design Review process. Staff felt that it was better to address
the geology/hydrology issues after approval. For example, the Public Works Department will evaluate
whether any damage to the roadway has occurred as a result of construction.
Interim Director Irwin Kaplan stated that it was a very reasonable request for the Commissioners to
want to see the reports. Added that they are very technical reports but could be made available.
Commissioner Jackman said that she would like to hear a report from the applicant's geologist.
Commissioner Kurasch asked what advantage there would be to have the Commission review these
reports.
Interim Director Irwin Kaplan replied that providing the reports would be a courtesy to the
Commission and make the Commissioners more comfortable in making its decision. Said that these
are technical but not concealed documents.
Commissioner Kurasch asked why these issues should not be considered now rather than later.
Mr. Mark Connolly said because it is not clear which concerns will actually occur until the project is
completed. This includes whether there is any road damage from construction or inadequate drainage.
Commissioner Roupe clarified that it is not a requirement to have the actual geotechnical report.
Interim Director Irwin Kaplan said that staff has no problem providing this report upon request.
Commissioner Barry said that, based on a Planners' Conference, her understanding of the Planning
Commission's mandate is that some sort of summary needs to be provided.
Interim Director Irwin Kaplan said that the information on the staff report could be expanded to
provide more information.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Commissioner Barry if she is recommending a continuance.
Commissioner Barry replied that she is not sure at this point.
Chair Page asked staff to point out where the 10 foot retaining wall would be located.
Saratoga Planning Commissio. inutes of March 28, 2001 Page 11
Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the highest retaining wall is 14 feet located near the garage. The walls
would be 3 to 5 feet tall on the downhill side. The walls will be concrete masonry.
Chair Page opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 9:57 p.m.
Ms. Heather Rose, Applicant, 604 Wellsbury Court, Palo Alto:
• Advised that her technical team is present and available, including her Landscape Architect, Civil
Engineer and Architect.
Mr. Chris Kankel, Landscape Architect:
• Discussed tree issues and the need to re- stablize the project site with the use of native plants and
consistent with the drainage plans.
Mr. Mark Helton, Civil Engineer:
• Advised that they have worked extensively with staff and have met the retaining wall standards of
the City.
• Said that they designed the roadway to include all utilities of the project.
• The grading and drainage plans are in accord with the City's and County's standards.
• Dissipaters will be placed in several locations and an existing culvert will be replaced with an
engineered one.
Mr. Larry Kahle, Architect:
• Discussed three topics, the house /its location, impervious coverage and privacy impacts.
• Advised that the home is a Craftsman style.
• The home has been moved into the site with minimum massing and/or privacy impacts on
surrounding properties.
• Added that this home will nearly be impossible to see from off the property. Only the northwest
end of the home will be visible. The proposed trees will screen the site in that location and
windows are oriented in other directions.
• Said that while the impervious coverage totals 17,573 square feet, it represents less than 5 percent
of the total site area.
Commissioner Barry asked the applicant to consider gas fireplaces instead of the one allowed wood
burning.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Helton what the slope is near the proposed garage.
Mr. Mark Helton replied that the slope is 40 to 50 percent in that area. Added that most of the trees are
not native and were planted within the last 20 to 25 years. They want to go back to more native trees
on site.
Commissioner Kurasch asked where the replacement trees would be placed.
Ms. Heather Rose:
• Explained that the pad was cut into this property about 50 years ago and trees planted to stabilize
the hillside.
Saratoga Planning Commissic, /linutes of March 28, 2001 Page 12
• According to Barrie Coates, those trees are both a fire hazard and a hazard to native species. Mr.
Coates deemed these trees as having no value and therefore no requirement to replace them.
Commissioner Kurasch asked how the site would be stabilized.
Mr. Chris Kankel advised that they would create a matrix, using native plants, and return the area to
green.
Commissioner Barry asked for a summary of the geotechnical issues of this property.
Mr. Glen Romick, Geotechnical Engineer:
• Said that the site has steep slopes with shallow soil cover and Franciscan bedrock.
• Fifty years ago a pad was cut into the hillside, with an 8 to 10 foot cut and 6 to 8 feet of fill, which
was not properly engineered. The road was cut into the hillside.
• The retaining walls are necessary for the driveway and will have pier supported walls to retain fill
and avoid washing out the road. The area is prone to shallow landslides.
• The slopes are steep 1.4 to 1.6 to 1. There is the potential for small slides. The key to minimizing
the impacts is rooted in the drainage to areas not susceptible to landslide.
Commissioner Barry asked how difficult this site is technically.
Mr. Glen Romick replied that the driveway is 600 to 800 feet long but it is a straightforward project.
There is a fair amount of linear feet to address.
Commissioner Barry stated that dissipating runoff water is a concern to the neighbors.
Mr. Glen Romick said that a prominent swale is the main problem. In the past, the driveway was not
properly engineered and there is evidence of recent failure.
Commissioner Jackman asked about the northwest retaining wall.
Mr. Glen Romick advised that the 3 to 5 -foot high retaining walls are a very good solution.
Commissioner Jackman asked if there are holes in the retaining wall to allow water to drain.
Mr. Glen Romick answered that there is a drain behind the wall to carry water.
Commissioner Kurasch asked what is planned to handle the runoff from the new roadway surface.
Mr. Glen Romick said that the majority of water is directed to the gully or to dissipaters.
Mr. Mark Helton:
• Advised that they are not increasing the flow by more than a few percent.
• Added that they are trying to redirect runoff to the gully.
• Said that the water will be dissipated more than it was previously.
Commissioner Roupe stated that the driveway is a steep road and that water flow might end up on
Kittridge.
Saratoga Planning Commissik Qinutes of March 28, 2001 Page 13
Mr. Mark Helton:
• Informed that the water will be intercepted before it gets to Kittridge and redirected back to the
gully and dissipater.
Mr. Bob Samsel, 15300 Kittridge Road, Saratoga:
• Said that his property is directly downslope and he has owned it for 9 years.
• Advised that in 1998, 54 inches of rain fell between January and March.
• Stated that he had to hire contractors to dig them out of his driveway at that time.
• Said that he would like to see a solution to control drainage to the gully.
• Added that water should not be directed to the small gully but rather to the larger gully to the west
of the site.
• Suggested that the access from the site to Kittridge be paved prior to construction to keep mud off
of the Kittridge.
Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Samsel if he feels there will be any more water with this project than
before.
Mr. Bob Samsel replied that the dissipaters would be directing water to the gully, which currently is
being directed to the road.
Mr. Mark Helton advised that it is common practice to maintain historic drainage patterns.
Commissioner Roupe asked if Mr. Helton had problems directing the water to the west gully.
Mr. Mark Helton answered that redirecting water can create new problems. Added that this project
may create a bit more water runoff volume but not by much.
Commissioner Barry asked for clarification about historic drainage.
Mr. Mark Helton explained that it is generally accepted engineering practice not to redirect.
Ms. Heather Rose assured the Commission that she is prepared to consult with technical staff and
neighbors to come up with a solution that meets all needs. Added that there are legal remedies for her
neighbors if landslides were to occur as a result of improper development of her property.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if substandard conditions and historic drainage patterns occurred what
can be done to correct those problems.
Ms. Heather Glen stated that she is personally very concerned about the potential for landslide and
wants to get the project underway before another winter occurs without any improvements to the site.
Commissioner Jackman said that this is a regional problem requiring a regional solution with the
neighbor(s) participating in the plan and cost.
Chair Page said that the staff, geologist and all impacted neighbors will need to work together.
Commissioner Kurasch said that more specific direction should be provided.
Saratoga Planning Commissic. Qinutes of March 28, 2001 Page 14
Chair Page disagreed and said it was appropriate for the Commission to move forward with the Design
Review.
Commissioner Barry asked if a continuance might not be warranted.
Chair Page said the Commission could approve or deny the Design Review application or continue
consideration (an option he does not personally recommend). Suggested they move forward.
Commissioner Roupe agreed that the Commission should go forward with the Design Review and
Variance applications.
Commissioner Barry asked Ms. Rose if she is committed to dealing with any increase in the volume of
water.
Ms. Heather Rose said that they are taking water to the gully. There is a slight increase in water
because of the hardscape. Said that she does not want an unhappy neighbor or any liability issues.
Said that she intends to be a good neighbor and work out all concerns regarding drainage, road
maintenance, sanitation, water and any other matters.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the
Commission closed Public Hearing No. 2 at 10:50 p.m. (5 -0 -2; Commissioners
Bernald and Patrick were absent.)
Commissioner Kurasch stated that the impacts from such a development should easily be mitigated
through Conditions of Approval. Said that she would be more comfortable with some sort of
agreement. Said that this is rather large a project for the hillside, cutting into the hill ambitiously.
Said that she would like to see a smaller house on this property.
Commissioner Jackman reiterated that the neighbors need to work together to resolve this regional
problem of water drainage. Said that while this may be an ambitious project, it could be good.
Complimented the Landscape Architect on his matrix plan.
Commissioner Barry said that she is not comfortable crafting Conditions at this meeting. Said that the
applicant will bear the responsibility for the flow of water off of this property. Added that she supports
the efforts of this new owner to work with her neighbors and that Ms. Rose is approaching a complex
project very appropriately. The existing Conditions offer as much protection as can be expected at this
time. Stated her pleasure with the Landscape Architect's grid idea. Said that the Condition for fencing
needs to be modified to reflect Hillside fencing requirements rather than standard fencing
requirements. Said that this is an ambitious but acceptable project.
Commissioner Roupe concurred.
Chair Page also concurred and said that he could support the variance for the height of the retaining
walls necessary for this project.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
Commission approved DR -00 -054 with the corrected reference to Hillside fencing
Saratoga Planning Commissic,_ Qinutes of March 28, 2001 _ Page 15
standards. (4 -1 -2; Commissioner Kurasch voted against and Commissioners
Bernald and Patrick were absent.)
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
Commission approved V -01 -002 to allow retaining walls exceeding five feet in
height and impervious coverage in excess of 15,000 square feet. (4 -1 -2;
Commissioner Kurasch voted against and Commissioners Bernald and Patrick
were absent.)
Chair Page advised that this approval is final in 15 days.
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO.3
DR -01 -003 (517 -12 -020) — BEAN, 20500 Lomita Avenue: Request for Design Review approval to
demolish an existing 4,559 square foot single - family residence and construct a new 5,220 square foot
single -story residence. Maximum height of the structure will be 26 feet. The 39,673 square foot
parcel is located in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district.
Ms. Allison Knapp, Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that this request is for the demolition of an existing residence and the construction of a
5,220 square foot new residence. The maximum height will be 26 feet and there is no basement
proposed. Five trees will be removed (four were rated to be in poor condition). Replacement will
be with 48 -inch box trees.
• Informed that no correspondence was received regarding this project.
• Staff is recommending approval.
• Advised that within the staff report the project number is incorrectly typed as DR -00 -001. The
correct file number is DR -00 -003.
Chair Page opened Public Hearing No. 3 at 11:02 p.m.
Mr. William Dean, 21388 Saratoga Hills Drive, Saratoga:
• Said that he was available for any questions.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the
Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 was closed at 11:05 p.m. (5 -0 -2;
Commissioners Bernald and Patrick were absent.)
Commissioner Jackman said that she has no problems with this proposal and likes the project.
Commissioners Barry and Roupe concurred.
Commissioner Kurasch stated that the height is rather tall at 26 feet for a single -story project.
Chair Page said that this is a well - designed project and he will support it.
Saratoga Planning Commissi,- Ainutes of March 28, 2001 _ Page 16
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
Commission approved DR -00 -003. (5 -0 -2; Commissioners Bernald and Patrick
were absent.)
Chair Page advised that there is a 15 -day appeal period.
DIRECTOR ITEMS
There were no Director Items.
COMMISSION ITEMS
• DR -00 -050; 14499 Oak Street — Modification of Approval:
Mr. Mark Connolly advised that a modification of a previously approved project seeks to bump out the
master bedroom and bath suite to take over an existing balcony space. Any project that adds more than
25 square feet are returned to the Commission for review.
Chair Page asked whether the neighbors were notified.
Mr. Mark Connolly replied yes.
Commissioner Barry stated she had no problem with this modification.
Commissioner Roupe said that there is no detrimental effect and he has no difficulty supporting the
modification.
Commissioner Kurasch said that as long as the materials are compatible she is supportive.
Chair Page said that as long as there are no privacy impacts. The fact that neighbors raised no issues
seems to support this modification.
• DR -00 -021; 21116 Comer Drive —Review of Landscape Plan:
Mr. Mark Connolly pointed out Mr. Torre's letter, which was distributed this evening to the
Commission.
Commissioner Roupe said that he is pleased to see that the applicant and neighbor got together to
develop a solution. The end result is satisfactory. Commended the idea of soliciting broader
neighborhood participation.
Commissioner Kurasch agreed that doing so is important since it is not just this neighbor that is
impacted by this project.
Commissioner Jackman said that this is going to be a good landscape plan.
Saratoga Planning Commissio- ,finutes of March 28, 2001 Page 17
Commissioner Barry commended Commissioner Roupe for his participation in the neighborhood
meeting. Expressed her problem with planting pine trees, calling them "incendiary" trees. Pointed
out that the Hillside Design Handbook calls for the retention of existing vegetation, plans for erosion
control and grading. Asked what is the R -0 -S zoning designation.
Mr. Mark Connolly replied Residential Open Space, this designation does not apply to this site.
Commissioner Roupe suggested speaking with the applicant regarding the use of pine trees.
Mr. Bob Owen, 445 S. San Antonio Road, Los Altos:
• Explained that the neighbors want pine trees.
• Added that there is a fire hydrant close by in case of fire.
Ms. Sara Small, Landscape Architect, 60 E. Third Street, Sacramento:
• Said that use of pine trees is a logical choice due to their growth rate, form and screening
capabilities.
• Added that potential for fire is not as much a concern with the irrigation plan on this site.
• Said that a hardwood oak is a possible alternative to pine trees. This site will utilize largely native
or native compatible trees. They will take measures to keep fire danger down.
• Another alternate tree species might be red oaks. However, this tree is deciduous rather than
evergreen and would not provide screening during the winter months.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Ms. Small her opinion on the use of cedar trees.
Ms. Sara Small replied that pine trees are listed on the CalTrans list of trees because it is broader,
lower and spreading type of tree. This is a tough tree.
Commissioner Jackman added that these trees will not be place near any structure anyway and the
pines should be allowed.
Chair Page said that this landscape plan is fine.
Commissioner Barry said that she couldn't support the planting of "fuel for fire" since the Oakland
Hills fire. This is not the only potential tree available.
Chair Page suggested leaving the final determination to staff.
Interim Director Irwin Kaplan said that this plan was found acceptable and agreed to by the neighbors.
Mr. Bob Owen said he could pursue changing the pine trees for another species with the neighbors.
• Monthly Stipend for Planning Commissioners:
Chair Page advised the Commission that effective on May 1, 2001, the Planning Commissioners will
begin receiving a monthly stipend of $150. Added that he personally would recommend that the
Commissioners consider donating their stipend to worthy organizations such as the Senior Center.
Saratoga Planning Commissio. Jinutes of March 28, 2001 Page 18
• Farewells from Chair Page
Chair Page reminded the Commission that this is his final meeting. The Commission will be electing a
new Chair and Vice Char at its April 10th meeting. Expressed his thanks to the Commission for the
opportunity to serve as Chair. Stated that it has been an honor and privilege to serve on the
Commission and as its Chair.
Commissioner Barry expressed her thanks to Chair Page.
Commissioner Jackman expressed her appreciation for Chair Page's leadership.
• Distribution of Draft Housing Needs Assessment Report
Interim Director Irwin Kaplan distributed the Draft Housing Needs Assessment Report to the
Commission along with a copy of a letter to Council on the report.
• Creating Sustainable Communities
Commissioner Kurasch announced a seminar to be held in Palo Alto.
COMMUNICATIONS
• Written: Saratoga City Council Minutes from Adjourned Meeting of February 21, 2001.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Chair Page adjourned the meeting at 11:35 p.m. to Wednesday, April 10, 2001, at the Council
Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn
Minutes Clerk
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, March 14, 2001
PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Chair Page called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Barry, Bernald, Jackman, Kurasch, Patrick and Acting Chair Roupe
Absent: Chair Page
Staff: Interim Director Irwin Kaplan and Planner Mark Connolly
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of February 28, 2001.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Bernald,
the Regular Planning Commission minutes of February 25, 2001, were
approved with the following amendments:
• Page 5 — Questioned the reasoning for Condition of Approval 30A as it
pertains to street addressing addresses being placed in view....
• Page 9 — Modifications and/or additions to the Conditions of Approval for SD-
00 -006 included as part of the motion for approval:
• Require additional landscaping to the satisfaction of staff, including
landscaping in the rear yard; and
• That the last paragraph in the Harvey Report should be directly quoted
in the Conditions of Approval.
• Page 11 —Upon motion of Commissioner mil} Barry ...
• Page 16 — Suggested deepening the garage instead. However, if they
enlarged the garage, the house would be above the allowable FAR. Said
that necessary storage...
• Page 18 — Commissioner Bernald reported on the osp sible improper
removal of a eucalyptus tree.
(5- 0 -1 -1; Commissioner Jackman abstained as she was absent from this
meeting and Chair Page was absent.)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no oral communications.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for
this meeting was properly posted on March 9, 2001.
Saratoga Planning Commissi Minutes of March 14, 2001 Page 2
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET
Interim Director Irwin Kaplan, provided the following technical corrections to the packet:
• Advised that Agenda Items 2 and 3 will be continued to the March 28, 2001, Planning Commission
Meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
There are no Consent Calendar Items.
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1
DR -00 -036 (397 -05 -091) — SAN FILIPPO, Sobey Road: Request for Design Review approval to
construct a new two -story residence on a 43,042 square foot parcel, and Use Permit approval to allow
an accessory structure to be located within the rear yard setback. Maximum height of the structure is
26 feet tall and is located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district.
Commissioner Bemald recused herself as her home is located within 300 feet of this project site. She
left the dais to sit in the audience.
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that this project was continued from the January 24, 2001, Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Barry asked whether the structure's square footage in now larger than the proposal
reviewed by the Commission on January 241n
Mr. Mark Connolly replied that the structure's square footage has not changed since January 24tH
Acting Chair Roupe opened the Public Hearing No. 1 at 7:48 p.m.
Ms. Grace San Filippo, Project Site Property Owner, Sobey Road:
• Introduced her team including architect, landscape architect and attomey.
Mr. Rick Zea, 4616 Venice Way, San Jose, CA 95129:
• Acknowledged that the Commission stated several objections at the last meeting.
• Informed that they have addressed the concerns through changes and redesign.
• Added that the project meets City guidelines and rules.
• Admitted that they had made calculation errors in the total amount of impervious coverage
originally depicted on the landscape plan.
• Said that they have since reduced the impervious coverage to 32% by reducing hardscape areas
and /or utilizing pervious materials.
• Another concern was the mass and bulk of the structure. To counter that concern, they have
lowered the height of the study portion of the home by two feet, added wood elements to the
structure as well as corbels. Additionally, decorative stone will be use.
• Advised that, while the Commission had objected to what they considered "orange" tile roofing
material, they have brought samples this evening to clearly demonstrate that the roofing material is
brown.
Saratoga Planning Commiss. Minutes of March 14, 2001 Page 3
• Said that another concern raised by the Commission was the need to reflect the character of the
neighborhood. Advised that there is no coherent theme or design standard on Sobey. The homes
in the area reflect diversity in architectural styles. Added that they actually have captured the
flavor of the vineyard currently being installed on property across the street from their project site.
• Said that they have honored the desire for an unobtrusive structure.
• Showed slides of the surrounding homes, including slides which feature the project site with story
poles in place for this proposed structure. Another slide showed a perspective of the planned
home.
• Distributed stone samples for use on the retaining wall as well as on the columns for the arbor.
• Informed that the study portion of the new home will actually be hidden by the natural berm on the
property.
• Said that an electric gate will secure the garage area at the side rear while guests will pull up at the
front of the house.
• Advised that a great deal of time and effort have been spent to design and to reflect the concerns of
the Planning Commission.
• Said that members of the design team are available for any questions.
Commissioner Kurasch questioned what has been done to address the Commission's concerns about
bulk and mass. Also mentioned the 10 -foot drop in grade from the street to the proposed house and
asked what the drop is from the street to the second story elements.
Mr. Maurice Camargo, 3953 Yolo Drive, San Jose, CA 95136:
• Advised that they have veneered the structure with stone. The roofline for the study portion of the
home was lowered by two feet. This section is set back from the entry and living room space.
They also added wood corbels and used articulation of textures and materials, including stone on
the chimney elements.
• Informed that the house is split level. There is a nine -foot plate height at the top of approximately
5.5 feet. There is a slope in the land from east to west.
Commissioner Jackman asked when the story poles went up and wondered why the Commissioners
were not notified that they had been installed.
Mr. Mark Connolly advised that he only discovered that they had been installed on the day of the site
visit.
Mr. Maurice Camargo replied that the story poles were installed on Tuesday morning (March 13th) and
that they had brought pictures this evening in the event that the Commissioners had not had the
opportunity to see the story poles in person.
Commissioner Patrick asked how the coverage was reduced from Plan A to Plan B. Said that it
appears that the paths and driveways are mostly the same as before.
Mr. Michael Rosenberg, 878 Valencia Schoolhouse Road, Aptos, CA 95003:
• Said that portions of the driveway have been removed for gravel, paving off of the dining area has
been removed and paving around the pool area diminished with planting areas being cut into the
impervious coverage around the pool.
Saratoga Planning Commissi. _✓linutes of March 14, 2001 Page 4
Mr. Zimmerman:
• Advised that several hundred square feet of impervious coverage have been cut out and replaced
with permeable material. That is why the drawings still look similar.
Commissioner Patrick pointed out that there was 12, 726 square feet of impervious coverage in the
original plan.
Commissioner Barry reminded the applicants that the Commission had requested a maximum of 30
percent in impervious coverage at the last meeting.
Mr. Rick Zea:
• Stated that they did reduce as requested.
• Added that the original plan was actually over 35 percent due to calculation errors.
• Promised to find ways to reduce even further as a Condition of Approval.
• Said that they have already achieved a 32 percent level.
Mr. Tim McNeil, 18450 Sobey Road, Saratoga:
• Said that he did not agree with the depiction of the impact on his home.
• Added that the new submittal has made little effort to meet the requests of the Commission.
• Said that this home cascades down the slope and has excessive bulk and mass.
• Stated that while the actual square footage of the second story is very small, the massing is bigger
to accommodate that space.
• Said that the impact of this proposed structure is too great on the neighbors.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. McNeil if he felt the design home was in character with the
neighborhood.
Mr. Tim McNeil replied that he was not objecting to the architectural design. That is up to Ms. San
Filippo. He is only objecting to the cascading effect.
Mr. David Scott, 14269 Quito Road, Saratoga:
• Advised that he lives next door to the McNeils and has two objections. The extent of the
impervious surfaces and the need it creates for the storm drain on site to be upgraded as well as the
massing of the structure, which will tower over and affect his privacy greatly.
Mr. Frank Garcia, 4691 Albany Circle, San Jose:
• Stated that there is some misunderstanding and that this house does not reflect mass.
Mr. Nick Livak, Attorney, 981 Fremont, Santa Clara:
• Stated that the letter prepared by Mr. Camargo answers issues including the two -story feature and
drainage issues.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the
Commission closed Public Hearing No. 1 at 8:29 p.m. (5- 0 -1 -1; Chair Page was
absent and Commissioner Bernald abstained)
Saratoga Planning Commissi ✓linutes of March 14, 2001
Page 5
Commissioner Jackman expressed disappointment that the plans appear the same as before. There is
too much house for the shape of the lot. The proposal is for a 5,841 square foot house when 5,844 is
the maximum allowable. This property is an irregularly shaped lot with neighbors on five sides. This
is way too much for the lot. The architectural style of the house is great but not on this lot. It is too
imposing on this lot.
Commissioner Patrick concurred and suggested that the house either needs to be smaller or reset on the
lot. There is too much coverage with 14,000 square feet of coverage which will result in drainage into
the watershed. Advised that she cannot approve this project as it is proposed.
Commissioner Barry stated that she is pleased with the added wood and stone and that the roof has
been lowered by two feet. However, she agreed with fellow Commissioners with what is missing in
the proposal. There are specific peculiarities of lot and impact on neighbors, which present a major
problem. Stated that the storm drain issue has been covered with the Conditions of Approval. The
applicants are attempting to maximize the use of the lot but they can't due to the shape of the lot.
Commissioner Kurasch concurred with Commissioner Barry. Said that the house is not in context with
its location on the lot. Said that a sensitive use of the property could have stunning results. Said this
current configuration has negative impacts on neighboring properties and that there are alternatives
available. Suggested a reduction in lot coverage.
Acting Chair Roupe stated that he shares similar concerns. Said that the applicants have reduced the
height and added materials to the structure. Added that the architectural style is compatible with the
neighborhood but the extent of impervious coverage raises concern. The greatest concern is the
structure comes down the hill, more evident from the McNeil property than from the street. The use of
impervious coverage has been reduced but needs further reduction. Asked what options are available
to the Commission.
Commissioner Barry replied that there are two options, another continuance or denial with a stipulation
without prejudice.
Commissioner Patrick said if the applicant wants a vote, the Commission should just deny the proposal
outright.
Commissioner Kurasch said that she would prefer a denial without prejudice as it gives the applicant
the most flexibility.
Commissioner Jackman stated that the project would require a major redesign to obtain approval so
she stated her support for denial without prejudice.
Acting Chair Roupe agreed to support denial without prejudice. Added that the applicant can appeal
the denial to Council if filed within 15 days. There is no fee involved. The second alternative is a
continuance to allow for a substantial redesign including a change in the footprint.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the
Commission reopened the Public Hearing at 8:42 p.m. to allow the applicant to
chose one of the two options, denial or continuance. (5- 0 -1 -1; Chair Page was
absent and Commissioner Bernald abstained)
Saratoga Planning Commissi, ✓Iinutes of March 14, 2001 Page 6
Mr. Nick Livak, Attorney for the Applicant, advised that Ms. San Filippo would prefer a denial
without prejudice.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the
Commission again closed the Public Hearing at 8:43 p.m. (5- 0 -1 -1; Chair Page
was absent and Commissioner Bernald abstained)
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the
Commission denied DR -00 -036, without prejudice. (5- 0 -1 -1; Chair Page was
absent and Commissioner Bernald abstained)
Commissioner Kurasch asked whether a vote needed to be taken on the Use Permit application.
Interim Director Irwin Kaplan replied that the Use Permit application was moot due to the
Commission's denial of the Design Review application.
Commissioner Bemald returned to the dais upon conclusion of Public Hearing No. 1.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.2
DR -00 -054 & V -01 -002 (517 -14 -087) — MARTIN /ROSE, Kittridge Road: Request for Design
Review approval to construct a new 7,340 square foot two -story residence on a 346,173 square foot
vacant parcel. The Variance is necessary for retaining walls to exceed five feet in height and possibly
closer than 10 feet for parallel walls. The Variance is also necessary to exceed 15,000 square feet of
impervious surface due to a long driveway. Maximum height of the structure is 26 feet tall, located
within a Hillside Residential zoning district.
Acting Chair Roupe opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:46 p.m.
Mr. I.M. Farrar, 20860 Kittridge Road, Saratoga:
• Advised that Kittridge Road is a private road for which repair and maintenance is the responsibility
of the residents of that road.
• Expressed concern about a high level of construction traffic on the road and the potential for
damage to the road.
• Asked that either the City or Builder assume responsibility for repair of the road caused by this
project's construction.
Commissioner Jackman encouraged Mr. Farrar to put his request in letter form for inclusion in the next
staff report.
Mr. I.M. Farrar agreed to do so.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the
Commission continued consideration of DR -00 -054 & V -01 -002 to the Planning
Commission meeting of March 28, 2001. (6 -0 -1; Chair Page was absent)
Saratoga Planning Commissi ✓linutes of March 14, 2001 Page 7
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO.3
DR -00 -001, SD -00 -001 and V -00 -018 (517 -08 -008 & 016) — TRAFALGAR, INC., 14612 Big Basin
Way & 20717 St. Charles Street: Request for Design Review, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map
and Variance approval to allow the subdivision of a 22,582 net square foot site into six lots ranging in
size from 1,756 square feet to 2,498 square feet and two additional common area lots. The proposal
calls for demolishing four existing residences with garages totaling 4,595 square feet and 1,000 square
feet of retail space. Five new two -story townhouses with garages will be constructed at the rear of the
site. Additionally, 1,316 square feet of retail space with a second story condominium would face Big
Basin Way. The Big Basin Way portion of the site is zoned CH -2 and the St. Charles Street portion is
zoned R -M -3000. A rear yard setback variance has been requested for a building on the CH -2 portion
of the site. (This item will be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 28, 2001, to
allow consideration of the original proposal and modifications, as well as an alternative proposal that
the applicant will present to the Commission at that time.)
Acting Chair Roupe opened Public Hearing No. 3 at 8:52 p.m.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the
Commission continued consideration of DR -00 -011, SC -00 -001 and V -00 -018 to the
Planning Commission meeting of March 28, 2001. (6 -0 -1; Chair Page was absent)
DIRECTOR ITEMS
Acting Director Irwin Kaplan provided the following updates:
1. Staff Report Review: Suggested that the term "Maximum Allowable" be used in the staff reports in
the future. The Commission at its last meeting raised this issue and staff was asked to consider
options and report back.
2. Recruitment of Community Development Director: Advised that the recruitment closed on Friday,
March 9, 2001. There were 20 applications received. The recruitment firm is presently pre-
screening those applications and paring the list down. Interviews will occur in April and an
appointment is expected in May. It appears to be a good pool of qualified candidates.
3. March 27, 2001, City Council Meeting: Advised that the Council will consider the Housing Needs
Assessment Report at its meeting on March 27`h. The Report in draft form will be distributed.
Warned that the 2000 Census information is not yet available.
Commissioner Barry expressed concern that the Commission was supposed to have input with the
consultant before they moved forward. Furthermore, information about what other comparable cities
are doing was to be provided.
Saratoga Planning Commissi ✓Iinutes of March 14, 2001 Page 8
Acting Director Irwin Kaplan advised that this is just the beginning of the process, an informational
document. Assured that the Commission would be involved further. This is just the start to help
identify needs, set priorities and determine how to address issues.
COMMISSION ITEMS
1. DR -00 -021; 2116 Comer Drive —Review of Landscape Plan:
Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the Commission previously approved this project. One of the
imposed Conditions of Approval was to bring the final landscape plan to the Commission for review as
well as to provide it to the neighbors for review. Advised that approximately 30 owners were notified
and only one responded in writing.
Mr. Ken Pastrof, Applicant, Owens, 445 S. San Antonio Road, Los Altos:
• Stated that the staff report sums up the request.
• Advised that Ms. Paula Blanchfield, the Landscape Architect, is present this evening.
• Said that he did not understand Mrs. Nieman's letter.
• Added that geologic safeguards are in place.
• Said that the City's Engineering Department will address drainage plans after the Planning
Commission approves the landscape plan.
Ms. Paula Blanchfield, 60 E. Third Avenue, San Mateo:
• Advised that this landscape plan is for the exterior perimeter of the property and not interior
landscaping.
• Advised that native trees and shrubs, requiring minimum water once established, will be used.
• Some more decorative trees will be used also such as olives in the driveways and flowering trees.
Oaks, pines and native shrubs are proposed.
• Where the soil is shallow, it will be amended as necessary.
Commissioner Kurasch inquired about irrigation that is not depicted. Asked whether drip irrigation is
planned.
Ms. Paula Blanchfield replied yes, on the slope drip irrigation is planned with more traditional
irrigation on the flat, which will be properly drained.
Commissioner Kurasch expressed problems with using oaks from other areas.
Commissioner Barry asked whether drainage was covered with the Conditions of Approval in the
original approval.
Acting Chair Roupe advised that water management is a routine condition.
Mr. James Torre, 21680 Wardell Road, Saratoga:
• Stated his objection to the proposal and provided photographs of the vicinity from various vantage
points to demonstrate the fact that the proposed screening will not screen this site from his property
or another neighbor, Mr. Joe Lee's, property.
• Advised that he has owned 12 acres for the last 40 plus years.
Saratoga Planning Commissi, dinutes of March 14, 2001 Page 9
• Said that his issue is with the height of the structure.
• Asked that the proposed landscape plan not be approved but rather revised and returned at a later
date.
Commissioner Bernald thanked Mr. Torre for providing the photographs. Reminded that she had
voted against the original project approval.
Mr. Ken Pastrof:
• Said that the highest point of the structure is 22 feet.
• Added that they are proposing to plant almost 100 trees and said that he did not know what more to
add.
• Suggested that the Commission review landscaping prior to final inspection as it is best to
determine where to place landscaping once the house is built.
• Reminded that despite 30 letters, only one complaint was received.
Commissioner Barry asked staff what options the Commission has on this matter.
Interim Director Irwin Kaplan suggested that staff bring back a report.
Commissioner Patrick expressed her displeasure with the information provided. Said that it is not clear
what the landscape really is and the Commission needs to see the actual plans.
Acting Chair Roupe asked staff what the best process to resolution would be.
Interim Director Irwin Kaplan replied that staff should prepare a status report for the Planning
Commission with a recommendation of action at the next meeting.
Commissioner Kurasch stated that in past cases, neighbors worked together to come up with a final
plan.
Commissioner Bernald stated that more neighborhood input is needed. Some impacted properties are
outside of the required notification distance. Said that this project was passed allowing construction on
a minor ridgeline despite City policy. Added that there is not enough screening from the valley and
that a minimal effort will not alleviate the problem. The Commission did ask to have the Commission
approve the final landscaping plan. Declared that it is ridiculous to wait until final permit to do so.
Acting Chair Roupe directed staff to work with the applicant and to encourage the applicant to work
with the neighbors. Asked that the matter be agendized for the next meeting.
2. Discussion of Planning Commission Staff Report Format:
Commissioner Barry stated that a standard condition requiring the posting of signs providing allowable
hours of construction should be added to approvals. Additionally, suggested that any specialized
reports with recommendations, such as Arborist or Geologist's reports, should be specifically quoted
within the Conditions of Approval.
Commissioner Kurasch stated that the comparisons provided in the San Filippo project were good this
evening and expressed appreciation for that fact.
Saratoga Planning Commissi Qinutes of March 14, 2001 Page 10
3. DR -00 -050; 14499 Oak Street — Modification of
Mr. Mark Connolly advised that this project was approved by the Commission in December, 2000.
Projects with modifications more than 25 square feet must come back before the Commission. This
project proposes to add 47 square feet to the approved square footage. The exterior elevation is
unchanged as this addition will be to the master bedroom and bath enclosing existing deck area on the
second floor. Advised that the original approval was for 2,873 square feet. With this small addition,
the total square footage will be 3,020. The maximum allowable square footage is 3,040.
Commissioner Patrick said that it is nice to actually see this proposal in a drawing.
Commissioner Bernald said that the added balcony creates potential privacy issues.
Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the balcony was in the original approval. An arbor has been added to
it. However, the proposed addition is completely a second floor addition.
Acting Chair Roupe stated that it does not appear that sufficient information is being provided to
satisfy the Commission. Asked staff to prepare a report and agendize this item for the next available
meeting bringing forth further details.
4. League of California Cities Planners Institute:
Staff advised the Commission that the Conference will occur from March 21 -23, 2001, in Monterey.
Any Commissioner available to attend is encouraged to do so. The City will process reimbursements
for registration expenses.
5. Tree Issue on Caldwell /Duncan Properties:
Commissioner Kurasch pointed out the letter prepared by staff regarding the issue of the tree which is
not being properly protected during construction and asked what action is being taken to deal with this
situation.
Interim Director Irwin Kaplan advised that protection of the tree is called out in the Conditions of
Approval. Therefore, these Conditions must be complied with by the builder.
Commissioner Barry reminded that Chair Page had asked staff to require the applicant to appear before
the Commission to explain their failure to comply with the tree protection provisions.
Interim Director Irwin Kaplan advised that this is an enforcement issue for staff to deal with at this
stage rather than a matter to be brought forth before the Commission.
Commissioner Kurasch asked staff to get it right for the sake of the tree.
COMMUNICATIONS
r
Saratoga Planning Commissi, Minutes of March 14, 2001
Page 11
• Written: Saratoga City Council Minutes from Adjourned Meetings of January 23 and February 13,
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Acting Chair Roupe adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m. to Wednesday, March 28, 2001, at the
Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn
Minutes Clerk
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, February 28, 2001
PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Chair Page called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Barry, Bernald, Kurasch, Patrick, Roupe and Chair Page
Absent: Commissioner Jackman
Staff: Senior Planner Bob Schubert, Planner Mark Connolly and Planner Philip Block
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Study Session and Regular Meeting of February 14, 2001.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Patrick,
the Regular Planning Commission minutes of February 14, 2001, were
approved with the following amendments:
• Page 8 -- Commissioner Kurasch stated that it is fair game to look at this
proposal since the applicant could have chosen a conforming design in height
and placement and since a Use Permit is required to approve the cabana.
• Page 9 -- ...Suggested that staff be directed to investigate whether the
Planning Commission can call up the College's Use Permit for review with
respect to other issues not in litigation.
• Page 10 — Commissioner Bernald added that there is a safety issue, as this
building appears to be ^ °r^" °a on stilts tilting while the basement is being
dug beneath it.
(6 -0 -1; Commissioner Jackman was absent.)
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Bernald,
the Study Session minutes of February 14, 2001, were approved with a
correction in two places on page 2 replacing shares with shared parking. (6 -0 -1;
Commissioner Jackman was absent.)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no oral communications.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for
this meeting was properly posted on February 23, 2001.
Saratoga Planning Commiss Minutes of February 28, 2001 Page 2
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, provided the following technical corrections to the packet:
• Advised that staff is recommending postponing the Director Item listed on this evening's agenda to
the March 141" meeting.
• Agenda Item No. 1 /Page 3 — Clarified that the proposed fence would be placed two feet behind the
right -of -way on Saratoga Avenue. The Zoning Ordinance requires the applicant to landscape and
maintain the 20 -foot wide area along the exterior fence.
Commissioner Bemald pointed out a discrepancy in the staff report versus plans for Agenda Item No.
2 regarding inclusion of a wood - burning fireplace in Lot C in the Living Room /Library Area.
CONSENT CALENDAR
There are no Consent Calendar Items.
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1
V -01 -001 (393 -25 -024) — ST. ANDREWS SCHOOL, 13601 Saratoga Avenue: Request for
Variance approval to construct a fence over three feet in height along Saratoga Avenue within the front
yard setback. The site is located on an 89,291 (net) square foot parcel within an R -1- 20,000 zoning
district.
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that this a Variance request to allow a six -foot welded metal fence within a required
setback.
• Added that the Heritage Preservation Commission approved the proposed design a few months
ago.
• The school's biggest concern is the safety of children playing on that playground and preventing
people from entering the site during school hours
• Said that two fencing alternatives have been presented including the applicant's original submittal,
which is the one being recommended by staff.
• The project site is within the R -1- 20,000 zoning district with a required front setback from Sarataga
Avenue of 30 feet. A temporary fence is in place at the present time.
Commissioner Roupe stated his confusion about the two proposed layouts for the fence.
Mr. Mark Connolly clarified that Exhibit A represents the fence being recommended for approval with
the fence placed on the interior side of the trees.
Commissioner Kurasch stated that the posts are already installed.
Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the applicant began installation without realizing that a Variance
would be required to have the six -foot height. They stopped work when notified by the City of that
requirement.
Commissioner Kurasch sought clarification that the fence is not to be located within the street right -of-
way on Saratoga.
Saratoga Planning Commiss. Minutes of February 28, 2001 Page 3
Mr. Mark Connolly replied that the applicant would maintain 20 feet of landscape area in the right of
way.
Commissioner Barry questioned the duration of time for the Tree Protection Bond (Condition of
Approval No. 3).
Mr. Mark Connolly replied a year.
Commissioner Roupe suggested adding the words and duration to Condition of Approval No. 3.
Chair Page opened the Public Hearing No. 1 at 7:51 p.m.
Rev. Ernest Cockrell, Applicant and Rector of St. Andrew's Church, Saratoga:
• Advised that this new fence will be much better than the previous chain link fencing.
• Stated that safety is a factor and keeping people out who don't need to be at the school.
Additionally, the fencing should help prevent vandalism on site.
• Assured that the fencing will add to the beauty of the site and will be nicely landscaped.
Commissioner Patrick asked Reverend Cockrell if he would accept a Condition that prohibits the
posting of any signs or banners on this fencing.
Rev. Ernest Cockrell answered that he had no problem with that restriction.
Commissioner Barry asked Reverend Cockrell if he is willing to install drought tolerant plants within
the landscaping area.
Rev. Ernest Cockrell replied that this is a very reasonable request.
Commissioner Kurasch asked the age groups of the children on site.
Mr. Richard Hof, Assistant Head Master of St. Andrew's School, replied that students from third to
eighth grades use the fenced area for both recess and physical education classes.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if students are supervised while using the area.
Mr. Hof replied that the children are supervised and added that the fence is needed for the safety of the
children as well as providing an opportunity for the beautification of the property.
Commissioner Patrick asked if there is a choice of colors available for this fencing material.
Mr. Hof replied that he is aware of black and green being available.
Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Hof if he had any problems using their original plan proposal locating
the fence at the interior of the trees.
Mr. Hof answered no.
Saratoga Planning Commiss. Minutes of February 28, 2001 Page 4
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Bernald, the
Commission closed Public Hearing No. 1 at 7:55 p.m. (6 -0 -1; Commissioner
Jackman was absent)
Commissioners Bernald and Roupe stated no problems with the application.
Commissioner Kurasch expressed her concern regarding the height of this fence on Saratoga Avenue
while also stating her understanding of the school's safety issues. Added that the application is well
thought out and that she agrees with the recommendation of utilizing native planting.
Commissioner Patrick said she had no problems with the request.
Commissioner Barry recommended some modifications to the Conditions of Approval as follows:
• Favor Plan A strongly.
• Suggest changes to Condition of Approval No. 3 relative to the bond duration, leaving the length of
duration to the discretion of staff in conjunction with the City's Arborist.
• Suggested a change to Condition of Approval No. 4 requiring the final landscape plan to rely on
the use of native plants.
• Added a condition requiring a sign be posted listing allowable hours of construction.
Chair Page stated that this is a good project and in this situation it is appropriate to have a six -foot
fence. Added that a black fence may look better than a green.
Commissioner Roupe reminded that a Condition has been recommended that prohibits the posting of
any signs and /or banners on this fencing.
Commissioner Patrick reiterated that the Conditions must encompass the use of native plants, the
prohibition of signs on the fence and the bond for the tree protection to be established for an
appropriate duration and amount as determined by staff.
Chair Page added that the Sign Ordinance would apply regarding signs anyway.
Commissioner Patrick replied that it might not apply to schools.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Bernald, the
Commission approved V -01 -001 with the amendments to the Conditions:
• Strike Option B fence plan design;
• Modify Condition 3 regarding the duration of the tree protection bond,
• Modify Condition 4 to require native and drought tolerant plants; and
• Add a Condition prohibiting the posting of any signs on this new fencing.
(6 -0 -1; Commissioner Jackman was absent)
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.2
DR -00 -045 7 SD -00 -006 (410 -39 -012) — LEXOR INVESTMENTS, INC., 15202 Quito Road:
Request for Design Review and Parcel Map approval to allow the subdivision of a 3.62 net acre parcel
Saratoga Planning Commiss. Minutes of February 28, 2001 Page 5
into three lots of 48,426, 50,868 and 65,484 (net) square feet. The proposal calls for demolishing an
existing residence and accessory structures and constructing three two -story residences ranging in size
from 5,702 square feet to 6,498 square feet. The site is located in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district.
Mr. Philip Block, Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the project site is located on the northeast corner of Quito Road and Twin Creeks
Road.
• The application includes Design Review and a Parcel Map to create three lots.
• An existing residence and accessory structures will be demolished and three new homes
constructed, two two -story residences and one single -story residence. The size of these homes will
range from 5,702 to 6,498 square feet.
• Staff is recommending approval of this application.
• Advised that the applicant is asking for the rewording of Condition of Approval 30A with the
concurrence of the Public Works Department.
• Added that a letter has been distributed from the adjacent property owners advising that they are
receptive to an easement (specific details to be worked out). Additionally, a slight boundary
adjustment will occur.
Commissioner Bernald expressed concern about Condition No. 16 pertaining to rear yard landscaping
and sought assurances that the recommendations contained within both the Arborist's Report and the
Harvey Ecological Report are followed. Questioned the reasoning for Condition No. 18 as it pertains
to street addressing being placed in view, wondering why that condition is even included at all.
Mr. Philip Block replied that the Condition is the result of a recommendation by the Fire Department.
Commissioner Bernald questioned Condition No. 28 regarding the placement of interior monuments
and asked the reasoning for that condition.
Mr. Philip Block answered that this is a standard Public Works Condition of Approval that is not
unusual.
Commissioner Bernald stated that she just wanted to be sure that necessary monuments are installed.
Commissioner Patrick questioned the requirement for a Reciprocal Access Agreement and why it has
not been formalized prior to this evening's meeting.
Mr. Philip Block replied that this agreement is only necessary if the map is approved. Such an
agreement is premature and unnecessary if the map is not approved. The agreement would be finalized
prior to the final map.
Commissioner Barry brought up the Ecological Report that states that the Repairian Habitat Area is of
"moderate to low quality." Suggested that the level be upgraded wherever and to the extent it is
possible to do so.
Mr. Philip Block agreed that such a condition could be added.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if there would be two drives from Quito.
Saratoga Planning Commiss. Minutes of February 28, 2001 Page 6
Chair Page replied that there will be access for two lots from Quito Road and one lot from Twin
Creeks Road.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if there are restrictions for the access driveways for the lots accessed by
Quito Road.
Mr. Philip Block advised that the applicant has worked with the Arborist's recommendations.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if there are any other easements.
Commissioner Roupe asked whether Lot C will provide an easement for Lot B.
Commissioner Kurasch stated that the level of detail provide goes beyond what is used for a Tentative
Map.
Mr. Philip Block advised that the Commission is considering the Subdivision and Design Review as a
package this evening. This is the only opportunity the Commission will have to review this proposal.
Added that the Final Map is handled by the Public Works Department and is a very technical process.
Chair Page opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:27 p.m.
Ms. Kristine Syskowski, Lexor Investments, Inc., 15585 Los Gatos Boulevard, Los Gatos.
• Informed that they were encouraged by staff to bring this project forward to the Commission as a
package as far back as 1999.
• Clarified that for the easement, Condition No. 24 requires a recorded access easement to allow
access to Twin Creeks Road. Additionally, there is a proposed lot line adjustment as a Condition
of Approval.
• Advised that the gross existing site is .92 acres. After the lot line adjustment, there will be no net
effect.
Commissioner Roupe asked whether the adjusted lot was used in the calculations provided.
Ms. Kristine Syskowski:
• Replied that the deductions were made off gross square footage.
• Added that there is one wood - burning fireplace proposed which can be changed if necessary.
• Informed that this project began in 1999 with James Walgren.
• Said that there are three features to their application the site approval, the architectural design and
landscaping.
• Advised that the site is at Quito and San Tomas Aquino Creek.
• Advised that the trees on site will be preserved.
• Said that the three proposed homes will be scarcely visible and that there will be generous front
setback.
• Added that the lot depths are from 200 to 460 feet.
• Advised that both Lots B and C will be accessed from Quito Road.
• Said that pervious pavers will be used for the driveway and that minor retaining walls will be
required. Added that Barrie Coates has approved the proposed driveway placement.
• Said that allowing access to Twin Creeks is agreeable to the adjacent neighbor.
Saratoga Planning Commiss. Minutes of February 28, 2001 Page 7
• Advised that they have spent a lot of time on site with the architect in order to site the homes and
work with the existing landscaping.
• The proposed homes are in context with the surrounding homes.
• Advised that Lot A and C will include two -story homes and Lot B will have a single -story home.
Distances between the homes are from 54 to 100 feet. The distance between Lot C and the
existing neighboring residence is 130 feet. A distance of between 70 to 150 feet separates the
three new homes from the Repairian Corridor.
• Added that an existing structure will be demolished. The Heritage Preservation Commission
reviewed and accepted this proposed demolition.
• Advised that the architectural style proposed for the homes is early- Californian, incorporating low -
pitched roofs; stucco walls; upper balconies; front courtyards; wood windows and doors; stone,
wood and tile materials, including recycled tile from the Town & Country project recently
demolished in San Jose. The rooflines will be articulated.
• Regarding landscaping, there are 48 trees on the Tree Report. Five olive trees will be relocated and
seven trees removed, including a walnut, pine and fruit trees. The trees to be removed are rated as
being in fine, fair or poor condition. Eighty -eight new trees will be planted include seven
redwoods on Lot A. There will be groves of redwoods between each of the homes.
• Stated that this proposal meets all City Zoning and General Plan requirements.
• Added that they have met and exceeded the Repairian Corridor requirements.
Commissioner Bernald asked whether the Harvey Report supports rear yard landscaping.
Ms. Kristine Syskowski replied that it is fine to landscape the rear yards. Advised that the Repairian
Corridor is considered to be in poor condition because of the existing structures, which will be
demolished.
Commissioner Bernald asked if the applicants are willing to accept a Condition to disallow swimming
pools.
Ms. Kristine Syskowski replied that they would prefer to discuss this further. They are not proposing
any swimming pools within the Repairian Corridor itself but in the rear yards.
Commissioner Bernald asked why there is a second story exit at the front of the home on Lot C.
Ms. Kristine Syskowski replied that it leads off of a bonus room but that she was not sure of the
reasoning for that exit.
Mr. Kirk Nonley, Architect, advised that this exit is a traditional architectural feature that was
incorporated in this particular design because it did not include a courtyard feature as is included with
the other two homes.
Commissioner Patrick asked if the applicants would eliminate the wood - burning fireplace.
Ms. Kristine Syskowski replied yes.
Commissioner Patrick stated that there should be no structures within the Repairian Corridor.
Saratoga Planning Commiss, Minutes of February 28, 2001 Page 8
Ms. Kristine Syskowski replied that she believes that Codes do not permit structures in the Repairian
Corridor but they are willing to agree not to have any structures within the Repairian Corridor.
Commissioner Patrick inquired about impervious coverage numbers for each unit.
Ms. Kristine Syskowski pointed out the details on the plans.
Commissioner Patrick asked why the lot line adjustment is not being done at the same time.
Ms. Kristine Syskowski admitted that she would have liked to have done so but was encouraged by
staff not to file at the same time.
Commissioner Patrick asked Ms. Syskowski if she would accept a Condition of Approval requiring the
easement exactly as depicted in the drawings.
Ms. Kristine Syskowski replied yes.
Commissioner Kurasch inquired about the location of the driveways from Quito Road, particularly for
Lot B.
Ms. Kristine Syskowski replied that more grading and hardscape would be required to place that
driveway elsewhere on the site.
Mr. Bill Hirschman, Engineer for the project, replied that the goal is to make the road parallel to the
contours of the property. Added that they are successful in dealing with trees near paving.
Commissioner Kurasch stated that there will be an impact to Quito Road itself as a result of the
driveway. Added that her main concern is Lot B. Stated that it appears from the plans that six -foot
high fences will be required in the future for security purposes. Suggested a Condition of Approval
that all fences comply with current code.
Ms. Kristine Syskowski replied that they want to keep the sites open. The proposed fencing is located
60 feet from the front property line. The proposed fence depicted is three -foot high that meets the six -
foot columns at the gates of the driveways. Added that staff has indicated that the six -foot columns
are a supportable Variance but that they could revise the six -foot columns.
Commissioner Roupe made it clear that the fencing is not under consideration for approval this
evening.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Bernald, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the
Commission closed Public Hearing No. 2 at 9:03 p.m. (6 -0 -1; Commissioner
Jackman was absent)
Commissioner Roupe stated that he has no real concerns with this project and that it appears to be well
thought out.
Commissioner Kurasch stated that she would like to see an alternative front drive for Lot B, even if it
goes against the contours as long as it leaves more of a buffer on Quito Road.
Saratoga Planning Commiss. Minutes of February 28, 2001 Page 9
Commissioner Patrick stated that she has no concerns or objections. Suggested that the rear yard
landscaping take into consideration the recommendations of the Harvey Report; that the easement be
recorded as shown; that no structure or pools be constructed within the Repairian Corridor; that no
wood - burning fireplaces be included in the project; that Condition 30A be amended with the Public
Works Department's approval; that Condition 22 be modified so that the Fire Department approval for
the House Numbering Placement be obtained prior to final occupancy; and that the second sentence of
Condition 28 be deleted entirely.
Commissioner Barry suggested adding the landscape restriction within the Repairian Corridor by
modifying Condition 12 to read that no hardscape, fencing or accessory structures will be allowed
within the Repairian Corridor. Added the recommendation that a sign be posted listing the allowable
construction hours.
Commissioner Bernald commended the applicants for designing homes that echo the existing homes in
the area and for the detailed report provided to the Commission. Thanked the applicants for their
willingness to eliminate the only wood - burning fireplace of this project. Said that the homes integrate
architectural materials used in the area. With the changes outlined by the previous Commissioners, all
concerns are set aside.
Chair Page stated his agreement with Commissioner Bernald and said he could support this
application.
Commissioner Barry said that the design is great and a lot of work has gone into designing this
proposal. Expressed appreciation for the applicants giving up the wood - burning fireplace. Suggested
additional landscape screening to help alleviate Commissioner Kurasch's concerns regarding Lot B's
driveway.
Commissioner Bernald said that there are few pedestrians using Quito Road as the fast paced traffic
makes it dangerous to walk on Quito. As a result, no one will be looking down onto the site from
Quito Road.
Commissioner Kurasch said that she is not necessarily just concerned about pedestrian views. Added
that she also does not want to rely on landscape screening for design defects.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Bernald, the
Commission approved SD -00 -006 with the following Conditions:
• Amend Condition of Approval No. 30A as approved by the Public Works
Department;
• Delete Condition of Approval No. 28 and require that all monuments be
installed prior to recording the map;
• Amend Condition of Approval No. 22 requiring Fire Department approval of
the house numbering placement prior to final occupancy;
• Require the recordation of an easement exactly as depicted on the plans seen
this evening by the Commission;
• Include a Condition that restricts placement of any structure, pool or
hardscape within the Repairian Corridor; and
• Require additional landscaping to the satisfaction of staff.
Saratoga Planning Commiss. Minutes of February 28, 2001
(6 -0 -1; Commissioner Jackman was absent)
Page 10
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Bernald, the
Commission approved DR -00 -045 with the following Conditions:
• Add a Condition that no wood - burning fireplaces be installed;
• Include a Condition that restricts placement of any structure, pool or
hardscape within the Repairian Corridor; and
• Require additional landscaping to the satisfaction of staff.
(6 -0 -1; Commissioner Jackman was absent)
Chair Page called for a break at 9:20 p.m.
Chair Page reconvened the meeting at 9:28 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO.3
V -00 -023 (503 -56 -010) — HALL, 13410 Old Oak Way: Request for Variance approval to construct
an addition to match an existing non - conforming structure, within the rear yard setback, on a slope that
exceeds 30% and at a height greater than 26 feet. The existing structure is built on piers with a
maximum height of about 43 feet. The site is located on a 40,075 (net) square foot parcel within an R-
1- 40,000 zoning district.
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that this request is for three point Variance for an existing home for setback, slope over
43% and height of 44 feet.
• The subject house was built on piers and is a legal non - conforming structure.
• The applicants wish to add a new entry and nook on the first floor with a walk -in closet, bath and
sitting room on the second floor. The new space will be contained within an existing deck
footprint.
• The property is located within the Hillside Residential District and consists of nearly an acre.
• Staff recommends approval.
Commissioner Kurasch asked how much square footage is being added to the home.
Mr. Mark Connolly replied 300 square feet. He added that without the need for the Variance for
setback, height and slope, this size addition would typically be handled over the counter.
Chair Page opened Public Hearing No. 3 at 9:30 p.m.
Mr. Tom Hall, 13410 Old Oak Way, Saratoga:
• Complimented staff for their assistance and said that everything has been well spelled out in the
staff report.
• Added that this addition will have no impact on neighbors and that existing trees screen the site
from view.
Saratoga Planning Commiss. Minutes of February 28, 2001 Page 11
• Said that they will match the existing exterior wood siding on the addition so there will be no real
change visible from the outside.
Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Hall whether any additional piers are required and whether a
structural engineer has found the residence to be structurally sound and able to handle this addition
without additional piers.
Mr. Tom Hall replied that his architect has advised him that review by a structural engineer is a
requirement of this project.
Mr. Mark Connolly added that a structural analysis is a part of the building plan review. Added that no
geologic review is required in this situation.
Commissioner Barry suggested that if any additional piers are deemed necessary, this project be
required to be returned to the Planning Commission for further review.
Mr. Mark Connolly replied that if any structural changes are required the project would most certainly
be returned to the Commission.
Commissioner Patrick questioned two apparent cut out sections on the second story front of the house.
Mr. Tom Hall advised that what is seen is decking. Added that they have been experiencing a small
leak in the upstairs patio.
Chair Page asked if a color board is available.
Mr. Mark Connolly advised that a color board is not required due to the small scope of work with this
addition.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Bernald, the
Commission closed Public Hearing No. 3 at 9:37 p.m. (6 -0 -1; Commissioner
Jackman was absent)
Commissioner Kurasch stated that this is a supportable application. It has no impact and fits in the
area.
Commissioner Patrick concurred.
Commissioner Barry said she supports the project as long as no grading or additional piers are
required.
Commissioner Bernald concurred.
Commissioner Roupe reiterated that should additional piers be deemed necessary, this project must
come back to the Commission.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Patrick, the
Commission approved V -00 -023 with the addition Condition of Approval that this
Saratoga Planning Commiss. Minutes of February 28, 2001
Page 12
application will be returned to the Commission for additional review in the event
that a structural engineer deems additional piers to be necessary to accommodate
this addition. (6 -0 -1; Commissioner Jackman was absent)
Chair Page advised that there is a 15 -day appeal period.
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO.4
DR -00 -063 (397 -07 -083) — SATHAYE, 15315 Sobey Road: Request for Design Review approval to
construct a new 6,066 square foot two -story, single - family residence. The maximum height proposed
is approximately 26 feet. The parcel is approximately 43,680 square feet located in an R -1- 40,000
zoning district.
Mr. Bob Schubert, Senior Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that this request is for the construction of a new 6,066 square foot, two -story residence
with a 2,009 square foot basement, on a 43,680 square foot site, which is zoned R -1- 40,000.
• The project includes the demolition of an existing 2,476 square foot home.
• The applicants have prepared an extensive landscape plan for the site including 46 replacement
trees, exceeding the requirements.
• Staff is recommending approval with proposed modifications to the draft Conditions of Approval
to allow the removal of Tree No. 15 (cedar) and Tree No. 31 (olive) and deleting Condition 7B and
7C.
• Advised that a letter of support from the adjacent neighbor has been provided.
Commissioner Bernald inquired what will be done to prevent storm water from draining east onto
neighboring property.
Chair Page mentioned that he saw a dissipater on the plans.
Commissioner Roupe questioned the six -foot high fence depicted on Sheet 8.1.2 as surrounding the
property, saying that it appears to encroach upon setback area where fencing is limited to three -feet in
height.
Commissioner Patrick asked why the staff recommendation for removal of Trees 15 and 31 is
changing.
Mr. Bob Schubert advised that staff has since met with the applicants on the site and due to the impacts
of these trees to the applicant's plans, staff can support the removal of those two trees.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if staff had the figures for the excavation of the basement.
Mr. Bob Schubert replied 1,272 cubic yards.
Commissioner Barry asked staff why there are no requirements limiting the amount of excavation that
can be done for a basement.
Saratoga Planning Commiss, Minutes of February 28, 2001 Page 13
Mr. Mark Connolly replied that basements are exempt from grading permits.
Chair Page opened Public Hearing No. 4 at 9:50 p.m.
Mr. Louie Leu, Architect, 236 N. Santa Cruz Avenue, Los Gatos:
• Advised that drainage will be handled through the placement of a large dry well at the back of the
site along with a sump pump.
• Added that the fence is to the lower right of the site and that they have no problem pushing the
fence back to the setback line.
• Explained that the cedar tree (No. 15) is messy. The olive tree (No. 31) is low and sparse and not
particularly attractive. Added that they will install redwoods to help screen the site. They plan to
retain most of the native trees and add 46 new trees to the site. A small vineyard will also be
installed.
• Said that they have gone to a lot of effort to articulate the massing and materials to minimize bulk.
Materials to be used include brick, cobblestone, stucco, half - timber trim and a slate roof.
• Informed that they have taken time to talk to the neighbors and solicit their support for this project.
Commissioner Roupe stated that the project is close to the maximum allowable impervious coverage
and that retention of on -site water is a concern. Suggested one option to reduce impervious coverage
might be to used crushed granite instead of stone for some of the walkway areas. Said that the
applicants need to drop back the percentage of impervious coverage.
Mr. Louie Leu replied that this can be done.
Commissioner Kurasch agreed that more pervious surfaces should be used and suggested adding a
Condition of Approval that native trees be used as replacement trees for those being removed.
Mr. Tim Hoagland, Landscape Architect, 43 E. Main Street, Los Gatos:
• Stated that it had always been their intention to remove Trees No. 15 and 31 and somehow that was
never communicated to the Arborist and therefore not incorporated into the Tree Report.
• Added that they have no problem coming back with pervious pathway materials.
• Advised that they will be using interlocking paving stone for the driveway.
• Said that they can easily cut down the amount of impervious coverage to 30 %.
• Said that most of the driveway will drain out to Sobey.
Commissioner Barry asked if the applicants are willing to give up the wood - burning fireplace.
Mr. Louie Leu said that he thought that question might come up. Said that there are good reasons to
have wood - burning fireplaces as well as good reasons for not having them. The wood - burning
fireplace gives a bigger size opening than does a gas fireplace. Added that even though the fireplace
is intended to be constructed as wood burning, they plan to place a gas log within it. A gas fireplace in
itself does not fit the proportion of this house, it has too small an opening for the large room in which it
will be located.
Commissioner Roupe reiterated the importance to retain all water on site.
Saratoga Planning Commiss., Minutes of February 28, 2001 Page 14
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
Commission closed Public Hearing No. 4 at 10:05 p.m. (6 -0 -1; Commissioner
Jackman was absent)
Commissioner Patrick stated that she is not comfortable with the design and that the project has an
incredible amount of lot coverage. Added that she is uncomfortable with removing trees to install a
patio. Suggested that the Tree Protection Bond be increased if two more trees are removed as well as
an adjustment to the replacement requirements. Said that this is a very busy, ambitious design of
which she is not in favor.
Commissioner Barry agreed that convenience is not a good reason to ignore the Arborist's report.
Agreed with the comments of the other Commissioners. Added that pervious pavers are a good option
for the car drive. Said that this is a massive house.
Commissioner Bemald concurred with concerns about impervious coverage and site drainage. Said
she had no problem with the removal of the two additional trees as they are not substantial trees.
Added that the landscape plan is more than is usually provided. Said that this project is similar to
homes already existing on Sobey. Said that the vineyard down below will compliment this site
tremendously and help lessen impervious coverage.
Commissioner Roupe agreed with Commissioner Bernald, saying this is an ambitious but compatible
proposal that he finds acceptable.
Commissioner Kurasch said that impervious coverage should be reduced by reducing the actual
amount of site coverage rather than simply switching from impervious to pervious materials. Said that
she is able to support the type and size of house proposed.
Chair Page concurred that the design is appropriate and the vineyard a nice addition. Suggested
removing the walkway around the vineyard as well as reducing the overall impervious coverage of the
site. Said that Tree No. 15 should be removed as it is hazardous.
Commissioner Roupe asked whether crushed stone is considered a pervious material.
Mr. Mark Connolly replied that it depends upon the size of stone and how it is installed.
Commissioner Barry suggested that the Arborist review the removal of Trees No. 15 and 31 and that,
as a matter of policy, an appropriate time frame for the Tree Protection Bond be established.
Chair Page pointed out that the two additional trees slated for removal are only rated as fair and fine.
Commissioner Kurasch asked what level of impervious coverage should be achieved.
Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the maximum credit for use of pervious materials is 25 %.
Chair suggested reductions in the walkways, particularly by the vineyard, and the auto court.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the
Commission approved DR -00 -063 with the Conditions of Approval:
Saratoga Planning Commissl _ylinutes of February 28, 2001 Page 15
• That the impervious coverage be reduced to the maximum extent possible with
the reduction in area and use of different materials, to a level of no more than
30 %;
• That Tree No. 15 and Tree No. 31 can be removed subject to the review by and
concurrence of the Arborist and with appropriate replacement trees;
• That fencing be moved beyond the setback area in all instances; and
• Than an appropriate time frame for the Tree Protection Bonds be set by staff.
(5 -1 -1; Commissioner Patrick voted against and Commissioner Jackman was
absent)
Chair Page advised that there is a 15 -day appeal period.
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 5
DR -00 -061 (397 -07 -103) — CHIU, 18615 Maude Avenue: Request for Design Review approval to
demolish an existing 2,873 square foot single story residence with accessory structures and construct a
new single story 6,096 square foot residence. Maximum height of the structure will be 26 feet. The
46,120 square foot parcel is located in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district.
Mr. Philip Block, Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that this site is located on Maude Avenue, near Quito Road.
• The proposal is for a 6,096 square foot residence with a basement. The maximum height is 26 feet.
• The property is zoned R -1- 40,000.
• An existing residence will be demolished as well as accessory structures.
• Staff is recommending approval.
• Among the trees to be removed are two Spanish fir (No. 14 and No. 15) and Tree No. 29 that needs
to be removed for placement of the pool.
Commissioner Roupe pointed to sheet C.1 of the plans and said that it appears that the house can be
removed without impinging on setbacks in order to retain Tree No. 14 and Tree No. 15. Questioned
the need for both a three -car garage and two -car carport.
Chair Page opened Public Hearing No. 5 at 10:34 p.m.
Mr. Greg Kawahara, Architect, 5466 Molly Circle, Livermore:
• Stated that this home reflects a Mediterranean style elevation with concrete s -tile roof, plaster
siding and a manufactured stone veneer wainscoting.
• A three -car garage is proposed for the west side as well as a two -car carport.
• Added that he has tried to set back this home in a similar fashion to the other homes on the street.
• Advised that the wainscoting will be used all around the house and not just on the front elevation.
• Said that there will be a basement on the west side of the structure.
• Said that Trees 14 and 15 are the biggest issue. Said that Tree 14 would not likely survive
construction as the base of the house will be fairly close.
• Added that they are willing to move the house forward to save Tree No. 15 but to do so would
encroach into one of the side setbacks by 18 inches.
Saratoga Planning Commissi ✓Iinutes of February 28, 2001 Page 16
Commissioner Roupe suggested encroaching on both side setbacks by nine inches instead. Questioned
why the applicant needs both the three -car garage as well as the two -car carport.
Mr. Greg Kawahara replied that the applicants currently own two cars and have a teenaged daughter
who will be driving soon. Additionally, they plan to have live -in help.
Commissioner Kurasch asked about hardscape plans for the site.
Mr. Greg Kawahara advised the Commission that the project's Landscape Architect has just been
retained so the landscape plans are not yet developed.
Commissioner Kurasch stated that this home reflects side to side coverage of the lot.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
Commission closed Public Hearing No. 5 at 10:42 p.m. (6 -0 -1; Commissioner
Jackman was absent)
Commissioner Barry stated that a redesign should occur that preserves Tree No. 14 and Tree No. 15.
Commissioner Bernald concurred and stated that exceptional trees must be retained at any cost. These
trees are in beautiful shape. Added that she hates carports. Suggested deepening the garage instead.
Said that necessary storage can also occur in the proposed basementibonus room. Said that she
supported the home's design but that the end to end placement of the residence on the site is
inappropriate. Stated that she is not willing to support this project as it is currently.
Commissioner Roupe also expressed concern about the end to end coverage and tree protection.
Suggested that the applicants give up on having the carport and move the house forward.
Commissioner Kurasch said that Siberian Elms are not highly rated in this area. Said that with a small
shift and the elimination of the carport, she can support this project. Suggested that a landscape plan
for screening at the front of the site be provided for review by staff.
Commissioner Patrick concurred.
Chair Page concurred with the need to save Trees 14 and 15 and suggested striking Condition No. 10.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the
Commission reopened Public Hearing No. 5 at 10:50 p.m. (6 -0 -1; Commissioner
Jackman was absent)
Mr. Louie Leu suggested a compromise by which they will reduce the carport to a one -car carport,
save both trees and set the house at a realistic and sufficient distance from the two trees (No. 14 and
No. 15) so as not to negatively impact them per the recommendation of the Arborist.
Commissioner Kurasch again asked if the applicants could consider the complete elimination of the
carport.
Saratoga Planning Commissi .Minutes of February 28, 2001 Page 17
Mr. Chiu, Property Owner, 18615 Maude Avenue, Saratoga:
• Stressed his desire to have the carport to provide covered parking for his guests.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
Commission again closed Public Hearing No. 5 at 10:53 p.m. (6 -0 -1;
Commissioner Jackman was absent)
Commissioner Roupe stated that he can support a one -car carport with the move of the footprint of the
house, staying within the setbacks, in order to protect Trees 14 and 15.
Commissioner Bernald stated that parking in the carport will not protect visitors from rain.
Commissioner Patrick asked where the carport is located.
Commissioner Roupe pointed it out and added that it now will be half the width.
Chair Page stated his support with the move of the house to save the two trees and the reduction in the
carport.
Commissioner Kurasch stated that rather than cutting the carport in half, the Commission should
simply say yes or no to including the carport at all.
Commissioner Patrick agreed.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Bernald, the
Commission approved DR -00 -061 with the Conditions of Approval:
• That the house be moved to the south and southwest position an adequate
distance to safeguard Tree No. 14 and Tree No. 15 per the Arborist;
• Elimination of the carport;
• Removal of Condition of Approval No. 10; and
• That the applicants provide a front landscape plan for review and approval by
staff.
(6 -0 -1; Commissioner Jackman was absent)
Chair Page advised that there is a 15 -day appeal period.
DIRECTOR ITEMS
The Director Item was postponed to the March 14, 2001, meeting.
COMMISSION ITEMS
1. Chew — Rodeo Creek Hollow (Lot 5) Modifications: Mr. Mark Connolly advised that this project
(DR -99 -056) has been brought back to the Commission because any proposed modifications to an
approval that changes more than 25 square feet must be reviewed and approved by the
Commission. This project's modification includes the reduction of the basement by 1,000 square
Saratoga Planning Commissi dinutes of February 28, 2001 Page 18
feet and a 50 square foot addition to the sunroom. The original approval was for a 3,417 square
foot residence. With the added square footage, the structure now would total 3,467 square feet.
The maximum allowable is 3,728. The project continues to meet all requirements.
The Commission supported this minor modification. (6 -0 -1; Commissioner Jackman was
absent)
2. Illegal Tree Removal: Commissioner Bernald reported on the improper removal of an eucalyptus
tree. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that he has submitted this matter to Code Enforcement. The
Senior Code Enforcement Officer will handle the situation.
3. League of California Cities Planners Institute: Commissioner Bernald inquired about the League of
California Cities Planners Institute, which is scheduled for March 21 —23 in Monterey as the
Commissioners normally are able to attend this program. Mr. Mark Connolly will look into
obtaining authorization for the Commissioners to attend.
4. West Valley College Update: Commissioner Roupe advised that the City Attorney has provided a
letter in response to the Commission's inquiry about the potential to review the Use Permit for
West Valley College. The City Attorney has recommended that the Commission let this matter sit.
5. 13497 Old Oak Road: Commissioner Kurasch reported on a block wall currently under
construction that appears to be at least five feet tall right at the street. Mr. Mark Connolly said that
he would research this installation and report back at the next meeting.
6. Proposed wording for staff report: Commissioner Barry suggested identifying the maximum code
allowance column as being "discretionary" in order to clarify for the public. Chair Page asked staff
to look into this matter but stated that using the word "maximum" is perhaps more clear than
discretionary.
COMMUNICATIONS
L Written: Saratoga City Council Minutes from February 7, 2001.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Chair Page adjourned the meeting at 11:12 p.m. to Wednesday, March 14, 2001, at the Council
Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn
Minutes Clerk
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, February 14, 2001
PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Chair Page called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
t!T@ IMW Y\ w 0
Present: Commissioners Barry, Bernald, Jackman, Kurasch, Patrick, Roupe and Chair Page
Absent: None
Staff: Senior Planner Bob Schubert and Planner Mark Connolly
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — January 24, 2001.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
Planning Commission minutes of January 24, 2001, were approved with no
amendments. (5- 0 -0 -2; Commissioners Bernald and Jackman abstained, as
they were not in attendance at this meeting.)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Gene Zambetti, 14575 Oak Street, Saratoga:
• Advised that he was present as a representative for his mother, who resides at 13920 Loquat Court.
• Advised that there is a proposal for a 3,300 square foot house with a basement on his mother's
street, a street on which the existing homes average only 2,000 square feet.
• Expressed concerns that the City does not have a complete Storm Drain System or under -
grounding of utilities.
• Suggested that the City should take care to collect fees for the under - grounding of utilities,
improvements to the Storm Drain System as well as Park & Recreation fees.
• Added that garages for these larger homes should also be larger and the driveways should be longer
to provide adequate off - street parking.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for
this meeting was properly posted on February 9, 2001.
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, provided the following technical corrections to the packet:
• Advised that he is recommending two additions to the Director Items. One is a request from the
Heritage Preservation Commission and the second is consideration of a review and amendment to
the guidelines for staff approvals of minor modifications.
Saratoga Planning Commissic,_ _✓Iinutes of February 14, 2001
CONSENT CALENDAR
There are no Consent Calendar Items.
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1
Page 2
DR -00 -011, SD -00 -001 & V -00 -018 (517 -08 -008 & 016) — TRAFALGAR, INC., 14612 Big Basin
Way & 20717 St. Charles Street: Request for Design Review, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map
and Variance approval to allow the subdivision of a 22,582 net square foot site into six lots ranging in
size from 1,756 square feet to 2,489 square feet and two additional common area lots. The proposal
calls for demolishing four existing residences with garages totaling 4,595 square feet and 1,000 square
feet of retail space that includes a second story flat. Five new two -story townhouses with garages will
be constructed at the rear of the site. Additionally, 1,316 square feet of retail space with a second story
condominium would face Big Basin Way. The Big Basin Way portion of the site is zoned CH -2 and
the St. Charles Street portion is zoned R -M -3000. A rear yard setback variance has been requested for
a building on the CH -2 portion of the site.
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Stated that this is the second time this project has come before the Planning Commission, the first
time being at the last meeting on January 24 "'
• Advised that the noticing for this evening included a Variance that had not been properly noticed
previously.
• As a result of a Study Session held earlier this evening, staff is recommending a continuance of this
item to the meeting of March 14, 2001.
Chair Page opened the Public Hearing No. 1 at 7:51 p.m.
Ms. Betty Feldheym, 20184 Franklin Avenue, Saratoga:
• Advised that she was in attendance at the Study Session.
• Added that she is impressed with Mr. Gamble's efforts and would like to see this project proceed.
• Said that this proposal will expand the community and its tax base and that it is a good idea to
incorporate residential uses above commercial uses.
• Added that mixed uses help meet affordable housing requirements.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Jackman,
consideration of Agenda Item No. 1 (DR -00- 011 /SD- 00- 001/V -00 -018) was
continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 14, 2001, at 7:55 p.m. (7-
0)
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO. 2
DR -00 -048 (510 -06 -014) — ONG, 19051 Austin Way: Request for Design Review approval that will
involve the demolition of an existing 3,855 square foot single -story residence and construction of a
new single -story 6,393 square foot residence. Maximum height of the structure will be 23 feet. The
60,448 square foot parcel is located in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district.
Saratoga Planning Commissic _Minutes of February 14, 2001 Page 3
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that this project is back before the Commission for a second time, continued from the
January 10`h Planning Commission meeting. Areas of concern included the size of the proposed
light wells, construction access to Highway 9, inadequate information regarding tree protection,
view and/or privacy impacts and questions about the actual height of the proposed structure.
• Stated that the maximum height of the structure has been lowered from the original proposal of 24
feet to 23 feet.
• Added that the adjacent neighbor still has concerns about privacy impacts and has provided several
alternative site plan suggestions.
• Staff is recommending approval of the applicant's proposal.
Commissioner Barry inquired whether the siting of the house remains the same as reviewed at the
January 10`h meeting.
Mr. Mark Connolly replied that no change in the placement of the home has occurred since that time.
Commissioner Barry expressed concern that Barrie Coates had recommended a move of the structure
to alleviate impacts on a tree.
Mr. Mark Connolly advised that Mr. Coates' recommendation had been met with the original
submittal.
V_
w
Commissioner Barry suggested altering the orientation of the house to help preserve Tree No. 5. �
Commissioner Jackman suggested the removal of Tree No. 2 (magnolia). Add that the palm tree on
site is the only one in the neighborhood and it does not necessarily need to remain.
Commissioner Barry asked the distance between the new home and Tree No. 25 (Redwood).
Mr. Mark Connolly replied that there is about an eight to ten foot distance between the trunk and the
proposed structure.
Commissioner Barry advised that the minimum distance recommended between a structure and an Oak
tree is ten feet, with an eight -foot separation for other tree species. Added that eight feet does not offer
much protection during construction. Said that this particular Redwood tree is an incredible one.
Mr. Mark Connolly added that the Arborist has not required construction fencing for that particular
tree.
Commissioner Bemald agreed with Commissioner Barry that the Redwood tree is a majestic one.
Added that she also found that Tree No. 4 (Douglas Fir) is a particularly fine tree. Said that she was
less concerned with the Oak.
Commissioner Kurasch said that the Oak is listed as the most vulnerable.
Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the construction distance would not cause any life threatening
impacts.
Saratoga Planning Commissic,.- Minutes of February 14, 2001 Page 4
Commissioner Barry read from the June 20, 2000, Arborist's Report, which recommended moving the
house to the east of the Douglas Fir.
Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the applicant states that they will have most enjoyment of the house as
they have sited it.
Chair Page asked if the house has been relocated.
Mr. Mark Connolly replied not since the last meeting. It was moved from its original proposed
placement based upon the Arborist's recommendation.
Chair Page opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:07 p.m.
Mr. Ray Nasmeh, P.O. Box 844, Saratoga:
• Advised that while there are over 90 trees on this parcel, only 27 are mentioned in the Arborist's
Report.
• Added that they are trying to have the front door of this new home fronting onto the drive.
• Advised that they will hand dig around the Redwood tree to assure the health of that tree.
• Advised that they will be adding four 24 -inch box trees to help screen this site from the
neighboring home. This is in replacement for two trees that will be removed between the two
properties. Additionally, they will replace the shared fence.
• Informed that they re -sited the house twice based upon recommendations of the Arborist and that
they have been working with staff for more than a year on this project.
Mr. Scott Stoller, 18625 Sutter, Suite 900, Morgan Hill, CA:
• Said that he was available for any questions.
• Added that the Ongs selected to build a single -story house and that the front setback provided is 76
feet.
Mr. Mike Garakam, 19061 Austin Way, Saratoga:
• Said that the Commission is missing several points.
• Advised that he purchased his property three years ago and that he has three children.
• Added that his property is to the east of the Ong parcel with a picket fence separating the two
parcels.
• Currently, he has a view of trees on the Ong property. These trees obscure the current structure on
the Ong parcel. Some of these screening trees are proposed for removal.
• Said that he is particularly concerned with Trees No. 5 and 7, which have been deemed healthy and
worth saving.
• Said that he provided five alternate site plans, some of which rotate the house without changing the
footprint but saving all trees that had been recommended for retention by the Arborist (either rated
as fine or exceptional specimens).
• Asked the Commission to either require the redesign of the house to preserve the exceptional trees,
require the rotation of the house to preserve several of the exceptional trees slated for removal
and/or to require a landscape plan.
• Asked why the Arborist's report is being ignored.
Saratoga Planning Commissit, .Minutes of February 14, 2001 Page 5
Chair Page asked Mr. Garakani whether the addition of four 24 -inch box trees along the shared
property line will help or hurt. Does he want them or not.
Mr. Garakam replied that he wants to see the existing trees retained.
Chair Page stated that other trees are placed at risk with his alternative proposals.
Mr. Garakani suggested that the Commission consider the July Arborist's Report.
Commissioner Barry inquired about such a report. Added that she has seen both the June and October
Arborist's Reports but not a July Report.
Commissioner Roupe stated that the October Arborist Report is the most recent and relevant.
Commissioner Kurasch stated that she would like to see what is included on the July report.
Commissioner Roupe stated that the October Arborist Report refers back to the June report but makes
no mention of a July report.
Mr. Mark Connolly clarified that the July 12, 2000, report is an addendum to the June report. That
update stated that trees rated as exceptional (l, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11) must be retained at any cost while
those rated as fine (9 and 10) should be retained if possible.
Mr. Nesmeh stated that not all trees on the site are in the report. Added that the trees on this parcel are
an asset and will be preserved as recommended by the Arborist.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Bernald, the
Commission closed Public Hearing No. 2 at 8:30 p.m. (7 -0)
Commissioner Kurasch stated that there are five exceptional trees at risk. The house is at the
maximum allowable square footage. Another solution might be to reduce the footprint. Added that
she is in favor of a landscape plan requirement. Said that the home design is a good one.
Commissioner Jackman agreed that the home design is good. Added that the neighbor's suggested
alternate site plans provide too small a rear yard. Said that she would like to see a landscape plan for
the site. Asked whether there will be bonding required for the trees.
Mr. Mark Connolly advised that staff could hold onto the bond for a longer period of time if the
Commission so desires to ensure the health of the trees on site.
Commissioner Patrick reminded the Commission that the original light well gave the appearance of a
sunken terrace.
Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the light well now meets the 36 -inch maximum.
Commissioner Patrick stated that perhaps the house needs to be smaller. Added that one tree on the
Arborist Report that is rated exceptional did not appear particularly exceptional to her upon seeing at
on a site visit.
Saratoga Planning Commissi(,__ Minutes of February 14, 2001 Page 6
Commissioner Barry asked to hear the comments of the other Commissioners prior to making her own
remarks.
Commissioner Roupe stated that most concerns have been addressed including the front elevation,
height and articulation. Said that the proposed square footage is not an issue for him and that this is a
reasonable home. Said that he has no concerns with the design or the location of the home on the site.
Commissioner Bemald stated that she appreciates the lowered front entryway. Said that her main
concern is the preservation of Tree No. 4 (Douglas Fir) and Tree No. 25 (Redwood). Added that she
did not see Tree No. 5 as being exceptional and that she had noticed bark damage on that tree. Tree
No. 1 is an Olive and she is not concerned about that tree. Trees No. 6, 7 and 11 did not appear to be
unreplaceable. Said that with the optimal protection of Tree No. 4 and Tree No. 25, she has no
problem with the trees to be removed. Added that while this is a massive home, it is balanced. The
use of stone helps integrate the new home onto the site. Said that perhaps with the elimination of any
wood - burning fireplaces, the need for spark arresters can be completely eliminated. Said that she can
support the project as long as the shed (currently covered with a blue tarp) is removed.
Chair Page expressed his appreciation for the lowered height. Added that a single -story takes more
space on the lot but that he prefers a single -story to a two -story home. Suggested a Condition of
Approval to retain the bond longer to make sure the replacement trees survive.
Commissioner Barry stated her appreciation for the redesign of the entryway. Agreed with the
comments made by the other Commissioners regarding the trees. Specifically, she is not comfortable
with the closeness of Tree No. 4 and Tree No. 25 to the house. Said that she is open to suggestions.
Commissioner Roupe suggested requiring a Project Arborist who will be on site and responsible for
monitoring the trees at key points of the project.
Chair Page agreed that this requirement can be made a Condition of Approval. If the applicant does
not agree, they can appeal that Condition to Council.
Commissioner Barry suggested a landscape plan that accomplishes the necessary screening for the
adjacent neighbor. Said that she would like to see a Water Retention Plan. Added that a good faith
effort has been made here. With screening, this is a reasonable project.
Commissioner Kurasch said that this project would impact two neighbors. The driveway is close to
the property line (six feet). Said that she did not agree that this is the only or even best placement of
the house on site. Said that she will not support. Added that she does support the requirement for a
landscape plan for the site.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Bernald, seconded by Commissioner Patrick, the
Commission approved DR -00 -048 with the requirements for:
A. a Landscape Plan,
B. a Water Retention Plan;
C. that the tarp- covered shed structure be removed from the property;
D. that an on -site Arborist be retained for the project specifically during critical
foundation construction as well to provide regular monitoring of the health of
the trees during construction;
Saratoga Planning Commissic.__ .✓Iinutes of February 14, 2001
Page 7
E. that a bond for the trees be retained for two years after Final Occupancy;
F. that the outside stairwell be reduced; and
G. that two of three spark arresters be removed from the structure.
(6 -1; Commissioner Kurasch voted against the project)
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO.3
UP -01 -001 (397 -24 -093 & 094) — PINN BROTHERS, 20075 Spaich Court: Request for Use Permit
approval to construct a new 930 square foot cabana which would be 12 feet, 6 inches in height. A Use
Permit is required to allow the structure to be built within 33 feet of the rear yard property line rather
than the required 59 feet and to be 12 feet, 6 inches in height where the maximum allowed height is 12
feet. There is an existing 4,773 square foot house on the 41,747 square foot parcel, which is located
within an R -1- 20,000 zoning district.
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that this request is for a Use Permit to allow a 930 square foot cabana in the rear yard for a
house currently under construction. The cabana would be located 33 feet from the rear setback
where 59 feet are required. The structure would be 12 feet, 6 inches while the maximum allowed
without a Use Permit is 12 feet. Staff is recommending approval of this request.
Chair Page opened Public Hearing No. 3 at 8:54 p.m.
Ms. Gina Terisi, 14315 Douglas Lane, Saratoga:
• Advised that she is the representative of the purchasers of this home and that she is available to
answer any questions.
Commissioner Jackman asked if a stove is planned for this unit and whether the owners consider this
structure to be a cabana or a guesthouse.
Ms. Gina Terisi replied that the unit is considered a guesthouse per the plans and includes a bedroom.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the
Commission closed Public Hearing No. 3 at 8:57 p.m. (7 -0)
Commissioner Jackman stated that as this unit will not be visible from the street she felt that it would
be okay.
Commissioner Patrick inquired if there is not a square footage limitation on guesthouses.
Mr. Mark Connolly replied that the maximum square footage is based on the total square footage on
the lot.
Chair Page asked what the total square footage is on the property.
Mr. Mark Connolly replied that the main house is 4,773 square feet.
Saratoga Planning Commissiu__ Minutes of February 14, 2001 Page 8
Commissioner Kurasch asked if all the homes in the project were sold.
Commissioner Patrick advised that the homes located directly behind this property are older existing
homes.
Mr. Mark Connolly stated that he is confident that this project will not exceed the total maximum
allowable square footage.
Chair Page called for a break at 9 p.m. to allow staff the opportunity to obtain the specific square
footage for this site.
Chair Page reconvened the meeting at 9:08 p.m.
Mr. Bob Schubert, Senior Planner, advised that the house and cabana would total 5,703 square feet
while the allowable square footage for the property is 6,040 square feet.
Commissioner Barry stated that while there may be no impact from the street, there may be great
impact to the neighbors on the other side of the fence. Suggested that the cabana could be more
rectangular in shape rather than bulky and intrusive on the setback. It doesn't appear as if there are any
hardships or reasons why the applicants cannot comply with required setbacks. Added that she had no
problem with the extra six inches in height.
Commissioner Kurasch inquired whether the cabana could be built closer to the home.
Commissioner Barry said that she has design and placement concerns. A 900 square foot cabana is
large and it is closer to the fences than it needs to be.
Commissioner Patrick advised that the use of the term cabana implies the future addition of a pool,
which may explain the placement to the side of the lot.
Commissioner Jackman stated that most cabanas don't include a bedroom. Recommended a reduction
in the size of the cabana so that it is a cabana rather than a guesthouse. Suggested approximately 700
square feet rather than the proposed 930.
Commissioner Bernald stated that a 30 by 30 foot house is not a huge structure and that the
homeowners should be able to use their backyard as they see fit. The proposal does not exceed the
allowable square footage and a pool is probably going to be added to the site. This is not an
unprecedented request to have a guest house /cabana within a setback. Jokingly suggested throwing in
an oven and allowing this to become affordable housing. Stated her support.
Commissioner Roupe stated that the height is not an issue and that he will support this proposal.
Commissioner Kurasch stated that it is fair game to look at this proposal since the Use Permit is
required to approve the cabana. Said that the unit could be smaller.
Chair Page stated that he can support the proposal as it is. Added that having a bed and bath in the unit
is a nice addition.
Saratoga Planning Commissic__ �4inutes of February 14, 2001
Page 9
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Bernald, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the
Commission approved UP -01 -001. (5 -2; Commissioners Barry and Kurasch voted
against)
Chair Page advised that there is a 15 -day appeal period.
DIRECTOR ITEMS
1. Modification to Review Standards: Mr. Mark Connolly suggested bringing to the Commission, at
its meeting of February 28, 2001, proposed modifications to relax the standards to minor
modifications to previous approvals in order to allow staff to handle minor changes as opposed to
requiring them to be brought back before the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Jackman stated that it is a good idea to review the standards.
Commissioner Patrick added that she had no objection to bringing the idea up for review.
Commissioner Bernald cautioned that sometimes even a minor modification such a moving a structure
just a few inches causes big problems.
2. Heritage Preservation Commission Request: Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the Heritage
Preservation Commission will be conducting a site visit at 14625 Fruitvale Avenue (Kalkunte
project) on March 6, 2001, at 8:30 a.m. and is asking any available member of the Planning
Commission to join them on that site visit.
COMMISSION ITEMS
1. West Valley College Stadium Expansion: Commissioner Roupe advised that West Valley College
is seeking to expand its stadium. Suggested that staff be directed to investigate whether the
Planning Commission can call up the College's Use Permit for review.
Commissioner Patrick suggested that Commissioner Roupe contact the City Attorney directly due to
staff limitations at this time.
Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the City Attorney is already involved. Added that there is a Use
Permit for the college. Advised that recently 10 trees were removed but the City does not have a lot to
say about that. Said that staff can update the Commission at the next meeting.
Commissioner Patrick again suggested a report directly from the City Attorney as to what purview the
City and /or Commission has in regard to West Valley College.
Chair Page suggested that Richard Taylor be contacted.
2. La Paloma Project: Commissioner Jackman expressed concerns regarding the total disregard for
the safety of a tree on her friend's property, adjacent to the La Paloma Project. Concrete has been
dumped on the ground beneath the tree and gravel was poured beneath the tree. The City red -
tagged the project.
Saratoga Planning Commissi,_ Minutes of February 14, 2001
Page 10
Mr. Mark Connolly advised that a $1,700 fine has been imposed. A platform buffer was installed but
later removed by the contractor. There is the possibility to impose a $200 per day fine effective from
the date of the removal of the platform buffer.
Commissioner Roupe stated that it appears that imposing a fine is not enough of a deterrent.
Suggested that the developers be put on notice and brought before the Planning Commission to explain
their lack of compliance with the Tree Protection requirements.
Mr. Mark Connolly asked what recourse the Commission would take if the developer refuses to come
before the Commission.
Chair Page directed staff to invite the developer to the next meeting. If they do not appear, the project
will be red - tagged.
3. Conditions of Project on Quito Road: Commissioner Jackman advised of a friend living on Quito
Road where a messy construction site is located nearby. Commissioner Jackman asked how long
those poor site conditions would be allowed to remain.
Mr. Mark Connolly advised that as long as the project is making progress and inspections are being
obtained, they comply with City regulations as far as timing of a project. The property owner is
installing a sub - terrainian basement up to the property line.
Commissioner Barry asked if there is any discretion to call this project up for review and whether there
are any geological concerns regarding the amount of basement space under construction.
Chair Page suggested that staff pose that question to the City Geologist.
Mr. Mark Connolly advised that a basement is exempt from the requirement for a grading permit.
Commissioner Bernald added that there is a safety issue, as this building appears to be perched on stilts
while the basement is being dug beneath it.
Mr. Mark Connolly advised that Building inspectors visit the site often.
COMMUNICATIONS
1. Written: Saratoga City Council Minutes from January 17, 2001.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Chair Page adjourned the meeting at 9:54 p.m. to Wednesday, February 28, 2001, at the Council
Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn
Minutes Clerk
J'
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, January 24, 2001
PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Chairman Page called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m.
UnI.i. CA1.1.
Present: Commissioners Barry, Kurasch, Patrick, Roupe and Chairman Page
Absent: Commissioners Bernald and Jackman (excused)
Staff: Acting Director Irwin Kaplan and Planner Mark Connolly
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — January 10, 2001.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch,
the Planning Commission minutes of January 10, 2001, were approved with the
instruction to insert the correct project description for Agenda Item No. 5. (4-
0-2-1; Commissioners Bernald and Jackman were absent and Commissioner
Barry abstained, as she was not in attendance at this meeting.)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no oral communication items.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for
this meeting was properly posted on January 19, 2001.
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, provided the following technical corrections to the packet:
• Item No. 1 — On page 10, staff advises that the City's Geologist did review this project. Also on
Page A5 -0 the calculations are incomplete and depict a percentage of impervious surfaces that
exceed that allowed. The walkways and other impervious surfaces will be reduced so as not to
exceed the maximum allowable.
• Item No 2 — Advised that changes to the fencing are now depicted.
• Item No. 4 — Informed that the Variance aspect of this application was not posted. No final action
will be taken on this project this evening. The project will be properly posted prior to final action
by the Planning Commission at its next meeting.
Sdratoga Planning Commissi _Minutes of January 24, 2001
CONSENT CALENDAR
There are no Consent Calendar Items.
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1
Page 2
DR -00 -036 & UP -00 -018 (397 -05 -091)— SAN FILIPPO, Sobey Road: Request for Design Review
approval to construct a new 5,312 square foot two -story residence with a 608 square foot basement and
529 square foot cabana on a vacant lot. The Use Permit approval is necessary to allow the cabana to
be located within the rear yard setback. The maximum height of the residence will be 26 feet. The site
is 43,042 square feet and is located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district.
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Stated that this request is for a Design Review approval to allow the construction of a 5,312 square
foot, two -story residence with a 608 square foot basement and a 529 square foot cabana. A Use
Permit is required to allow the cabana to be located within the rear yard setback. The maximum
height of the cabana is 15 feet while the maximum height of the residence will be 26 feet. This is a
constrained lot in that there is a 30 percent grade at the front of the lot. Concerns have been
expressed by the adjacent neighbor to the east regarding the proposed placement of the house. As
mentioned during the Technical Corrections, amendments to the plans will be required to reduce
the impervious surfaces for the property to meet allowable percentages. Echo stone and
decomposed granite or gravel will be used for walkways. With those adjustments, staff is
recommending approval as all other requirements are met.
Commissioner Kurash inquired about the cabana.
Mr. Mark Connolly advised that a Use Permit is required to allow the 15 -foot height as well as the
placement within the rear yard setback.
Commissioner Roupe inquired whether the retaining walls are within the allowances.
Mr. Mark Connolly advised that staff has verified that the maximum height of any retaining walls on
site is three feet.
Chairman Page opened the Public Hearing No. 1 at 7:50 p.m.
Mr. Rick Zea, 4616 Venice Way, San Jose:
• Identified himself as the representative for the applicant and advised that they have worked closely
with staff to meet all requirements. Thanked Mr. Connolly for his assistance.
• Added that they have also worked closely with the neighbors, having mailed information as well as
meeting with neighbors. At the meeting with neighbors, support was expressed.
• Requested approval.
• Advised that both the applicant and architect are available for questions.
Commissioner Patrick asked Mr. Zea if there would be any problem complying with the requirement to
reduce impervious surfaces.
Mr. Rick Zea deferred to the applicant and architect.
Saratoga Planning Commissi Ainutes of January 24, 2001 Page 3
Commissioner Patrick added that she felt there is too much paved area on the property. Asked if the
applicants might consider reducing the amount of driveway.
Mr. Rick Zea advised that adequate access to the site requires the long driveway. Said that they would
consider a compromise material for portions of the driveway as possible.
Mr. Maurice Carmargo, 3953 Yolo Drive:
• Identified himself as the project architect.
• Assured the Commission that it will be easy to reduce the impervious surfaces to meet acceptable
standards. Suggested changes to some of the walkway materials.
Commissioner Roupe asked about the significance of such changes.
Mr. Mark Connolly advised that should the walkways be comprised of decomposed gravel, a 25
percent credit is given that reduces the total amount of impervious surface to allowable levels. Added
that the applicants will be using pervious pavers for the hammerhead and flat area in front of the
garage, which offers a 25 percent credit. These changes result in 32 percent of impervious surfaces.
Chairman Page expressed concern with the numbers provided and ultimate percentage of impervious
surfaces that will result on this site.
Commissioner Roupe agreed and said that there appears to be a lot of impervious surface. This issue
must be resolved to ensure that the project meets allowable limits.
Mr. Maurice Carmargo said that there are walkway areas that can be eliminated outright. Assured that
he was willing to snake changes to meet City requirements. Said that the edges of the driveway can be
constructed using pervious material.
Chairman Page inquired whether any other architectural design styles had been considered and
whether the applicant might be willing to consider the use of wood siding. Added that this
Mediterranean -style stucco building is out of character with the beginning of Sobey Road. Said that
with the removal of 17 trees from this site, this structure will be highly visible from Sobey Road and
that he is not certain this style home fits.
Mr. Maurice Carmargo advised that they had considered many architectural styles but that the owner
has a pretty strong desire to have Mediterranean -style architecture. Added that many trees are staying
and that the house is set back quite a way from the front of the lot while retaining a presence to the
street. There are limits due to the constraints of the lot. Concluded by stating that this design is
compatible and set back.
Commissioner Roupe said that the structure gives the appearance of a three -story in that it marches up
that hill. Said that the ceiling height in the study seems excessive and inquired why it is so massive,
especially since it is at the front elevation that is most visible from the street.
Mr. Maurice Carmargo said that the house is single -story on that elevation. Said that the high ceiling
for the study was designed to give balance to that whole elevation and a certain prominence to
highlight the front entrance. Said that this one -story fagade balances with the living room wing.
Saratoga Planning Commissi ✓Iinutes of January 24, 2001
Commissioner Roupe stated that it rather creates bulk and mass.
Page 4
Commissioner Kurash inquired about landscaping plans around the large oak tree in the front of the
property.
Mr. Maurice Carmargo advised that the landscaping plan has not yet been developed. Said that they
could look into adding additional landscaping that is compatible and requires low water.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if the neighbor's concerns have been addressed. Asked why the house is
situated on the site as it is currently.
Mr. Maurice Carmargo said that they moved the house as far back from the east property line as
possible. The study has been buried into the hillside. They also created a planting strip between the
driveway and house next door. This planting area will allow plenty of room to install screening
landscaping. Added that the owner is willing to plant as many trees as necessary.
Mr. Tim McNeil, 18450 Sobey Road, Saratoga:
• Stated his opposition to this project.
• Expressed concern that the structure cascades down the slope of the hill which gives bulk and mass
to the house.
• Added that this new home has been positioned over his rear yard and pool area, which will greatly
affect his privacy.
• Said that there is plenty of property in the meadow portion of this lot on which to construct this
home.
• Advised that many of the 17 trees to be removed are over 30 feet in height. Therefore, his property
will be substantially and unfairly impacted by this project.
• Suggested that the project be redesigned for placement on the lower portion of the meadow.
Added that the City should consider issuance of a Variance, if necessary, in order to facilitate
placement of this home there. Said this would be a good solution to the problems of the current
placement.
• Expressed his opinion that it was a bad subdivision that created this lot.
Ms. Nona Christensen, 18510 Sobey Road, Saratoga:
• Said that she owns three acres over several lots, including the lot immediately adjacent to the west
to the applicant's lot.
• Expressed support for this project and stated that the proposed house will be a beautiful addition to
Sobey Road.
• Said that several architects were consulted and all came up with the same placement of the house
on this lot.
Ms. Grace San Filippo, Applicant, 117 El Portal, Los Gatos:
• Advised that this is her first experience in building a house.
• Said that she feels strongly that she wants a Mediterranean -style home to reflect her Italian
heritage.
• Said that she has done everything possible to design this project and feels that it will be a beautiful
addition to Sobey Road.
Saratoga Planning Commissi. Ainutes of January.24, 2001 Page 5
Commissioner Roupe asked why Ms. San Filippo would not consider constructed in the meadow area
of her lot.
Ms. Grace San Filippo replied that the meadow area is so far back and would feel very isolated and
would result in a flag lot appearance. Said that she prefers a home with a street presence.
Additionally, to do so would leave her with little rear yard area and without any option for the
placement of a cabana on site.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 was closed at 8:25 p.m. (5 -0 -2;
Commissioners Bernald and Jackman were absent)
Commissioner Barry said that she was not ready to approve this application this evening, as she does
not feel it fits with the rural character of Sobey Road. There is still the chance to preserve the semi -
rural atmosphere. Said that the mass and bulk issues raised are relevant and that she has concerns
about drainage issues.
Commissioner Roupe stated his shared concern. Said that this is a large house that cascades down the
slope. The high ceiling in the study accentuates the mass and bulk.
Commissioner Kurasch said that the proposal is not outlandish and is kind of a trend. Suggested that
the house might be a bit ambitious for its lot.
Commissioner Patrick reiterated concern about impervious coverage. Added that the house is not
compatible with the neighborhood. Said that the siting of the house seems logical but that the mass
and bulk are a problem. This is simply too big a house and she cannot support it.
Chairman Page stated that he concurred with the other Commissioners' concerns. He listed a concern
with the architectural style of the house. Since this part of Sobey Road is more rustic, wood siding
might be more compatible. While much of the house may not be visible from the street, from the
neighboring homes, this structure will be highly visible.
Commissioner Roupe stated that it appears this application would not be approved if put to a vote this
evening. Suggested a continuance to allow the applicant the opportunity to reconsider several things.
Suggested changes include reducing the amount of impervious surfaces on the site as well as the mass
and bulk of the structure (specifically the three -story appearance caused by the high ceiling of the
study) and possibly repositioning the structure on the lot.
Chairman Page advised that should the application not be approved this evening, the applicant can
appeal to Council. An alternative is a continuance to allow some redesign, which can be brought back
to the Commission at a future meeting.
Commissioner Kurasch questioned whether the Commission was in agreement that the architectural
style was inappropriate.
Commissioner Roupe cautioned that the Commission should not stand too hard on that issue. The
main issues appear to be the mass and bulk and the cascade effect of this current design.
Saratoga Planning Commissi. ✓linutes of January 24, 2001 Page 6
Chairman Page suggested the addition of some stone and a different roof color.
Commissioner Barry stated her preference for a wood -sided home at this location. Added that since
not all seven Commissioners are here tonight, other views may be forthcoming. Said that this house
will have a presence and should be more compatible with the area. Everyone will have to try to be
reasonable.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the
Commission continued DR -00 -036 & UP -00 -018 to its meeting of March 14, 2001.
(5 -0 -2; Commissioner Bernald and Jackman were absent)
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO. 2
DR -00 -052 (397 -07 -018) — MAESUMI, 15171 Maude Avenue: Request for Design Review approval
to demolish an existing single -story residence and two accessory structures totaling 3,100 square feet
and construct a new 5,235 square foot single -story residence with 2,486 square foot basement.
Maximum height of the structure is 24 feet tall, located on a 33,105 square foot parcel within an R -1-
40,000 zoning district.
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that this application seeks approval for the demolition of three existing structures totaling
3,100 square feet and the construction of a 5,235 square foot, single -story residence with a 2,486
square foot basement. The maximum height would be 24 feet. The zoning is R -1- 40,000 and the
lot is 33,105 square feet. This project meets all minimum requirements and is actually two feet
lower than the maximum allowable. Staff is recommending approval.
Commissioner Patrick pointed out two light wells that appear larger than the allowable 36 inches.
Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the applicant would modify the size of the light wells on their
construction plans.
Commissioner Barry asked if a color board is available.
Mr. Mark Connolly replied yes and distributed the color board to the Commissioners.
Chairman Page asked if the new construction hours would be imposed on this project, from 7:30 a.m.
to 6:30 p.m. weekdays with no weekend construction permitted.
Mr. Mark Connolly advised that those hours would be imposed.
Chairman Page inquired why a new fire hydrant is required, as it appears that there is an existing fire
hydrant in close proximity.
Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the applicant had the option to install the fire hydrant or install fire
sprinklers throughout the new home.
Chairman Page opened Public Hearing No. 2 at 8:45 p.m.
Saratoga Planning Commissi, _✓linutes of January 24, 2001 Page 7
Mr. Omid Shakeri, 3131 S. Bascom Avenue, #110, Campbell:
• Stated that he is available for questions.
• Clarified that one Fire Department requirement is for a hose wraparound of 150 feet. Portions of
the new house will exceed that distance. The two options to solve that deficiency are either a fire
hydrant or installation of fire sprinklers throughout the house.
• Expressed support with all the Conditions of Approval.
Commissioner Barry inquired about the height proposed for the structure. Stated that it was originally
18 feet.
Mr. Omid Shakeri advised that the structure would look strange at 18 feet. Their proposal is 24 feet at
the highest point to finish or natural grade, whichever is lower. Added that this is not actually a 24-
foot height except for the manner in which the City measures.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the light wells exceed allowable size. Inquired about a light
well under the balcony off of the living room.
Mr. Omid Shakeri said that he would like to seek an exception for the size of that light well.
Chairman Page questioned how that light well would serve its purpose of providing light when a
balcony is directly above it.
Commissioner Patrick clarified that the light well is actually under the library and not the living room
with the balcony.
Commissioner Roupe stated that he is hesitant to grant an exception to the standard guidelines. Added
that it is not really clear what is actually being proposed.
Mr. Omid Shaken said that the intention is to bring the light well beyond the balcony. Expressed
confusion for the reasoning for limitations to 36 inches for light wells.
Mr. Mark Connolly explained that the 36 -inch limitation for light wells is not a Code issue but rather a
Director's guideline standard.
Commissioner Kurasch asked why 36- inches is a desired size for a light well standard.
Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the UBC establishes this minimum to provide adequate lighting. In
the past some light wells got so wide that the terracing effect often would give a single -story home the
appearance of a two -story.
Commissioner Patrick added that it is also a square footage issue.
Chairman Page said that he would defer to staff on that issue.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
Commission closed Public Hearing No. 2 at 8:57 p.m. (5 -0 -2; Commissioners
Bernald and Jackman were absent)
Saratoga Planning Commissi, dinutes of January 24, 2001 Page 8
Commissioner Patrick said that she was not inclined to adopt an exception to the light well standard.
Said that she will support the project if it meets all standards. Suggested altering the angle of the house
a bit to ensure that a mature tree's drip line is not impacted, if possible.
Commissioner Barry expressed concern about the proposed 24 -foot height, as it appears excessive for
a single -story home. Added that the light well should stay within the 36 -inch limitation.
Commissioner Kurasch stated that she would want the house to fit the rural character through use of
softening materials. Added that the 24 -foot height does not seem to be a single -story height. Said that
there are some exceptional oak trees and would like to see a landscape plan with native landscaping.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the
Commission sought to reopen the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. (2 -3 -2;
Commissioners Barry and Roupe voted for; Commissioners Page, Patrick and
Kurasch voted against and Commissioners Bernald and Jackman were absent).
The motion failed.
Commissioner Barry suggested the addition of materials such as stone to attenuate concerns.
Chairman Page said that such a condition would be fitting and appropriate.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
Commission approved DR -00 -052 with the requirement that the light wells not
exceed 36 -inchs and that a landscaping plan be developed that is protective of the
oak trees on site using native materials and low amounts of irrigation. (3 -2 -2;
Commissioners Barry and Kurasch voted against and Commissioners Bernald and
Jackman were absent)
Prior to the vote, Commissioner Barry asked if Commissioner Patrick would consider an amendment
to her motion to require an added condition to lower the roof to 22 feet.
Commissioner Patrick declined to add that condition to her motion.
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO.3
DR -00 -047 (503 -23 -041) — SHAHBAZI, 14231 Burns Way: Request for Design Review approval for
a 1,325 square -foot single -story addition and Variance approval to allow the enclosure of an existing
porch located in the rear yard setback. The 10,290 square foot parcel is located within an R -1- 12,500
zoning district. Maximum height of the structure will be 17 feet tall.
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that this proposal seeks approval for a 1,325 square -foot single -story addition to a
residence and a Variance to allow the enclosure of an existing porch located in the rear yard
setback. The maximum height is 16 feet, 6 inches. The lot is 10,000 square feet and the zoning is
R- 1- 12,500. This is a constrained lot and the Variance is necessary for a small portion of the
Saratoga Planning Commissi, Qinutes of January 24, 2001
Page 9
addition. There is no viable alternative to the Variance. The adjacent neighbor has been informed
of the proposal. There are no view and/or privacy issues as a result of the Variance. This project
meets all other requirements.
Commissioner Kurasch inquired about the proposed siding material.
Mr. Mark Connolly provided the material board.
Commissioner Roupe asked why this application is for Design Review rather than a Variance.
Mr. Mark Connolly advised that it has been a policy and practice to look as such requests as part of
Design Review.
Chairman Page opened Public Hearing No. 3 at 9:10 p.m.
Mr. Rick Hartman, HomeTech Architects, 1540 Parkmoor Avenue, San Jose:
• Advised that the siding material is hardy blank siding, which will be horizontal rather than vertical.
This material looks like hardboard but is cement instead of wood. This is a Class A material,
which makes the Fire Department happy.
• Said that they would like to request a change in roofing material to Edgelight. This material is a
tile that looks like a shingle.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
Commission closed Public Hearing No. 3 at 9:15 p.m. (5 -0 -2; Commissioners
Bernald and Jackman were absent)
Commissioner Kurasch stated that this is a supportable Variance for which she has no problem.
Commissioners Patrick, Barry, Roupe and Chairman Page concurred.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the
Commission approved DR -00 -047. (5 -0 -2; Commissioners Bernald and Jackman
were absent)
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the
Commission approved V -00 -019. (5 -0 -2; Commissioners Bernald and Jackman
were absent)
Chairman Page advised that there is a 15 -day appeal period.
Chairman Page called a recess at 9:15 p.m.
Chairman Page reconvened the meeting at 9:22 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO.4
Saratoga Planning Commissi, ✓Iinutes of January 24, 2001 Page 10
SD -00 -001, DR -00 -011, BSE -00 -012 & V -00 -018 (517 -08 -008 & 016) — TRAFALGAR, 14612 Big
Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street: Request for Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map approval for
the subdivision of a 22,582 net square foot site into six lots ranging in size from 1,756 square feet to
2,489 square feet and two additional common area lots. The proposal calls for demolishing four
existing residences with garages totaling 4,595 square feet. Five new 2,686 to 3,030 square foot
townhouses, including garages and basements would be constructed. Additionally, 1,316 square feet
of retail space with a second story condominium would fact Big Basin Way. The front portion of the
project would have access from Big Basin Way and the rear townhouses from St. Charles Street. The
Big Basin Way half is zoned CH -2 and the St. Charles Street half is zoned R -M -3000. The Planning
Commission will take testimony, discuss the proposed project and continue the item for a Public
Hearing and final action at a later date.
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that there are two legal lots of record. The St. Charles property is zoned R -M, 3,000 and
the Big Basin Way property is zoned CH -2. Staff is recommending keeping that zoning boundary.
Said that an informational discussion would occur this evening with a continuance recommended
to February 14, for final action. This is necessary, as the Variance was not properly noticed.
Commissioner Patrick asked why the condo project was being subdivided.
Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the subdivision allows greater FAR for each individual lot.
Commissioner Patrick said that this project would create six substandard lots ranging in size from
1,756 to 2,489 square feet. Inquired whether the moratorium impacts this proposal.
Mr. Mark Connolly advised that this project was submitted prior to the moratorium.
Acting Director Irwin Kaplan advised that these are freestanding condo units that are not attached.
Commissioner Kurasch inquired about the second floor office.
Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the applicant must increase parking by 10 spaces and meet ADA
requirements to incorporate that office space.
Chairman Page pointed out the normal parking requirement per residential unit as 2.5 spaces (one
covered and 1.5 uncovered). These units only propose two enclosed spaces. Added that visitors to the
site will end up parking in the Village spaces therefore impacting commercial uses.
Chairman Page opened Public Hearing No. 4 at 9:35 p.m.
Mr. Stan Gamble, Civil Engineer, Trafalger Incorporated:
• Advised that this project includes two lots, Lot A and Lot B.
• Said that his firm has constructed 250 homes since 1980 and they just won an award.
• The existing parcel profiles are as follows:
1. Parcel A is on Big Basin and has three existing structures. They were originally built as
residences.
2. Parcel B is on St. Charles Street and has one existing cottage.
• Adjacent Uses are as follows:
Saratoga Planning Commissi ✓Iinutes of January 24, 2001 Page 11
1. To the east of Lot A are four residential units over two retail spaces with 895 square feet.
2. To the east of Lot B are four residential units.
3. To the west of the property is a hotel.
• Lot A is proposed to be developed with two two -story townhomes and two retail /office spaces of
1,300 square feet with one residential flat above the retail space.
• Lot B is proposed to be developed with three two -story townhomes.
• The average size of the townhome units on both lots is 2,140 square feet excluding basements.
• The proposed density for Lot B is equal to the neighboring project and Lot A includes slightly less.
• Provided a time line for the project to date including being initially under contract in October of
1999; in escrow in January 2000 and submittal of his initial plan with the City in March 2000. His
project is excluded from Measure G.
• Initial staff comments have been met. Included was having a separate structure at the lot line. An
increase in retail space in Lot A, provision of additional parking and the retention of a cork oak tree
in the center of Lot B.
Commissioner Patrick asked about access to St. Charles.
Mr. Stan Gamble said that a driveway would connect the courtyard area with St. Charles.
Commissioner Roupe stated that while this project is not under the constraints of Measure G or the
moratorium, it is the will of the people and the Council to do everything possible to retain the
commercial aspect of the Village, including not converting commercial space into residential uses.
Inquired whether the Commission does have some discretion.
Acting Director Kaplan promised to research and provide a detailed answer for the next meeting.
Commissioner Roupe asked what is precluding the applicant from keeping the use strictly commercial.
Mr. Stan Gamble replied economics. The parking is limited to 14 spaces. More retail space might be
viable if a Variance is possible on the parking requirements.
Commissioner Roupe suggested that a Variance on parking might be a possibility. Asked the applicant
if he was willing to pursue the idea of a more commercially oriented project.
Mr. Stan Gamble replied that he would be willing along Big Basin. Added however, that he finds that
the retail traffic turns around at Fifth Street.
Commissioner Patrick stated that the Village Plan requires plaza type areas.
Mr. Stan Gamble pointed out the proposed plaza area that is setback 15 feet from the sidewalk plus
there is the 10 -foot sidewalk.
Commissioner Patrick questioned the roof design.
Mr. Stan Gamble said that the steep roof design is cut flat at the top to meet height limitations.
Commissioner Patrick inquired whether the easement might be overused with six residential units.
Saratoga Planning Commissi _Minutes of January 24, 2001 Page 12
Mr. Stan Gamble advised that the easement is currently used for three existing residences.
Commissioner Patrick asked if Mr. Gamble has a Preliminary Title Report.
Mr. Stan Gamble replied that he has provided those documents to staff.
Commissioner Kurasch advised that the Commission would need one set of clear square footage
numbers for this project. There are a lot of different numbers on the various pages of the plans and
none of the numbers are corresponding.
Mr. Stan Gamble pointed out that some figures are depicting areas of units and not square footage.
Commissioner Kurasch reiterated that it must be made very clear what square footage the units
include.
Commissioner Patrick said that the data needed includes property lot lines, the square footage for each
proposed lot, each current lot and the proposed buildings.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if the applicant has discussed other possible uses for the front of Lot A
with staff and whether other alternatives are doable. Added that with Lot B, the units are large and
may need to be reduced or perhaps to flip the garage placement in order to allow ambiance, open space
and a quality walkable environment. Asked if the applicant has considered providing affordable units.
Mr. Stan Gamble said to incorporate affordable units he would need greater density and smaller units.
Commissioner Patrick warned that more general information is required this evening rather than a
debate on the specifics.
Commissioner Roupe expressed confusion with the depiction of fireplaces on the plans.
Mr. Stan Gamble advised that each residential unit has a fireplace. They are direct vent fireplaces and
therefore there are no chimneys required.
Commissioner Kurasch inquired about the height limitations for these sites.
Mr. Stan Gamble advised that the maximum height he is proposing is 25 feet.
Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the zoning for each lot is different as are the height limitations. The
St. Charles property is R -M and allows a maximum 30 -foot height. The Big Basin lot is zoned CH -2
and allows a maximum 35 -foot height. A moment later he corrected himself to say that the maximum .
height for CH -2 is 26 feet.
Mr. Bill Brown, 14755 Oak Street, Saratoga:
• Advised that he had sent an email to staff and proceeded to read it aloud to the Commissioners.
• Said that this project is out of character with the area.
Commissioner Patrick asked Mr. Brown if he objected to the residential uses or if he had architectural
design concerns.
Saratoga Planning Commissi ✓Iinutes of January 24, 2001 Page 13
Mr. Bill Brown clarified that he had no objections to the rear lot but supported the maximum
commercial use possible for the Big Basin parcel, be it retail or office.
Commissioner Roupe suggested that there might not be incentive to drive to this location for office
space.
Mr. Bill Brown stated that there is demand for office space in Saratoga including his own business,
which is located outside of Saratoga because of limited office space available in Saratoga.
Commissioner Kurasch sought clarification that Mr. Brown prefers commercial office and/or retail use
to residential uses.
Mr. Bill Brown replied yes.
Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Brown if he would support a parking variance.
Mr. Bill Brown replied yes.
Mr. Srinivasan, 14598 Big Basin Way, Saratoga:
• Stated that he has a similarly sized parcel but that his property has 3,000 square feet less building
that is proposed for this site.
• Expressed his disagreement with Mr. Gamble that business stops at Fifth Street.
• Said that the easement will be used more than the original intent with this development and that he
is concerned about the safety of children due to traffic impacts of the expanded easement use.
• Added that the mass of this project will create views impacts.
Commissioner Patrick asked Mr. Srinivasan if he counted basement spaces in his square footage
comparisons.
Mr. Srinivasan replied yes.
Chairman Page asked how many units are included on Mr. Srinivasan's property.
Mr. Srinivasan replied that he has four condominiums (three in the back and one over the retail space)
and 900 square feet of retail space. Each residential unit has a two -car garage and there are five
additional parking spaces. His parcel is a half an acre.
Ms. Margaret Marchetti:
• Stated that the overall plan and design are very attractive but that the project is still massive and
very close to St. Charles.
• Said that the Village atmosphere is being lost.
• Suggested that the one tree being removed be replaced with a 36 -inch box tree rather than the
proposed 24 -inch box tree.
• Added that a parking variance is not a viable option.
• Reiterated that her concerns are the massiveness of the project, trees and parking.
Commissioner Patrick asked Ms. Marchetti where her property is located in relation to this site.
Saratoga Planning Commissi ✓linutes of January 24, 2001 Page 14
Ms. Margaret Marchetti advised that she is located at Sixth and St. Charles. Added that she does not
mind retail space on Big Basin but does not support any on St. Charles.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if parking was the reason for that concern.
Ms. Margaret Marchetti replied yes.
Ms. Betty Riley, Pamela Way, Saratoga:
• Expressed her agreement with the comments made by Ms. Marchetti.
• Said that she supports retail on Lot A but does not want to see more traffic on St. Charles.
Ms. LeAnn Hernandez:
• Said that this project will be a great addition to the Village.
• Added that when compared to the average of $3 million plus for homes in Saratoga, this project
will equate to affordable housing.
• Said that she had minor concerns including a 7 a.m. construction starting time. This will pose a
problem with their motel next door.
• Suggested that the CC &Rs include a restriction that requires that garage doors be kept closed and
that no parking be allowed in the courtyard.
• Added that this project will represent an improvement over the current structures on site.
Mr. Paul Hernandez:
• Asked that the oak trees be properly cared for on this property.
• Said that he felt the density was a cause for concern.
• Said that most of the roofs in the area are of a low pitch. Asked that the roof height be reduced if
possible.
Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Hernandez if he has been building on his property in the recent past.
Mr. Hernandez replied that they are currently under construction.
Commissioner Barry asked for the square footage and number of buildings on his property.
Mr. Hernandez replied that his parcel is an "L- shaped" parcel 150 x 150 and 75 x 150 feet. He has
four buildings, two single -story and two two - story. Two buildings have 600 square feet each and the
other two have 1,100 square feet each.
Commissioner Barry asked if trees on his site are being protected and whether any have or will be
removed.
Mr. Hernandez replied that they are not removing any trees, except shrub trees.
Chairman Page asked Mr. Hernandez if the units are bed and bath or kitchen units.
Mr. Hernandez replied that they are bed and bath units.
Saratoga Planning Commissi ✓Iinutes of January 24, 2001 Page 15
Mr. Stan Gamble said that he wanted to refute some of the comments made. Said that the easement
exists for use by this site. Added that the setback is 25 feet. Said that the house sits down five to six
feet from St. Charles. Added that the motel has a height variance and is located only five feet from the
property line.
Commissioner Patrick asked Mr. Gamble if he owned the property when that variance was sought.
Mr. Gamble replied yes.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
Commission closed Public Hearing No. 4 at 10:50 p.m. (5 -0 -2; Commissioners
Bernald and Jackman were absent)
Commissioner Roupe suggested that the Commission would need guidance on the issues of the
Commercial uses moratorium as well as Measure G. Added that the square footage information must
be straight and identify the lots and the size of the residences /structures.
Commissioner Kurasch stated that the Commission has the Village Plan to serve as a guideline. Added
that it is important to retain retail space. The Commission will need to evaluate what mix is fair and
best serves the City. Expressed the importance for flow of pedestrian traffic as well as open space.
Said that one of the goals of the Village Plan is the side to side development of retail spaces and that
goal must be respected.
Commissioner Patrick discouraged the applicants and neighbors from pointing at each other with
regards to past approvals. Stated that there are trees to protect and that density is an issue. This project
might offer a way to arrive at affordable house. Agreed that more reliable square footage figures need
to be provided in order to properly evaluate this proposal and that clear drawings and renderings are
important. Said that the garage doors are an issue and that imposing construction hours is a good idea.
Commissioner Barry expressed her agreement with the comments of the other Commissioners and
encouraged the applicant to consider ways of providing parking including underground. Suggested
that some tradeoffs could be considered. Traffic and parking are the biggest issues raised by the
neighbors. Suggested that staff evaluate the possible impacts on St. Charles and potential mitigation
measures to offset those impacts. Said that the project drawings should be made available to the
Commission as soon as they are available. Said that a model of the project might be helpful to show
the flow of space.
Chairman Page agreed and added that he does not want this project to have an impact on Village
parking.
Commissioner Roupe suggested that story poles might be helpful.
Commissioner Kurasch stated that density needs to be considered. Perhaps the size of the units or
different configurations.
Commissioner Patrick suggested that a Study Session may be appropriate if the Commission wants to
consider alternatives and explore square footage issues. That format allows the most flexibility to deal
with issues.
'Saratoga Planning Commissi dinutes of January 24, 2001 Page 16
Commissioner Roupe said that scheduling a Study Session might be productive but it also may impact
the next Public Hearing date.
Mr. Mark Connolly advised that staff could schedule the Study Session for February 14th
Commissioner Barry said that there are still too many variables and unknowns.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if there is a parking plan in the works for the Village.
Mr. Mark Connolly replied that such a plan is in the works but that there is nothing concrete to bring
forward at this point. Said that staff would conduct additional research and include the information in
the next staff report.
DIRECTOR ITEMS
Mr. Mark Connolly read a letter advising the Commission that a Contract Senior Planner has been
secured who will offer day to day supervision for the Department while the search for a Permanent
Director is underway.
COMMISSION ITEMS
1. Access to Highway 9: Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the issue raised at the January 10th meeting
regarding construction access to a site via Highway 9 is still being investigated with Caltrans and
the Public Works Department to see what is really feasible. Advised that the applicant has a
February 14th Public Hearing.
2. Oak Street Demolition: Mr. Mark Connolly advised the Commission that the Oak Street
Demolition did not represent the common procedure. It is not the practice to allow a demolition to
occur prior to approval of plans. This demolition was approved in error and such approval will not
occur again in the future.
COMMUNICATIONS
1. Written: Saratoga City Council Minutes from December 12, 2000, and January 3, 2001.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Chairman Page adjourned the meeting at 11:16 p.m. to Wednesday, February 14, 2001, at the Council
Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn
Minutes Clerk
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, January 10, 2001
PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Chairman Page called the meeting to order at 7:42 p.m.
ROLL CAI,I,
Present: Commissioners Bernald, Jackman, Kurasch, Patrick, Roupe and Chairman Page
Absent: Barry (excused)
Staff: Planner Mark Connolly
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — December 13, 2000.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
Planning Commission minutes of December 13, 2000, were approved (6 -0 -1;
Commissioner Barry was absent) with minor corrections as follows (deleted
language stricken, new language underlined):
• Page 3 — Commissioner Kurasch expressed.... Added that massing mass and
bulk is more evident on one side of the structure than the other.
• Page 12 — (4 -3; Commissioners Barry Bernald, Jackman and Chair Page voted
against).
• Page 14 — Commissioner Bernald... Added that the design of the enclosed
porch is in keeping with this Julia Morgan roofline and allows reasonable use
of the structure. However, she agreed that the covered porch entry is not in
keying with the design but could support the project nevertheless. Stated her-
• Page 14 — Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by
Commissioner Jackman, the Commission approved V -00 -017 to grant a
Variance that includes all existing square footage in the structure. (7-0 ) i
Commissioner Kurasch voted against)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no oral communication items.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for
this meeting was properly posted on January 5, 2001.
Saratoga Planning Commiss. .Minutes of January 10, 2001 Page 2
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, provided the following technical corrections to the packet:
• Item No. 1 — The maximum FAR is 3,040. One gas fireplace is included. Condition No. 17 is not
applicable and should be stricken.
• Item No 3 — The year on page nine of the Resolution should read 2001. On page 13, the numbering
of the conditions omits No. 4. The conditions will be properly renumbered.
• Item No. 4 — The address for this project is incorrect in the report and should read 14700. The fact
that the proposed new structure is a two -story also should be added to the description. This project
incorporates three gas fireplaces and one wood - burning fireplace. .
Commissioner Bernald inquired whether all public noticing was correct for these projects.
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, replied yes.
Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that for Item No. 5 the number of stories is also not specified in the
staff report. Asked if this project was properly noticed.
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, replied that Item No. 5 was properly noticed as a two -story structure.
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1
DR -00 -050 (517 -09 -025) — NAZZAL /KENNEDY, 14499 Oak Street: Request for Design Review
approval to demolish an existing 2,020 square foot two -story residence and construct a new 2,873
square -foot two -story home in its place. Maximum height of the structure will be 26 feet tall. The
property is 8,200 square feet in size and is located within an R -M zoning district.
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Stated that this project seeks approval for the demolition of an existing 2,020 square foot two -story
single family residence and the construction of a 2,873 square foot two -story residence. The
maximum height will be 26 feet. The Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed this project,
although it is not include on the register, and recommended two Conditions of Approval. One, that
the construction plans be reviewed and approved by the HPC. Second, that the HPC has the
opportunity to review the color and material boards.
Commissioner Roupe asked if the existing structure on this site has already been demolished and if so
what approvals were necessary prior to the demolition.
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, advised that usually a demolition is not allowed prior to the approval of
plans. In this case, the demolition was approved by staff in advance of final plan approval.
Commissioner Roupe asked if the basement light well meets setback requirements.
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, advised that per the UBC (Uniform Building Code), the light well can
encroach on the setbacks.
Commissioner Roupe stated that while the report states that the average site slope is two percent, the
site seems to exceed a two- percent slope.
Saratoga Planning Commiss. Minutes of January 10, 2001 Page 3
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, advised that the slope for the building pad site is two percent while the
slope for the entire site is nine percent.
Chairman Page advised the Commission that Commissioner Jackman is recusing herself from
consideration of this application as it is located near her own property. Commissioner Jackman
stepped down from the dais.
Commissioner Bernald inquired about the purpose of the light wells.
Mr. Mark Connolly replied that the light wells provide light and ventilation for the basement level.
They are limited to 36 inches in depth.
Commissioner Patrick pointed out that according to page four of the plans, the basement has a light
well with egress stairs on both the west and east sides while on page two of the plans it shows egress
on one side and not the other.
Mr. Mark Connolly clarified that the stairwell depicted on the west side is incorrect and will be
removed from the building plans. He added that the applicants have worked with staff. Staff has
limited the applicant to single family standards although the property is zoned for multiple family
residential. The surrounding area is all single family.
Chairman Page opened the Public Hearing No. 1 at 8:03 p.m.
Mr. James Kennedy, Applicant, 540 N. Santa Cruz Avenue, Los Gatos:
• Advised that this project has been revised three times and that he has worked extensively with
staff.
• Agreed that a single- family residence fits better on this street.
• Said that he went below the allowable FAR, as he did not want too much bulk and mass.
• Added that they have kept the second story small and did include a basement.
• Asked for a change in building material from siding to stucco.
Commissioner Patrick asked Mr. Kennedy whether the Heritage Preservation Commission had the
opportunity to see the existing home on this site prior to its demolition.
Mr. James Kennedy replied that he was uncertain whether the HPC had seen the structure prior to its
demolition.
Commissioner Patrick asked whether the fireplace would be gas or wood burning.
Mr. James Kennedy advised it would be gas.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that this proposal at 2,873 is less than the maximum allowable FAR
of 3,040.
Mr. Dave Sorensen, 14493 Oak Street, Saratoga:
• Advised that his property is to the east of this site.
• Stated his main concern is an oak tree located at the rear of the property.
Saratoga Planning Commiss. Minutes of January 10, 2001 Page 4
• Inquired about proposed fencing and stated his preference for a landscape buffer over a six -foot
high redwood fence.
Commissioner Bernald inquired what separates the properties now.
Mr. Dave Sorensen replied that there is nothing there now.
Mr. John Allen, 14500 Oak Street, Saratoga:
• Said that he lives across the street and is glad that this project is not a multi- family project.
• Added that his only request is that cultured rather than flat stone be used on the facade.
Commissioner Bernald asked Mr. Allen about his preference between stucco and wood siding.
Mr. John Allen advised that he is not opposed to stucco. Said that he prefers a more natural fagade for
the lower three feet or so with stucco above that point.
Chair Page asked Mr. James Kennedy what sort of stone he planned to utilize on the fagade.
Mr. James Kennedy advised that he is flexible. He was considering washed river rock or perhaps
brick.
Commissioner Kurasch suggested that more articulation should be added on the front facade.
Mr. James Kennedy said that just using siding is monotonous. A stucco and siding combination is
preferable.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Bernald, the
Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 was closed at 8:12 p.m. (5- 0 -1 -1;
Commissioner Barry was absent and Commissioner Jackman abstained)
Commissioner Patrick stated her opposition to stucco, saying that she prefers the use of wood siding
with river rock. Expressed her concern that the original building was demolished prior to the Heritage
Preservation Commission's review. Added that she found the west elevation to be very blank.
Commissioner Bernald stated her concurrence with Commissioner Patrick's comments with the
exception to her concerns about the west elevation.
Commissioner Roupe said that he supports this project overall and does share the concern over this
building being demolished so early in the process. Suggested adding a condition that a landscaping
program be developed between the applicant and the neighboring property owner to the east.
Commissioner Kurasch concurred with the comments made by Commissioner Roupe. Added that she
does not see brick as being compatible and that river rock would be more consistent with the house and
the neighborhood. Suggested a wainscoting effect using river rock below and wood siding above.
Chairman Page concurred. Added that no stucco should be used. Asked staff to provide a Director's
Item at the next meeting with an explanation on how the demolition approval occurred in this situation.
Saratoga Planning Commiss. Minutes of January 10, 2001 Page 5
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Bernald, seconded by Commissioner Patrick, the
Commission approved DR -00 -050 with the following conditions:
• Use of a combination of river rock and wood siding rather than stucco;
• Development of a landscape plan together with staff and the adjacent neighbor
to the east; and
• Limiting any fireplace(s) to gas.
(5- 0 -1 -1; Commissioner Barry was absent and Commissioner Jackman abstained)
Chairman Page advised that there is a 15 -day appeal period.
Commissioner Jackman rejoined the Commission for Agenda Item No. 2.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.2
DR -00 -048 (510 -06 -014) — ONG, 19051 Austin Way: Request for Design Review approval to
demolish an existing 3,855 square foot single -story residence and construct a new 6,393 square foot
two -story residence with a 1,198 square foot basement. The subject parcel is 62,291 square feet.
Maximum height of the structure will be 24 feet tall. The subject parcel is located in an R -1- 40,000
zoning district.
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that this application seeks approval to demolish a 3,855 square foot single -story structure
and construct a new 6,393 square foot two -story structure with a maximum height of 24 feet. The
site is 62,291 square feet and the zoning is R -1 -40. The Arborist has recommended the
preservation of as many trees on site as possible. The light wells will be limited to 36 inches.
There is access to the site from Highway 9. A neighbor has written to request that the Highway 9
access be used during construction. However the City has a policy of not accessing off of a major
arterial if another access is available. Advised that this project meets all requirements.
Commissioner Bernald asked whether the lowering of the entry element is reflected in the plans.
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, replied that the entry is now three feet lower than the original plans.
Commissioner Bernald asked why the three chimneys have spark arresters if the fireplaces are not all
wood burning.
Mr. Mark Connolly said that he would have to defer to the architect and /or applicant.
Chairman Page stated that the tree report does not include all the trees on the site.
Mr. Mark Connolly said that there are 27 trees on the property in total.
Commissioner Roupe stated that it appears that a new 1,100 square foot basement will be added. The
staff report states that there is an existing basement when there is not one. Asked staff to please
include any basement square footage in future staff reports.
Saratoga Planning Commiss, Minutes of January 10, 2001 Page 6
Commissioner Patrick stated that the light wells are bigger than allowed and suggested adding to the
Conditions of Approval language that clearly states that light wells "shall not exceed 36 inches."
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, advised that this restriction is not a Code issue but rather a Director's
standard. The standard has been established to prevent large terraces from being installed, which
would present a two -story element rather than a hidden basement.
Chairman Page opened Public Hearing No. 2 at 8:29 p.m.
Mr. Con Ong, Property Owner /Applicant, 19051 Austin Way, Saratoga:
• Made himself available for any questions.
Commissioner Roupe inquired whether it might be possible to eliminate the bay window effect from
the basement.
Mr. Scott Stottler, Stottler Design Group:
• Advised that the stairway in the light well is three feet wide. The light well provides ventilation,
light and emergency egress. Said that the design would not work with the elimination of the bay
window, as it would impact the floorplan above. Added that the use of steps is safer than the use of
a ladder feature from the light well.
Commissioner Bernald asked why the three chimneys have spark arresters.
Mr. Scott Stottler advised that there are three fireplaces, one wood burning and two gas. The detail
used on the plan is a common detail. Assured that they will revise the plans to depict only one wood -
burning fireplace with spark arrester on its chimney.
Commissioner Patrick cautioned that she did not believe that wrap around stairs are safe within the
light well.
Mr. Scott Stottler assured Commissioner Patrick that the Code requirements would be met including
the use of tempered glass wherever necessary. Reiterated that the light well serves the function of
providing light as well as egress.
Mr. Raymond Nasmeh, Applicant's Representative, 12029 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga:
• Advised the Commission that tempered glass will prevent any potential injury from the use of the
light well stairway.
Chairman Page asked how utilities enter this property.
Mr. Scott Stottler advised he could not answer this question and the project engineer is not present this
evening.
Mr. Tom Keeble, 19041 Austin Way, Saratoga:
• Advised that his letter has been misunderstood. He is only asking that access to the site occur from
Highway 9 during demolition and construction in order to prevent damage to mature landscaping
and the surface of the road. Added that garbage collection regularly accesses this site from
Highway 9.
Saratoga Planning Commiss. Minutes of January 10, 2001 Page 7
• Inquired about the status of a large Redwood tree on the property and whether it would be retained.
• Asked that the allowable hours of construction be made clear to the contractor.
• Said that he had no problems with the design of this home.
Chairman Page advised that any trees removed would have to be replaced. Asked if Mr. Keeble has
any objection to the use of stucco on this home.
Mr. Tom Keeble replied that he had no problem with the use of stucco and that it was appropriate for
this home.
Mr. Mark Connolly said that nothing would preclude construction access from the Highway 9 access to
the property.
Commissioner Roupe advised that as Highway 9 is a State roadway, it is not clear whether use for
construction access would be permitted by the State.
Mr. Raymond Nasmeh, 12029 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga:
• Stated that not all access can occur off of Highway 9.
Commissioner Bernald asked Mr. Nasmeh what his role is in this application since he is a Real Estate
Agent.
Mr. Raymond Nasmeh advised that he makes it a practice to help his clients through the City approval
process.
Mr. Mike Garakani, 19061 Austin Way, Saratoga:
• Said that he like the architecture.
• Expressed concern about use of Austin Way for 18 -wheel vehicles.
• Added that the Redwood tree on this property is huge and would likely have to be removed, as it
appears to be located directly where the new home will be constructed.
Mr. Raymond Nasmeh advised that the large Redwood tree would be preserved.
Mr. Tom Keeble asked if an insurance bond could be required for the road.
Chairman Page advised that such a bond would be required.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Bernald, the
Commission closed Public Hearing No. 2 at 8:52 p.m. (6 -0 -1; Commissioner Barry
was absent)
Commissioner Bernald expressed concern over the rear elevation, the wrap- around stairwell, the need
to protect trees, the entry feature and the missing pages in the tree report.
Chairman Page agreed and recommended a continuance to allow for more complete drawings and
information.
Saratoga Planning Commiss. .Minutes of January 10, 2001 Page 8
Commissioner Roupe agreed. He added that someone should also look into the feasibility of Highway
9 access to site during demolition and construction. Stated that the information provided is
insufficient.
Commissioner Kurasch agreed with the recommendation for a continuance. Said that the Arborist's
report is a problem. Agreed that low -lying limbs on neighboring trees can be impacted by this project
during construction access.
Commissioner Jackman agreed that more detail is necessary, including the feasibility of accessing the
site via Highway 9. Said that the entrance of the driveway from Austin Way might have to be moved
in order to save a large oak tree.
Commissioner Patrick concurred. Stated her unhappiness with the plans in that they are not clear.
Said that she will not approve the light well design as presented. Said that she did not believe that it
would be a good idea to access the site from Highway 9.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the
Commission continued consideration of DR -00 -048 to a date uncertain. (6 -0 -1;
Commissioner Barry was absent)
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO.3
UP -00 -014 & DR -00 -053 (386 -35 -069) — CHURCH OF THE ASCENSION, 12033 Miller Avenue:
Request for Use Permit and Design Review approval for the demolition of an existing 2,568 square
foot, single -story Church of the Ascension parish office building and the construction of a new
approximately 3,000 square foot single -story office building in the same location. Additionally, two
temporary modular office units have been requested south of the church sanctuary and 45 feet north of
Ascension Drive. They will be removed following construction of the new church office. The site is
7.24 acres and is zoned R -1- 10,000.
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that this proposal includes the demolition of a 2,567 square foot office building and the
construction of a 3,000 square foot replacement building. The project will include the addition of
six parking spaces. The applicants also seek approval for the placement of two modular units on
the south side of the church to be removed following the completion of construction. The subject
parcel is seven acres. Advised that staff can make findings to support this project and recommends
approval.
Chairman Page asked whether the church has an existing Use Permit
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, replied yes.
Commissioner Kurasch asked whether any new uses are proposed that would generate additional
traffic.
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, advised that this is actually a very small addition and it will have not
impact on traffic. The additional parking spaces are to support existing uses.
Saratoga Planning Commiss� Minutes of January 10, 2001 Page 9
Mr. Jack Christensen, Architect, stated he was available for questions.
Commissioner Jackman questioned why only a half basement is proposed instead of a full basement.
Mr. Jack Christensen replied cost.
Commissioner Patrick pointed out that neighbors have written to request that the temporary units be
located 200 feet to the south, closer to Prospect Avenue. Asked why the proposed placement was
selected.
Mr. Jack Christensen replied that there is power available on that side and restrooms are conveniently
located. This placement is the most appropriate.
Mr. Don Johnson, 19997 Seagull Way, Saratoga:
• Advised that he is a 27 year resident of Saratoga.
• Said that the location for the trailer placement was made because it is the simplest and easiest to
run power to this location. Placement elsewhere on site creates concerns about cost.
• Said that these office buildings will not have restrooms and three people will work from them five
days a week. They will be able to access the restrooms in the adjacent church.
• Added that there will be no use of these modular buildings after 5 p.m. They will only be used for
office use.
• Additionally, by placing the modular buildings in this location, there will be minimum repairs to
the site required upon their removal.
• Said that he had the opportunity to speak with four of the five neighbors who wrote to the City.
They have no real hard feelings but rather are just concerned. One concern expressed with the
temporary property value impact. Added that existing landscaping will well screen these trailers
but that they could put in additional screening if necessary.
Chairman Page asked how power would be provided to the modular buildings.
Mr. Don Johnson replied that the termination would be from the main junction box in the church over
to the trailers.
Commissioner Kurasch asked how long the modular buildings would be on site.
Mr. Don Johnson replied that construction would begin in June and take approximately 10 months.
Commissioner Kurasch suggested including an end date for the use of the modular buildings.
Mr. Jack Christensen cautioned that it is difficult to construct anything on a firm time line. Assured
that as soon as occupancy of the new office building occurs, these temporary trailers will be removed
from the site.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if Mr. Christensen could recommend a maximum amount of time for the
placement of these modular buildings on the site.
Mr. Jack Christensen said that as long as an extension could be granted if necessary.
Saratoga Planning Commiss, Minutes of January 10, 2001 Page 10
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Bernald, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the
Commission closed Public Hearing No. 3 at 9:10 p.m. (6 -0 -1; Commissioner Barry
was absent)
Commissioner Roupe stated that he had no problem with this application but that perhaps the trailers
could be oriented in another direction or painted some innocuous color, preferably an earth tone.
Commissioner Kurasch stated that she had no other objections but felt there might be an advantage to
having an expiration date for use of the modular office trailers.
Mr. Mark Connolly advised that such a deadline could be incorporated into the Conditions of
Approval.
Commissioner Kurasch suggested that the applicants work with the neighbors on the placement of the
temporary units.
Commissioner Jackman said that the church would push the project along. Said that placing the
temporary units closer to Prospect would be unsightly. The proposed placement is more obscured by
screening. Said that this is a good project.
Commissioner Patrick said that she had no objection but was sorry to see the farmhouse go.
Commissioner Bernald and Chair Page concurred.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Bernald, the
Commission approved UP -00 -014. (6 -0 -1; Commissioner Barry was absent)
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Patrick, the
Commission approved DR -00 -053. (6 -0 -1; Commissioner Barry was absent)
Chairman Page advised that there is a 15 -day appeal period.
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 4
DR -00 -049 (517 -08 -024) — HUNTER, 14700 St. Charles Street: Request for Design Review
approval to demolish an existing 1,427 square foot single -story residence and construct a new 2,707
square foot two -story residence with a 1,020 square foot basement. Maximum height of the proposed
structure is 22 feet tall. The property is 7,261 square feet in size and is located within an R -1- 10,000
zoning district.
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that this is an application for the demolition of a 1,427 square foot single -story residence
and construction of a 2,707 square foot two -story residence with a 1,020 square foot basement on a
7,261 square foot site. This proposal fits in the area architecturally and staff is recommending
approval. The project meets all zoning requirements.
Saratoga Planning Commiss. Minutes of January 10, 2001 Page 11
Commissioner Roupe asked whether the Heritage Preservation Commission had made comments on
this project.
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, advised that the HPC had reviewed the plans in May and approved both
the demolition and the plans for the new structure. The original structure had been altered too many
times to have any historic significance.
Commissioner Jackman asked whether the driveway access would be from 6`h Street.
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, replied yes.
Chairman Page noticed that the footprint for the new home is closer to the roadway and asked staff
whether it still meets required setbacks.
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, replied that the required setbacks are met.
Commissioner Patrick pointed out that the proposed light wells are 3.5 feet wide.
Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the approved plans would depict no more than 36 -inch light wells.
Chairman Page opened Public Hearing No. 4 at 9:23 p.m.
Mr. David Britt, Britt -Rowe, Project Architect:
• Thanked staff and said that he had nothing to add to staff's presentation.
• Said that while the building is now closer to the south side neighbor they took great care to mitigate
privacy concerns. This space is just garage. The living portion will be further from this neighbor
than it was originally.
Commissioner Jackman asked if a drainage plan has been prepared.
Mr. David Britt replied that a Grading and Drainage plan, prepared by a licensed civil engineer, was
submitted to the City.
Commissioner Patrick asked if there are wood burning fireplaces.
Mr. David Britt stated that only gas fireplaces would be used.
Ms. Betty Riley, 20792 Pamela Way, Saratoga:
• Said that she likes the design of the new home but wanted to be certain that all required setbacks
are met with this project.
Marilyn and Walter, Marchetti, 20701 St. Charles, Saratoga:
• Said that this will be an attractive home.
• Added that she hoped to protect the existing trees that provide nice screening.
• Suggested that the street address for this property should be 6`h Street rather than St. Charles since
the front door faces 6 `h Street.
Saratoga Planning Commiss, Minutes of January 10, 2001 Page 12
Mr. David Britt assured the Marchettis that they intend to use the Arborist's guidelines in order to
protect the trees on site. Said that the address for this property was originally 6th Street and was
changed to St. Charles long ago.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Bernald, the
Commission closed Public Hearing No. 4 at 9:30 p.m. (6 -0 -1; Commissioner Barry
was absent)
Commissioner Kurasch said that this home has a nice design. While it may be a little large for the lot,
it is nicely done.
Commissioner Jackman said that this project is a good use of space and that she likes the plans.
Commissioner Patrick concurred with Commissioner Kurasch.
Commissioner Bernald concurred and said the house is charming.
Commissioner Roupe and Chairman Page concurred.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the
Commission approved DR -00 -049. (6 -0 -1; Commissioner Barry was absent)
Chairman Page advised that there is a 15 -day appeal period.
Commissioner Bernald excused herself and departed the meeting at 9:32 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO 5
DR -00 -043 (397 -04 -026) — FORMICO, 14456 Sobey Road: Request for Design Review approval to
demolish an existing 4,417 square foot single -story residence and construction of a new 5,693 square
foot residence in its place. The maximum height proposed is 25 feet, 10 inches. The parcel is
approximately 61,855 square feet located in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district.
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that this is an application for the demolition of a 4,417 square foot single - family residence
and construction of a new 5,693 square foot two -story residence with a maximum height of 25 feet
10 inches. This is a 62,000 square foot site that is zoned R -1 -40. Advised that staff finds the
grading plan to be inadequate and is recommending a continuance of this item.
Chairman Page opened Public Hearing No. 5 at 9:35 p.m.
Ms. Linda Formico, 14456 Sobey Road, Saratoga:
• Advised the Commission that she received a call at 7:35 p.m. this evening advising her that staff
would be recommending a continuance.
• Asked the Commission to proceed this evening.
• Informed that her husband would be here this evening were he not on business travel.
Saratoga Planning Commiss, Minutes of January 10, 2001 Page 13
• Said that they purchased this property a year ago last October.
• Said that there are currently three separate structures on the property, a 2,400 square foot home, a
two -car garage and a 1,500 square foot workshop. All will be removed and replaced with a single
two -story structure. The new structure will include a 1,000 square foot basement.
• Advised that they are proposing a Mediterranean design as there are quite a few in the area and it is
an architectural style they like. Advised that the adjacent home is of a Mediterranean style.
• Said that of the 53 homes in their immediate area, approximately 65 percent of them are two -story.
• Advised that their lot is 1.5 acres and privacy has been taken into consideration. The upstairs
windows facing their neighbors are glazed bath windows with the exception of one that looks at the
front of their neighbor's house.
• Said that they have obtained their neighbors' support and that the home they are proposing is 1,000
square feet less than is allowed. There will be one gas fireplace.
• Advised that with their Grading and Drainage Plan, the proposed cut is 451 cubic yards and the
proposed fill is 57 cubic yards. They will export 393 cubic yards.
Commissioner Patrick said that these are good plans. Inquired how wide the window wells will be, as
the stairs appear to be four feet wide.
Commissioner Roupe expressed concern that he cannot reconcile the square footage for this project as
none of the numbers appear to add up.
Chairman Page asked staff what the square footage of the home will be.
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, replied the total square footage is 5,693 and that 6,400 square feet is the
maximum allowed.
Commissioner Roupe conceded that the house is well below the maximum allowable.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Ms. Linda Formico how the siting of the house was determined. It is
closer to the street than the current structure.
Ms. Linda Formico replied that she and her husband want their kids in the rear yard in a safe play
space. She is expecting their third child. Added that they will have a pool, grass and volleyball court
in the rear yard.
Chairman Page added that the property is well screened by existing landscaping.
Commissioner Jackman added that the house is still 41 feet from the front property line.
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, clarified that any interior height above 15 feet is counted into the square
footage.
Commissioner Kurasch asked whether staff is still recommending a continuance for this application.
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, replied no, not with the additional information provided this evening by
Ms. Formico.
Saratoga Planning Commiss. Minutes of January 10, 2001 Page 14
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the
Commission closed Public Hearing No. 5 at 9:50 p.m. (5 -0 -2; Commissioners
Barry and Bernald were absent)
Commissioner Jackman stated that the project is compatible with the area, less than the allowable
square footage and that she has no problems with the application.
Commissioner Patrick said that she is in favor with a reduction in the light well.
Commissioner Roupe concurred.
Commissioner Kurasch concurred. Said that the house is a bit massive and that she recommends a
landscape plan to help relate the house to the street.
Chairman Page said that he found the project to be appropriate.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
Commission approved DR -00 -043 with the reduction in light wells and with the
added condition that a landscape plan be developed for the front of the house to
help relate the structure to the street. (5 -0 -2; Commissioners Barry and Bernald
were absent)
Chairman Page advised that there is a 15 -day appeal period.
DIRECTOR ITEMS
None
COMMISSION ITEMS
1. January 23, 2001, PC /HPC /City Council Joint Meeting
Chairman Page advised that a Joint Planning Commission/Heritage Preservation Commission and City
Council meeting will be held on January 23, 2001. He asked the Commissioners if anyone had any
items to propose for the agenda for that meeting.
Commissioner Kurasch suggested an update on the status of the Commission as well as Planning
staffing. Included would be the effects of the Director vacancy on the scheduling of items such as the
Housing Element Update and the Commission Retreat.
Commissioner Jackman said that it would make sense to wait for the Retreat until a new Director is
hired.
Commissioner Patrick added that since three Commissioners' terms expire in April, it might be more
appropriate to have the Retreat following the new appointments. Added that one topic for the Joint
Study Session might be to look into jurisdiction and authority for the Heritage Preservation
Saratoga Planning Commiss, Minutes of January 10, 2001 Page 15
Commission to better highlight their power over issues such as the demolition of the house from
tonight's Agenda Item No. 1.
Commissioner Kurasch concurred, adding that it would be good to hear what the HPC's expectations
are.
Chair Page suggested discussion over what is happening on Bowman Road.
Commissioner Jackman suggesting evaluating the size of basements in the area and perhaps
establishing guidelines. Expressed a need to know more about geology and what impact there is to the
land with these large basements being added to many new homes.
Commissioner Patrick added that it might be a good Retreat topic to discuss where the dirt from these
basement excavations is being exported.
2. SABIC, 18817 Devon Avenue, DR -00 -019
Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, advised the Commission that this application for the construction of a
two -story residence had a small expansion, which exceeds the original approval by 5 inches. Staff
finds that this has no impact and the project still meets all minimum zoning requirements.
No Commissioners expressed any concern over this small change to the approval.
COMMUNICATIONS
None.
WRITTEN
None.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Chair Page adjourned the meeting at 10:02 p.m. to Wednesday, January 24, 2001, at the Council
Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn
Minutes Clerk
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION
& INFORMAL REVIEW OF SAINT ANDREW'S MASTERPLAN
DATE: Wednesday, January 10, 2001
PLACE: Conference Room, City Hall, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Study Session
Chairman Page called the meeting to order at 6:24 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Bemald, Jackman, Patrick and Chairman Page
Absent: Barry, Kurasch and Roupe (excused)
Staff: Planner Mark Connolly
Guests:Mr. Harry McKay, Head of Saint Andrew's School
Rev. Ernest Cockrell, Rector of Saint Andrew's Church
Dr. Harley Bragg, Trustee of Saint Andrew's School
Mr. Robb Kundtz, Trustee of Saint Andrew's School
Mr. Eric Doud, Architect, Designworks
Ms. Rebecca Coffinan, Architect, Designworks
INTRODUCTIONS
Mr. Harry McKay introduced the Saint Andrew's delegation to the Commission and advised that they
are currently at a concept visionary stage for their expansion and remodel.
STATEMENT OF INTENT
Rev. Ernest Cockrell, Rector, Saint Andrew's Church:
• Advised that he came to Saint Andrew's in 1992. At that time he noticed that everything was run
down and that they were running out of parking and space.
• Added that they have developed a Strategic Plan 2001.
• Informed that with the space they have, they cannot meet programs due to space limitations.
• Said that with this renovation, they will have a first class educational /parish situation.
Mr. Harry McKay, Head of Saint Andrew's School:
• Advised that Saint Andrew's School is 40 years old and that the classroom size is inadequate per
today's standards. Additionally, the library is undersized.
• Said that it is not their intention to increase enrollment.
• Admitted that there is a traffic issue and that Saratoga Avenue is tied up in the morning.
• Said that with their remodel, they will meet current Building Code and State school standards.
• Advised that instead of tearing down, they plan to refurbish their buildings.
• Said that they have brought conceptual drawings forth this evening to show the Commission in
hopes of obtaining initial feedback.
Minutes of Planning Commis i Study Session on January 10, 2001 Page 2
Informal Review of Saint Andrew's Masterplan
DESIGN APPROACH
Ms. Rebecca Coffman, Architect, Designworks, 1061 Miller Avenue, Berkeley, CA 947008:
• Advised that Designworks has been working with Saint Andrew's for the last two years and that
she has learned a bit about Saratoga in that time.
• Said it is their approach to bring architecture into education. One example is to bring meters into
classrooms so that students can track consumption of energy and other resources.
• Added that they look forward to any feedback possible by the Commissioners.
Commissioner Bemald advised that she serves on the Library Expansion Committee. The Committee
will bring plans to Council on January 17, 2001. Added that the conceptual plans and a model are on
display at the Library now. Said that the expansion of the Library will make in impact on that corner.
Commissioner Patrick reminded that Sacred Heart has recently begun a small expansion too.
Ms. Rebecca Coffman said that they would be more than happy to meet again with the Commissioners
prior to their formal submittal of plans. Added that they are looking at a May submittal.
Commissioner Jackman asked what the school's enrollment is at the present time.
Mr. Harry McKay replied that they have 456 students. Added that they have shown their plans to
some of the adjacent property owners.
MASTERPLAN CONCEPT
Mr. Eric Doud, Architect, Designworks, 1061 Miller Avenue, Berkeley, CA 947008:
• Advised that the existing sanctuary is visible from Saratoga Avenue.
• Added that there is a one -story slope from the street to the back of the property so that the
buildings appear to be single -story as seen from the street but are actually two -story.
• Advised that these buildings are structurally sound and will be retained.
• They plan to add some sensitive additions to the site.
• The sanctuary will remain the dominant element on the site as it sets the tone and has the most
important place. What is needed is a relationship between the sanctuary and the parish hall. They
propose to remove an existing temporary classroom and replace it with a small fellowship hall and
small nursery.
• One proposal is to add a peel of bells, which could be rang on Sundays and would provide a visible
entrance to the site.
• There will be a covered walkway linking the three elements (sanctuary, hall and school).
Additionally, linkage to the sidewalk, by extending the walkway to the street, is planned.
• The clergy offices will stay where they are currently.
• The principal new element is the library. It would be developed as a two -story fagade with the
second story over the area on grade.
• Currently, there are six classrooms of approximately 600 square feet in size. These classrooms will
be reconfigured to bring them into State compliance so that there are four classrooms, each with
approximately 800 square feet. The reconfiguration will allow better ventilation and added light.
Minutes of Planning Commis a Study Session on January 10, 2001 Page 3
Informal Review of Saint Andrew's Masterplan
Commissioner Bernald inquired about the addition of an elevator.
Mr. Eric Doud, Architect, replied that they were trying to find space for it.
Commissioner Bernald cautioned that they would be required to have an elevator.
Mr. Eric Doud, Architect, continued:
• Said that the new Administration building would be two levels and that the new gym is critical to
the provision of overall programming for school and church programs such as after school
programs.
• They are proposing a second layer of parking over the current parking. They would accomplish
this by dropping the grade level of the existing parking and placing a second level of parking at
street level.
Commissioner Patrick sought clarification as to what structures will be new.
Mr. Eric Doud replied the gym, two flanking buildings, the library projection, the administration
building and the meeting rooms above the clergy offices.
Commissioner Patrick asked what the two white spaces are on the conceptual drawings of the parking
lot.
Mr. Eric Doud advised that those are the up and down ramps.
Commissioner Patrick inquired whether the buildings would have air conditioning.
Mr. Eric Doud replied that the buildings would all be brought up to higher energy compliance. The
existing mechanical systems are from the 1960's. They plan to double glaze and meet ADA
compliance.
Rev. Ernest Cockrell added that they would also be building in security.
Commissioner Jackman asked about circulation to Highway 85.
Mr. Eric Doud replied that the site circulation would stay the same.
Ms. Rebecca Coffman added that a traffic study would be done after West Valley College is back in
session. Added that the City is looking at synchronizing the traffic lights in the area.
Mr. Harry McKay advised that he has been participating on a Task Force formed by Council to address
the traffic issue on Saratoga.
Commissioner Jackman stated that she likes the concept of stacking parking.
Commissioner Patrick said that there might be two concerns with the idea of stacking the parking. The
cost and safety.
Minutes of Planning Commis. ,n Study Session on January 10, 2001 Page 4
Informal Review of Saint Andrew's Masterplan
Commissioner Bernald advised that the library has had problems with people living on the library
parking lot.
Rev. Ernest Cockrell said that the proposed bell tower would be designed with slats so that the bell
ringers can practice without bothering the neighbors.
Commissioner Patrick warned that noise would be a problem with the neighbors. Added that she was
not sure about the proposal to create a two -story fagade and whether that concept will be well received.
Added that the single -story fagade was deliberate. Suggested decreasing the parking for more
greenery.
Rev. Ernest Cockrell advised that they plan to plant trees and that he would like to see flowers too.
Mr. Harry McKay asked Commissioner Bernald if the library expansion includes additional parking.
Commissioner Bernald replied that the parking would increase from 92 spaces to 162.
Rev. Ernest Cockrell advised that they run out of parking every Sunday even though they have 200
spaces.
Mr. Harry McKay advised that the parking is no problem for the school use except for special events.
Chairman Page advised that the placement of the play field might cause concerns from the adjacent
neighbors.
Ms. Rebecca Coffman advised that Mrs. Jorganson, the adjacent neighbor, has expressed her support
for the placement of the gym, as it will screen visibility of the parking area from her home.
Chairman Page advised the group that three of four of the Commissioners present this evening have
terms that expire in April.
Mr. Harry McKay advised that they would be happy to come back again to meet with any other
Commissioners as necessary.
Commissioner Patrick suggested improving the pedestrian access on site.
Mr. Eric Doud suggested a shared parking arrangement with the library although getting across
Saratoga might be a problem.
Commissioner Jackman asked the Saint Andrew's group when they would be back.
Ms. Rebecca Coffman replied that they will first be articulating the elevations and creating a photo
essay.
Commissioner Bernald asked if the church's architecture would be echoed with the new buildings.
Minutes of Planning Commis. ,n Study Session on January 10, 2001 Page 5
Informal Review of Saint Andrew's Masterplan
Mr. Eric Doud replied yes. Said that perhaps not all materials would be the same but that they are
open to suggestions.
Commissioner Jackman said that the sanctuary roof is very attractive.
Ms. Rebecca Coffman said that they are putting out concepts. Included are the ideas for tiered parking,
flanking the sanctuary and the two -story gym (with just one story exposed). More architectural details
and materials will be provided to the Commission at a future meeting.
Commissioner Jackman warned that she could hear the complaints about the bell tower already.
Rev. Ernest Cockrell assured that there would be strict limits as to when the bells could be used.
Chairman Page agreed that strict limits would be necessary.
Ms. Rebecca Coffinan added that an acoustical consultant would be retained to evaluate the noise
impacts of the project.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Page adjourned the meeting at 7:15 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn
Minutes Clerk
r,
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, December 12, 2001
PLACE: Council. Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Chair Barry called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
'T6 rr 9 "A M N
Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakam, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi
Absent: None
Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner John Livingstone and Planner Christy
Oosterhous
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of November 28, 2001.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the
regular Planning Commission minutes of November 28, 2001, were approved as
submitted.
AYES:Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Barry, Jackman and Roupe
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Study Session of November 28, 2001.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the
Study Session minutes of November 28, 2001, were approved as submitted.
AYES:Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Barry, Jackman and Roupe
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Forest Glen Durland, 14675 1/2 Big Basin Way, Saratoga:
• Stated he was present to speak his opposition to the public access trail at 14645 Big Basin Way,
saying that this access was angering nearby neighbors.
• Pointed out that several years ago at a public hearing, loud opposition to this potential access was
expressed.
• Urged the abandonment of plans for this trail access.
Saratoga Planning Commissi( Jinutes of December 12, 2001 _ Page 2
Ms. Mary Boscoe, 14611 Big Basin Way, Saratoga:
• Stated that she learned about plans for the trail going in just yesterday.
• Declared that she purchased her property in order to live within a quiet area and never envisioned
the public being there.
• Asked the City to reconsider the installation of this access.
Chair Barry pointed out to Mr. Durland and Ms. Boscoe that as this item was not an agendized item the
Commission is not at liberty to discuss this matter at length.
Director Sullivan suggested that Chair Barry direct staff to place this item on a future agenda if it so
wishes. Pointed out that the trial access was approved in 1998 and the easements required were
accepted by the City Council. Therefore, any abandonment of these easements would also have to be
executed by Council.
Commissioner Roupe stated that staff should place this matter on a future agenda and provide the
Planning Commission with any pertinent facts. Said that this is a subject worthy of future discussion.
Commissioner Kurasch questioned what action the Commission could take as it has no authority over
this matter.
Director Sullivan replied that the Commission could simply make a recommendation of action to
Council.
Commissioner Roupe reiterated that the Commission must be provided with the complete facts to
determine what course of action is appropriate.
Chair Barry advised the two speakers that the only action that could be taken this evening is to agendize
this matter for a future meeting.
Mr. Forest Durland inquired whether the Commission could stop the developer from putting a sign on
the street identifying the access.
Director Sullivan replied that neither staff nor the Commission has the authority to do so.
Commissioner Kurasch said that there is nothing that the Planning Commission can do and suggested
that the speakers approach Council.
Chair Barry suggested that they make a complaint to Director Sullivan to be forwarded to the
appropriate body for consideration.
Mr. Forest Durland promised to bring a letter of complaint to Director Sullivan the next day.
Commissioner Garakani asked when the Council's next meeting will occur.
Director Sullivan advised that the Council would meet next Wednesday. He cautioned that as this item
has not been advertised for that meeting, the Council would also be precluded from discussing it in any
detail at that meeting.
Saratoga Planning Commissi- Qinutes of December 12, 2001 Page 3
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Director Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting
was properly posted on December 6, 2001.
CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar items.
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1
DR -01 -019, V -01 -011, UP -01 -016, BSA -01 -001 & ED -01 -001 (503 -13 -117) HUERTA, 22551
Mount Eden Road: Request for Design Review and Building Site Approval to construct a 4,830
square foot two -story residence with garage on a vacant lot. A variance is requested in order to
construct retaining walls in excess of five feet for geotechnical mitigation. The maximum height of the
residence would be 26 feet. The 1.42 -acre site is located within the Hillside Residential (HR) Zoning
District. (CONTINUED FROM 10/24/01) (SULLIVAN)
Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicant seeks approval for a new single - family residence on a 1.42 -acre lot. The
4,830 square foot home would include a 1,260 square foot basement and 504 square foot garage.
The maximum height would be 26 feet, with the garage height at 14 feet.
• Pointed out that two - thirds of the site will be undeveloped and that the property is zoned Hillside
Residential.
• Reminded that this project was originally considered by the Commission on October 24th and
continued to this meeting.
• Said that the Commission had two concerns. The first is what would be involved to remediate the
slide area. The second was whether redwood trees could be planted near the slide area without
jeopardizing that slide area.
• Pointed out that remediation of the slide area would involve construction on several adjacent
properties and that there is no nexus for requiring that action.
• Advised that it has been determined that trees can be planted in the slide area but with the warnings
that trees not be placed too close to any other structures.
• Added that the size of the structure was also reduced at the instruction of the Commission. The
reductions include 403 square foot on the first floor with the elimination of a guest room and a
family room. The kitchen nook and terrace were modified. The garage was moved up the hill by
seven feet. There were no alterations to the basement or second floor.
• Recommended that the Commission forward a recommendation to Council to adopt the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and approve the Tentative Subdivision, Variance, Use Permit and Design
Review for this project. Advised that the Building Site Approval and Environmental Determination
require final approval by Council.
Commissioner Roupe asked if the total 4,830 square footage includes the garage.
Director Sullivan replied yes.
Saratoga Planning Commissic. Iinutes of December 12, 2001 Page 4
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that with that reduction the application is now for an approximately
4,400 square foot structure.
Commissioner Jackman inquired why Council must approve this building site.
Director Sullivan pointed out that Building Site Approvals are handled like Parcel Maps and Final
Subdivisions. The Planning Commission approves Tentative Subdivisions, while Council approves
Final Subdivisions.
Chair Barry asked if there are any open issues.
Director Sullivan said he would defer to the Commission for that response.
Chair Barry pointed out that this is a legal lot that was recorded quite a long time ago.
Commissioner Kurasch inquired whether the variance for the retaining walls is only because of their
height or due to their location within a setback.
Director Sullivan replied some of both.
Commissioner Jackman asked why this was going to Council.
Director Sullivan replied because the lot was created more than 15 years ago.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:25 p.m.
Mr. Charles Brown, Project Architect:
• Said that they have reduced the size of this proposed home as required by the Commission.
• Added that with their changes, the building has been pulled away from the bottom property line,
through the elimination of both a guest and family room. The structure is 15 feet further up hill,
with the garage being 6 feet further up hill.
• Stated that articulation has been included to reduce the mass of the building.
• Made himself available for any questions.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Pointed out that the garage has been located at the most severe slope on the western edge of the site.
• Questioned why the garage is detached and why a carport has been located on the slope site of the
garage itself
Mr. Charles Brown replied that this carport is for emergency or guest parking. Added that the garage
was originally attached to the house but they were required to detach it.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Brown for the width of the parking area.
Mr. Charles Brown replied 22 feet, representing two parking space widths. This is required for
emergency access. Added that with the relocation of this garage further up hill, they also moved the
retaining wall that will now become shortened in height.
Saratoga Planning Commissh Minutes of December 12, 2001 Page 5
Chair Barry asked Mr. Brown to describe the retaining walls.
Mr. Charles Brown replied that in general terms they are installing minimal walls that step down the
hill. There are wide enough separations between the walls to allow for planting areas to mitigate the
height.
Chair Barry asked for the approximate numbers.
Mr. Charles Brown replied eight -foot maximum where prior the maximum was 12. There is between
three to five feet between the walls.
Commissioner Kurasch asked where the eight -foot walls are located.
Chair Barry replied that the wall is three -feet high closest to the neighboring property. Five feet away,
the wall is eight -feet high. Planting will be installed in between the two to providing screening.
Commissioner Jackman pointed out that for the Hillside Residential District a landscaping plan is
required.
Mr. Charles Brown suggested that the Commission make that requirement a Condition of Approval at
the time of building permit.
Director Sullivan pointed out that this is the normal procedure. The Commission can elect to leave the
review of the landscaping plan to staff or require review by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Jackman said that staff review would be quite adequate.
Chair Barry pointed out that the house's orientation is not facing Mount Eden Road.
Mr. Charles Brown said that this is an informal house with a central spine design. Added that the home
features an entry feature and that this is not a typical residential tract lot.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Brown why he has elected to design and orient a house using a
north -east instead of a north -south orientation.
Mr. Charles Brown replied the reason is views. The best views are to the southeast. The living room
and dining room would be overlooking that side.
Commissioner Kurasch expressed concern about the encroachment on setbacks.
Mr. Charles Brown opined that he felt this home fits the site nicely.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:37 p.m.
Commissioner Hunter:
• Said that this project requires extensive variances due to the slope and the retaining wall heights.
• Added that the fact that the front door is not visible from the street frontage is also a concern.
Saratoga Planning Commissit- ,Zinutes of December 12, 2001 Page 6
Commissioner Zutshi stated that while she realizes experts have reviewed this site, she has concerns
about it even being a buildable lot.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Declared that this site has been deemed buildable when the subdivision was approved.
• Added that upon careful geotechnical reviews, this lot has been deemed a buildable lot with
necessary modification and mitigation.
• Said that the Commission cannot second -guess that judgement.
Commissioner Zutshi said that she is not sure it is buildable and is concerned about the potential for
slides.
Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the Planning Commission is a community oversight committee.
Said that she has concerns about a house hanging over a hill where the rear of the house is visible froin
the road.
Commissioner Roupe asked Director Sullivan whether the Commission could decide this is not a
buildable lot.
Director Sullivan pointed out that the Commission has the authority to make decisions. If the
Commission has questions, they need to articulate them so that experts can be brought in to provide the
necessary response.
Commissioner Kurasch said that there are always unknowns and that she does not question the experts.
Pointed out that there has been a 15 -year wait on building on this lot and questioned whether this lot
could be approved today.
Director Sullivan pointed out that the purpose behind the Building Site Approval is to review any
changes that might have occurred since the approval of the lot.
Chair Barry said that many are uncomfortable with the perception that the properties do not look safe.
This is a dilemma.
Commissioner Hunter said that retaining walls become prevalent.
Commissioner Garakam said that the issue is not whether this is a buildable. Pointed out that this
applicant came before the Commission several months ago and was given instructions. Now the
applicant has come back with the requested changes to his project.
Commissioner Kurasch said that she disagreed that approval was promised. Said that she had the same
discussion and concerns at the last meeting.
Commissioner Hunter added that she voted against this project at the last meeting.
Chair Barry pointed out that the project was continued to allow full discussion at this meeting.
Commissioner Jackman said that she has a couple of concerns. Stated that it does not appear as if this
lot can hold a house this big.
Saratoga Planning Commissh .1inutes of December 12, 2001 Page 7
Commissioner Garakani asked what Commissioner Jackman is suggesting.
Commissioner Jackman said that she would not approve this as it is.
Chair Barry asked the Commission what it would like to do.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Said that she did not believe another Design Review would help unless the proposal is very
different in orientation and design.
• Pointed out that the carport and driveway on the west side necessitate the Variance for the retaining
walls. This is imposing on the next door properties.
• Said that she did not believe that extensive landscaping would mitigate these retaining walls.
• Suggested that the orientation and design as proposed are poorly suited to the physical location and
that she cannot support it.
Chair Barry asked if there is any agreement with this position.
Commissioners Hunter and Jackman replied yes.
Commissioner Roupe replied no.
Commissioner Garakani suggested that the Commission must tell the applicant what specific square
footage it believes this site can accommodate.
Commissioner Roupe stated that it does not make sense how the Planning Commission is proceeding on
this application.
Commissioner Garakani said that it is not just this application but lots of Hillside Residential lots.
Commissioner Hunter said that it is very valid to state that a 4,800 square foot home is a very large
house. Pointed out that she lives in a 3,000 square foot house with four kids and her husband and it is
plenty big. Said that she would go for a smaller house on this lot, considerably smaller.
Chair Barry agreed that this configuration is imposing and may need to be redesigned.
Chair Barry reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:58 p.m.
Mr. Armando Huerta, Applicant and Property Owner, 14225 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga:
• Described the sheer pin wall that has been recommended to provide long -term stability for this
property. This wall will assure stability and will be installed underground at a cost of $200,000.
• Assured that he wants this property to be safe and that he needs this large home for his nine
children.
• Pointed out that this project has been underway for two years during, which time he has been
paying a mortgage, and that he has eliminated a family and guest room to reduce the size of his
home.
• Said that his previous project planner even stated that project has been ongoing for a long time.
Saratoga Planning Commissit- Minutes of December 12, 2001 Page 8
• Declared that he has met all previously stated criteria, reducing the house as asked and that it is
unfair now to simply say no.
• Reiterated that they have gone through extensive work in planning the proposal.
Chair Barry expressed understanding of Mr. Huerta's concerns but cautioned that Design Review is the
purview of this Commission.
Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Huerta why the entrance of his home is facing the hillside.
Mr. Armando Huerta replied that he left the design to his architect and was pleased with what the
architect came up with. Pointed out that he is a builder who has experience in hillside development.
Said that he had hoped that all issues had been raised at the previous hearing.
Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that only four of the seven Commissioners was at that previous
meeting.
Chair Barry asked if there is any way to increase the curbside appeal of this project.
Mr. Armando Huerta replied that this is essentially a flag lot hidden behind eucalyptus trees.
Commissioner Kurasch said that she wants to see less need for retaining walls. Right now there are two
to three walls in the most fragile area of the site.
Commissioner Jackman pointed out that Mr. Huerta needs the square footage proposed to house his
nine children. Agreed that the goal is a safe house but that the eight -foot retaining walls are of concern.
Mr. Armando Huerta pointed out again that a sheer pin wall is being installed below ground throughout
the site.
Commissioner Jackman asked if this is in addition to the eight -foot retaining walls.
Commissioner Roupe replied that the sheer pin walls will be what holds up the hillside.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Huerta if he would be willing to reorient the house to reduce the
need for an eight -foot retaining wall.
Mr. Armando Huerta replied that if he were to remove the carport, the retaining wall could be lowered
considerably.
Mr. Charles Brown said that removing the carport would remove 10 feet and take the garage away from
the ravine area of the site. While a retaining wall will still be required, it would be of a height that
would not require a variance.
Chair Barry asked Mr. Huerta if this compromise is acceptable to him.
Mr. Armando Huerta replied yes.
Saratoga Planning Commissit. Iinutes of December 12, 2001 Page 9
Chair Barry stated that by giving up the carport the need for the eight -foot retaining wall disappears.
She asked Mr. Huerta if he would support a requirement for indigenous landscaping and the addition of
screening by the ravine and a reduction of square footage by eight percent.
Director Sullivan reminded that the Geotechnical consultant cautioned on the careful placement of trees
near the ravine.
Chair Barry reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 8:15 p.m.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
Planning Commission voted to forward a recommendation of approval for DR -01-
019, V -01 -011, UP -01 -016, BSA -01 -001 and ED -01 -001 to allow the construction of
a new residence on property located at 22551 Mount Eden Road with the added
conditions:
• That the carport be eliminated; and
• That a landscaping plan be submitted for staff approval prior to issuance of
building permits.
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Jackman and Roupe
NOES: Hunter, Kurasch and Zutshi
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner Garakani suggested that in the future the Planning Commission be involved in a project
such as this one earlier in the process.
Director Sullivan pointed out that the geotechnical review of this site took two years.
Commissioner Hunter pointed out that this is only the second Public Hearing for this applicant.
Commissioner Jackman pointed out that this application was only filed in May 2001.
Chair Barry said that Commissioner Garakani is simply suggesting a Study Session be held early on.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that this is a relatively small house for a 1.4 -acre lot.
Commissioner Jackman extended congratulations to Mr. Huerta.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO. 2
UP -01 -007 SPRINT, Saratoga -Los Gatos Road & Farwell Avenue: Request for a Conditional Use
Permit approval to construct a wireless communication facility consisting of antennas and equipment
cabinets in the Caltrans right -of -way. The site is located in the R -1- 40,000 Zoning District.
(LIVINGSTONE) (CONTINUED FROM 10/24/01) (TO BE CONTINUED AND RE-
ADVERTISED).
Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report:
Saratoga Planning Commissi( linutes of December 12, 2001 Page 10
• Advised that the applicant is seeking a continuance on this application to a date uncertain. Staff
will readvertise this project.
The Planning Commission concurred with this continuance request.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.3
F -01 -005 (503 -14 -010) — PRIDHAM, 13651 Pierce Road: Legalize an as -built fence. The applicant
requests an exception to the maximum area of enclosure permitted in the Hillside Residential zone
district pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15- 29.020 ( c ). (OOSTERHOUS)
Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicant is seeking approval for an as -built fence.
• Pointed out that the Ordinance requirements for the Hillside Residential Zoning District permit up
to 4,000 square feet of fencing enclosure. The Commission can grant an exception if the conditions
exist that the visibility of the fence is reduced by topography or if the fence is required for safety
reasons.
• Stated that conditions on this site meet both criteria. The fence has a reduced visibility from the
public view and the fence is necessary for safety reasons.
• Recommended approval.
Commissioner Jackman asked how much area is enclosed with this fence.
Planner Christy Oosterhous replied 57,064 square feet.
Commissioner Kurasch inquired whether the wood fence along Pierce Road is conforming.
Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. This fence is set back 40 feet where a setback of 30 feet is
required. The six -foot height is conforming.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the property is now completely enclosed.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:36 p.m.
Mr. Tom Pridham, Applicant and Owner, 13651 Pierce Road, Saratoga:
• Thanked the Commission and Planning Department.
• Stated that the safety of his three small children is the reason for enclosing his property. Dangers
include the busy Pierce Road, Calabasis Creek, and a cliff in the back of the property.
• Added that the front wood fence was installed prior to his ownership.
• Pointed out that drowning is the number one cause of death in youth according to his pediatrician.
• Said that he spoke with both attached neighbors and one sent a letter of support. The other, who
originally gave verbal agreement a year ago, appears to have changed her opinion.
• Said that this fence is virtually invisible unless actually on his property.
• Said that the fence has been acid etched so that it looks like wood.
Saratoga Planning Commissik !Iinutes of December 12, 2001 Page 11
Commissioner Roupe:
• Said that he visited the site and can appreciate the difficult topographical situation.
• Added that the fence material is nice.
• Stated that the Commission tries not to have wall -to -wall enclosure of the Hillside. This fence
represents a complete enclosure of this property.
• Questioned the need to enclose the triangle area due south of the property. This area is steep and
wooded and could be cut off completely from the rest of the property and therefore not need to be
fenced.
Mr. Tom Pridham advised that his kids play in that area now and he plans to install a play structure
there in the future for their use. This is an important part of their property and represents a flat area
available for riding their bikes.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that this property is essentially 80 percent enclosed. The Ordinance
permits 4,000 square feet of enclosed area, this property has more than 50,000 square feet. This is
excessive and removing the fencing from this triangle area is one way of reducing that square footage.
Mr. Tom Pridham reiterated that this is a desirable play area for his kids, one of only two flat areas
available on this property.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if it is acceptable to fence the area designated as a Water District
Easement.
Director Sullivan said that no structures are permitted.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Pridham for clarification that the pool area is not used unsupervised.
Mr. Tom Pridham replied yes. Added that a manual cover is over the pool, one that only he can
manage to open. There is a wood fence around the pool area.
Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that since the children would never be in the pool area unattended,
they cannot access the triangle area from the pool area.
Mr. Tom Pridham pointed out that the access to the triangle area comes from a path to the left of the
driveway.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Pridham how long he has owned this property.
Mr. Tom Pridham replied since October 1999.
Commissioner Hunter asked if there is access to the triangle area directly from the home.
Mr. Tom. Pridham replied that one must walk into the field area to access the triangle.
Chair Barry said that the neighbor raised the issue of deer access. Added that it seems that the fencing
around this triangle serves as an impediment to deer, interrupting their natural path.
Saratoga Planning Commissi- linutes of December 12, 2001 Page 12
Mr. Tom Pridham said he understood that concern. Added that it is not his intent to impede the natural
paths for deer. Pointed out that he has blazed a path along the fence edge to accommodate deer.
Additionally, there is a 40 -foot path between the road and the front fence.
Chair Barry pointed out to Mr. Pridham that the intent of the Ordinance is that folks in the Hillside
Residential Zoning District gives up the fenced -in aspect of properties.
Mr. Tom Pridham said that he thought he had done all necessary due diligence prior to installing this
fencing.
Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that the letter from the neighbor indicates that the fence has not been
installed as agreed upon.
Mr. Tom Pridham said that he is actually offended by her letter. Said that he had met with her on three
occasions and had obtained her agreement.
Commissioner Zutshi said it might be better having a proper survey.
Mr. Tom Pridham replied that this survey is a legal survey prepared for the prior owner.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:58 p.m.
Commissioner Zutshi said that she could agree with some of the fencing due to the children but that she
did not feel the fencing of the triangle is necessary.
Commissioner Roupe stated that the intent of the Hillside Ordinance is not to have totally enclosed
properties. Said that this applicant can eliminate the fencing of the triangle area and still have a large
totally enclosed place.
Commissioner Kurasch said that she does not like big fences or enclosures. While there are real
concerns for safety, this factor should be taken into consideration when purchasing such a property.
Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that when one buys a property, one does not always understand the
rules.
Commissioner Kurasch said that a reasonable compromise is the way to go. Said that she cannot
support all of the fencing. The elimination of the triangle will go a long way. Disagreed that enough
room has been left for deer and their fawns to pass. Said that the applicant has done a nice job to try to
tie in the fencing but it is excessive.
Commissioner Hunter agreed with Commissioner Kurasch and said that the triangle should be left open.
Chair Barry asked Director Sullivan if it might be possible to condition the fence exception so that it
does not outlast the current owner.
Director Sullivan replied that a deed restriction would have to be recorded. However, enforcement is
nearly impossible. It is better to meet the intent of the Ordinance and make a final decision.
Saratoga Planning Commissic, linutes of December 12, 2001
Page 13
Chair Barry stated her agreement that the triangle area should not be fenced. Added that she could not
see a way to reduce the rest of the fencing due to the site's topography. Said that the Commission
would be basing its exception on the unusual topography of this property.
Commissioner Kurasch proposed removing the northeast corner of the house's fencing (another triangle
area) on the other side of the creekside.
Director Sullivan said that the plans show that this area has a brick and concrete area.
Commissioner Garakani said that the safety of children is the issue as well as the enjoyment of this area
of the property near the creek.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the
Planning Commission proposed approval of an as -built fence (F -01 -005) on
property located at 13651 Pierce Road except for the enclosed triangle which is to
be opened up with the removal of the fencing,
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the
original motion was amended to include the requirement to remove the chain link
fence on the northeast side from the end of the wooden fence across to the new
fence, thereby eliminating another triangle area of approximately 40 feet by 60 feet;
Commissioner Roupe expressed concern that this fencing may be part of the neighbor's enclosure.
Commissioner Garakani said that he did not find the second fence removal to be necessary.
Director Sullivan suggested that the Commission vote on the proposed amendment and then vote on the
main motion. Added that the second fence portion is clearly on the inside of the property line.
VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION
AYES:Barry, Hunter and Kurasch
NOES: Garakani, Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The amendment failed.
VOTE ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe & Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Director Sullivan advised that there is a 15 -day appeal period.
Commissioner Jackman pointed out that lots of fences are built without permits and that she wants to
advise the public that they have to get permits before installing fences.
Saratoga Planning Commissit. /linutes of December 12, 2001 Page 14
Commissioner Kurasch agreed that work getting the word out needs to occur.
Commissioner Hunter endorsed that statement.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.4
DR -00 -059 (397 -17 -012) — KALKUNTE, 14625 Fruitvale Avenue: Request for Design Review
approval to construct a new 6,048 square foot two -story residence and demolish an existing 2,000
square foot residence and 2,400 square feet of accessory structures. Maximum height of the structure
will be 26 feet. The 42,011 square foot parcel is located in the R -1- 40,000 Zoning District.
(LIVINGSTONE)
Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval to allow the construction of a new
6,000 square foot two -story residence and the demolition of an existing 2,000 square foot structure
and 2,400 square foot accessory buildings. The proposed maximum height is 26 feet. The parcel is
42,000 square feet within an R -1 -40, 000 Zoning District.
• Informed that the existing house is included on the City's Historic Resources Inventory. There
were initial concerns over the potential demolition. Staff hired a Historic Architect to prepare an
extensive report. The conclusion of this report was that this house was not of significance. It is not
qualified for the National Register or the California Register. The Heritage Preservation
Commission approved the removal of the structure from the Inventory.
• Stated that this applicant has contacted each of his neighbors to show the plans. There have been no
negative reports from the neighbors.
• Said that staff finds the design consistent, using slate roofing, stucco and stone accents. The home
has a unique semi - circular design around a large oak tree. They are working with an Arbonst to
work around this tree safely. The project meets the policies of the design guidelines. The home
will be painted light beige with olive window trim and a gray slate roof.
• Pointed out that the new home will be located at the same place as the existing home.
• Added that mature trees reduce the visibility from the public right -of -way. The tree canopies
surround and will maintain the privacy of the adjacent neighbors. No tree removals are proposed.
The applicant has worked with the City Arborist to ensure the safety of the trees. Additionally, the
applicant will take steps to preserve an existing herb garden. A turf block material is proposed that
will allow water to reach the trees.
• Said that the structure has a varied roof line and change of elevations.
• Recommended approval.
Commissioner Garakani pointed out that oaks do not require a lot of water but rather oxygen.
Commissioner Kurasch asked why a landscape plan has not been submitted. Inquired if one is in the
works.
Director Sullivan advised that this application was received a year ago, prior to the requirement for the
submittal of a landscape plan with the original application packet.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:35 p.m.
Saratoga Planning Commissil Iinutes of December 12, 2001 Page 15
Mr. Kalkunte, Applicant, 14625 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga:
• Thanked John Livingstone.
• Advised that the oak around which his home has been designed is 300 years old.
• Assured that he has done everything to protect it and all trees on the site.
• Stated that he is incorporated energy saving provisions, a solar material, as much as they can into
the design of this home.
• Said that he has spoken with his neighbors and agreed to the removal of an old fence.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Kalkunte if he would be able to meet all the requirements set forth
by the Arborist.
Mr. Kalkunte replied yes. He assured that he has considered all the requirements and the tree is being
well protected and will continue to be so.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Kalkunte if he plans to retain the herb gardens.
Mr. Kalkunte clarified that he will preserve all the specimens. He added that they plan to save as much
as they can.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Kalkunte what his landscaping concept is for the property.
Mr. Kalkunte replied that they would maintain existing pathways, not altering anything significantly.
In the front yard, they will install a lawn.
Commissioner Kurasch asked where the neighbors wanted more screening.
Mr. Kalkunte said that they have requested additional trees at Fruitvale Avenue.
Commissioner Roupe declared that he is pleased with the efforts Mr. Kalkunte undertook to work with
his neighbors. He added that Mr. Kalkunte has gone the extra mile.
Commissioner Hunter advised that the Heritage Preservation Commission visited this site twice and
Mr. Kalkunte was very accommodating. Agreed that he has worked beautifully with his neighbors.
Commissioner Jackman pointed out the nice letter of support from the Sassos.
Mr. Kalkunte informed that he remains in touch with them.
Chair Barry said that she is very comfortable with the decision to allow the demolition of the old house.
Stated that the herb garden on this site is very special. Wished Mr. Kalkunte luck with his new home.
Mr. Wendell Roscoe, Project Designer, 25431 Adobe Lane, Los Altos:
• Declared that he has an exceptional client.
• Said that his design originally incorporated a standing seam roof, which has been changed to slate
as requested.
• Made himself available for questions.
Commissioner Zutshi asked which roof would hold the photoelectric system.
Saratoga Planning Commissic. Iinutes of December 12, 2001 Page 16
Mr. Wendell Roscoe replied primarily the garage.
Commissioner Zutshi stated that this is an interesting and unusual house concept.
Mr. Wendell Roscoe said that this project is close to his heart. Added that he has designed many homes
around oak trees.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if there would be any objection to the requirement to have a Supervising
Arborist at critical times of construction.
Mr. Wendell Roscoe replied no. Added that they would actually appreciate it. Said that it was their
suggestion to change the grade for the garage to protect this tree and the neighbor's tree.
Chair Barry cautioned that the Supervising Arborist would be at Mr. Kalkunte's expense.
Mr. Kalkunte said that he is open to that requirement.
Director Sullivan pointed out Condition 15 in the Arborist's report. He suggested that the Condition be
strengthened to require the Arborist on site at all critical points of construction as well as to have plans
submitted which outline how materials and equipment will be stored on site so as not to adversely
impact the trees.
Mr. Wendell Roscoe advised that they plan to store construction materials and equipment on the
potential pool area, where the barn is now located.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:55 p.m.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the
Planning Commission approved DR -00 -059 to allow the construction of a new
single family residence at 14625 Fruitvale Avenue, with the added Conditions to:
1. Have a supervising Arborist on site during critical points of construction; and
2. Require a plan to detail where construction materials and equipment will be
store on the site so as not to impact the trees.
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Barry advised that there is a 15 -day appeal period.
DIRECTOR ITEMS
Planning Commission Mission Statement:
Saratoga Planning Commissi� linutes of December 12, 2001 Page 17
Director Sullivan provided a draft mission statement for the Commission's review. Offered that this
draft is simply intended to serve as a starting point in the development of a final mission statement for
the Planning Commission.
Chair Barry stressed the importance of ensuring the physical development of the City.
Commissioner Roupe asked that "property and business owners" be added and that the end of the
statement should read "as set forth in the intent of the General Plan and Ordinances of the City."
Commissioner Kurasch said that the statement should express values rather than goals. Suggested
language that states that "the mission of the Saratoga Planning Commission is to foster /steward the
physical development.... Codes and charters and that supports the shared environmental, social and
economic segments." Added that the mission is to encourage participation by the public.
Commissioner Roupe stated a set of goals and purposes would also need to be developed.
Director Sullivan advised that this mission statement is but a part of a strategic plan.
Chair Barry asked Director Sullivan what the intent of the City is with this mission statement.
Director Sullivan suggested that this should be discussed at the Commission's joint meeting with
Council that will occur at the beginning of the year.
Commissioner Hunter pointed out that she has some experience in developing mission statements while
serving on the School Board and finds that they must be succinct.
Commissioner Kurasch provided a mission statement that she heard when attended the League of
California Cities Planners Institute. That statement simply said, "I am the steward of the shared vision
of the community."
Reminder to Commissioners that December 26, 2001, meetin4 is cancelled.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that the next meeting would be cancelled in light of the holiday.
Commissioner Kurasch advised that she would be absent from the January 9, 2002, meeting.
Commissioner Hunter advised that she would be absent from the January 23, 2002, meeting.
COMMISSION ITEMS
Planning Commission Subcommittees
Director Sullivan advised he would keep this item on the agenda in case issues come up.
Commissioner Jackman advised that her subcommittee has been working on specifications and
definitions for basements. Reminded that presently, light wells are permitted to be no more than three
feed wide. The Commission may want to consider extended that to four feet.
Saratoga Planning Commissic Iinutes of December 12, 2001 Page 18
Director Sullivan said that the determination needs to be clear as to when a basement becomes a
daylight basement, which is countable as square footage. It is important to determine at what point a
basement becomes floor area.
Commissioner Jackman said that the basement should be located beneath the footprint of the house and
not extend beyond. It would be important to establish a maximum size of basement, located completely
beneath the footprint. Additionally, light wells should not encroach into setbacks. Geotechnical reports
should be provided at the beginning of an application with the original plans. Under consideration
should be the distance of excavation from property lines. Finally, only a single story basement depth
should be allowed.
Chair Barry added that the viability of allowing second units in basement space should be considered.
Resolution of Intent to Amend Zoning Ordinance Re: Rear Yard Setbacks:
Director Sullivan advised that this Resolution of Intent is the first step in the process. Following
authorization to proceed, staff will begin to draft the Amendment to the Ordinance.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that there is a 10 -foot difference in rear setbacks between single and
two -story structures, which seems inconsistent with the design guidelines.
Director Sullivan pointed out that the setbacks are different in R- 1- 10,000 and R -1- 40,000 Zoning
Districts.
Commissioner Kurasch offered that this new proposal takes flexibility away. The interpretation now
being used is better for smaller lots.
Chair Barry stated that this step of adopting a Resolution of Intent is the way to go forward in a formal
way.
Director Sullivan agreed that the determination by the Commission of interest in moving forward with
preparation of language and sketches is required.
Chair Barry asked if the Commission will have the option to change the numbers.
Director Sullivan replied yes.
Commissioner Kurasch questioned the advantage of changing what is currently used. Wondered what
the pros and cons might be.
Director Sullivan replied that both methods have similar pros and cons and that there is discretion in the
design guidelines. There would be different minimum setbacks. Less with the new proposal for the
first story.
Chair Barry said that there is good reason to go forward. Pointed out that there has been some
disagreement on how the Ordinance is normally interpreted.
,
Saratoga Planning Commissic Jinutes of December 12, 2001
Page 19
Director Sullivan said that it is important to clean up the language of the existing Ordinance so no
interpretation conflicts arise.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the
Commission adopted a Resolution of Intent to Amend the Zoning Ordinance as it
pertains to Rear Yard Setbacks. (7 -0)
COMMUNICATIONS
Minutes from City Council Meeting of October 17, 2001.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Chair Barry adjourned the meeting at 10:47 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday,
January 9, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, November 28, 2001
PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Acting Chair Kurasch called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Present: Commissioners Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Zutshi
Absent: Commissioners Barry, Jackman and Roupe
Staff: Director Tom Sullivan and Associate Planner John Livingstone
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of November 14, 2001.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the
regular Planning Commission minutes of November 14, 2001, were approved as
submitted.
AYES:Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barry, Jackman and Roupe
ABSTAIN: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no oral communications.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Director Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting
was properly posted on November 23, 2001.
CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar items.
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1
DR -01- 030 /V -01- 016 /ED -01 -006 (503 -30 -061) — KOHN,14168 Perata Court: Request for Design
Review and Negative Declaration approval to construct a new 4,200 square foot two -story residence
with a 1,520 square foot basement, and demolish an existing 6,712 square foot residence. Maximum
height of the structure will be 26 feet. The variance is to allow construction on a slope greater than
30 %. The 40,068 square foot parcel is located in the HR zoning district.
Saratoga Planning Commissic .Iinutes of November 28, 2001 Page 2
Mr. John Livingstone, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that this is a three -part request for approval of a Negative Declaration, Design Review and
Variance to allow the construction of a 4,200 square foot, two -story residence with a 1,500 square
foot basement. The existing 6,700 square foot, two -story residence will be demolished. The new
residence will have a maximum height of 26 feet. The subject property is a 40,000 square foot lot
in the Hillside Residential zoning district.
• Per CEQA requirements, an Environmental Review was prepared. The EIR was required due to
the fact that grading on a slope that exceeds 10 percent is involved. Following the EIR, the
determination was made that this project will have a less than significant impact due to the fact that
the new residence will be constructed on the same location within an already developed area.
• Stated that per City Code, any building on property above a 30 percent slope requires issuance of a
Variance. Staff can make the findings for the Variance because this is within a developed
neighborhood, on an existing developed site. The City's Geologist has cleared a geotechnical
report. Most of the cut is for the basement and pool.
• Advised that the Design Review meets the criteria for integrating into the topography. Existing
mature trees and landscaping will be retained. The new home will be situated on the same location
on the site. The mass of the fagade has been broken by continual changes that reduce the bulk. The
home's design protects the privacy of adjacent neighbors in part due to the retention of the existing
trees and landscaping. There are limited views of this subject property by surrounding homes.
• Informed that the roofing material is brown metal in a curving shape.
• Stated that staff recommends approval of the Negative Declaration, Design Review and Variance
for this proposal.
• Advised that both the applicant and project architect are present and that two letters were provided
as table items this evening from neighbors outlining issues of concern.
Acting Chair Kurasch inquired about the setback for the gazebo.
Acting Chair Kurasch opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:10.
Mr. Stephen Clark, 14900 Pierce Road, Saratoga:
• Extended his clients' regrets for not being in attendance. Both had business commitments.
• Informed that he has worked with the Kohns for the last year in designing a residence to meet their
needs. They prefer a contemporary architecture.
• Said that they tried to use the existing residence but found it impossible to do so as it is larger and
taller than they wanted.
• Said that the key issue appears to be the impact of one portion of the family room roof which is six
feet higher than the current roof in this area, which causes concern from the adjacent neighbor as it
encroaches on the views from her home office window.
• Advised that this area of the roof is 10 feet below the 25 -foot allowable limit and therefore well
within the guidelines.
• Replied to Acting Chair Kurasch's question about the placement of the gazebo by stating that it is
30 feet from the property line.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked Mr. Clark if there is some design change he can make to this portion of the
roof causing concern to the neighbor.
V
Saratoga Planning Commissis, Qinutes of November 28, 2001 Page 3
Mr. Stephen Clark replied that he could change the design of the roof for the area in question. Added
that his clients have agreed to trim trees in order to assist in clearing a view. Agreed that a slice of view
will be blocked by new construction but well below what it could have been.
Acting Chair Kurasch stated that it appears no portion of the roof is as high as the 26 feet proposed.
Mr. Stephen Clark replied that at the eave of the living room, the roof height would be 26 feet. He
reiterated that the family room roof runs perpendicular to the roof and is higher on the left and right but
lower than the 26 -foot limitation.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked what the result has been in meeting with the neighbors.
Mr. Stephen Clark said that he hoped the results were good. Said that all but this one issue was
resolved. Mr. Perata's issues can be mitigated.
Associate Planner John Livingstone added that any existing fences on site must be in conformance as a
Condition of Approval.
Mr. Stephen Clark replied that his clients have no problem eliminating that fence.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked what materials would be used for the retaining wall.
Mr. Stephen Clark:
• Replied that keystone is one option but the least one liked.
• Said that additionally concrete or concrete block could be faced with some sort of natural stone.
• Suggested that they provide three proposed types of stone and allow the applicant and neighbors to
select their preferred.
• Advised that this retaining wall was contentious between the former owners of this site and the
current adjacent neighbors. If this retaining wall were not required, they would rather not have a
retaining wall.
• Reiterated that they plan to mitigate as many neighbor issues as possible as they did not want to do
anything objectionable.
Commissioner Zutshi inquired about building materials.
Mr. Stephen Clark advised that they would love to use limestone and /or inserts but they are not in the
budget. Said they would use lotted stucco in a flat monotone.
Commissioner Zutshi asked about the roof material.
Mr. Stephen Clark advised that the roofing is brown metal standing seam roof with a rounded top.
Added that the entire house is being developed for music, with Mr. Kohn being an accomplished
pianist. The living room will be a recital room. The siding of the home will be stucco.
Acting Chair Kurasch pointed out that per the sample, the roof appears to be terra cotta in color.
Mr. Stephen Clark replied that the final selection has not been made.
Saratoga Planning Commissi.- /linutes of November 28, 2001 Page 4
Acting Chair Kurasch said that the color of the walls seems light.
Mr. Stephen Clark assured that the color proposed is lighter than depicted on the drawing. Added that
the Kohns would like the house as light as possible as it is a contemporary structure.
Acting Chair Kurasch stated that visibility is considered, particularly on the Hillside District. The City
prefers muted earth tones. Asked Mr. Clark if he objects to that requirement.
Director Tom Sullivan suggested that the Commission continues with the Public Hearing and discusses
specific issues afterwards.
Mr. Don Perata, Owner of 14146 and 14144 Perata Court, Saratoga:
• Advised that he submitted a letter yesterday and has since met with the architect.
• Informed that he is now quite comfortable that all issues he has raised will be satisfied.
• Stated that he likes the project and its architecture and has no concerns.
Ms. Julie Wise, 14180 Perata Court, Saratoga:
• Stated that she provided a letter yesterday and that two issues raised in her letter have been
resolved.
• Said that the gazebo placement and height are still a bit of a concern.
• Added that the roof of the family room will block out a portion of their view, which is still a
questionable item of concern to her.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked Ms. Wise if the problem is not being able to visualize what the structure
would look like.
Ms. Julie Wise replied that while she has asked for a superimposed image of the proposed house on the
site, the architect has not yet been able to provide it for her review.
Mr. Stephen Clark:
• Agreed that Ms. Wise has legitimate concerns as she spends lots of time in her office and the
window in that room has a lovely view of which a wedge will be blocked by this particular design.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked Mr. Clark if some sort of resolution is possible or whether he was set on
this design.
Mr., Stephen Clark replied that they are set with their design at this point. Pointed out that he has
worked with two different City Planning administrations. If asked if the design could change, he said
he did not see how.
Director Sullivan pointed out that the Commission has the option to continue this item. However, it
may want to work through all other issues, if possible, and perhaps take action subject to the provision
of providing the necessary visual information to Ms. Wise.
Mr. Stephen Clark agreed that he preferred to continue the hearing.
Acting Chair Kurasch closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:40 p.m.
Saratoga Planning Commissic .1inutes of November 28, 2001 Page 5
Commissioner Hunter:
• Stated that this architecture is very different from the surrounding houses and is unique.
• Advised that she was disappointed that the applicant did not work out all issues with the neighbor
prior to this meeting.
• Expressed support as long as the issue of the retaining wall can be worked out.
• Questioned the location of the gazebo.
Commissioner Garakani:
• Said that he was okay with the house design.
• Suggested cutting into the land to place the gazebo in a half circle so that it is straight.
• Offered that perhaps the pillars could be reduced to reduce the bulk.
Commissioner Hunter stated that the color of the house should not be too light in order to blend in
better into the hillside.
Commissioner Zutshi:
• Said that she was okay with the gazebo as long as it is reduced in mass and bulk.
• Stated that the height of the roof could be a problem.
• Expressed that this is a unique house with lots of glass and wondered how the potential for glare
could be reduced.
Associate Planer John Livingstone pointed out that the house faces a northerly direction with no direct
sun so glare should not be a concern. What might be visible are household lights in the evening.
Acting Chair Kurasch:
• Stated that she has several issues, including the fact that the gazebo will be very prominent and that
she would like to see it scaled back, perhaps by reducing the size of the beams and posts and by
using earthtone colors.
• Said that there are diverse architectural styles in the area, most of them traditional.
• Offered that the fact that this house is smaller than the current structure and will be nestled into the
hillside is in its favor.
• Suggested adding a condition that the roof conflict be resolved to the satisfaction of the neighbor or
brought back before the Commission for final decision.
Commissioner Garakani opined that making the home darker might take away from the design itself.
Acting Chair Kurasch said that it is not inappropriate to make the house darker in order to blend into the
hillside.
Commissioner Hunter agreed and added that it is important to make an effort to keep the Hillside
District splendid.
Commissioner Garakani suggested installation of a story pole for the gazebo to demonstrate the height
and location for the neighbors.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the
Planning Commission approved a Negative Declaration (ED -01 -006), Design
Saratoga Planning Commissic Minutes of November 28, 2001 Page 6
Review (DR -01 -030) and Variance (V -01 -016) to allow a new 4,200 square foot two -
story residence with a 1,520 square foot basement on property at 14168 Perata
Court with the added conditions:
1. That the applicants work with the Wises on the roof contours as it impacts
views from the Wise home, subject to approval by the Community Development
Director and /or the Planning Commission if no consensus is reached;
2. That the applicants work with the adjacent neighbors in selecting a mutually
satisfactory natural stone for facing the retaining wall, subject to approval by
the Community Development Director;
3. That a story pole for the gazebo be installed for review by the neighbors; and
4. That the Community Development Director approves the roof and stucco's
earth tone colors.
AYES:Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barry, Jackman and Roupe
ABSTAIN: None
Director Sullivan restated that if the issues at large are not resolved, the item will come back to the
Commission for further review and action.
Acting Chair Kurasch advised that there is a 15 -day appeal period before this action is final.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO. 2
DR -01 -042 (503 -69 -017) — KOHLER, 21842 Via Regina: Request for Design Review approval to
construct a new 6,174 square foot two -story single - family residence. The existing 4,122 square foot
single- family residence would be demolished. The 113,256 square foot parcel is located in the H -R
Zoning District. The proposed height is 26 feet.
Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report:
• Advised that the applicants propose to demolish a 4,122 square foot residence and seek Design
Review approval for a new 6,174 square foot two -story residence with a basement. The 113,256
square foot site is located within the Hillside Residential Zoning District.
• Stated that the neighborhood has a variety of architectural styles with rural character. While this is
a departure from the Ranch style, its colors are compatible with the neighborhood and natural
environment. The proposed grading is consistent and the proposed use of natural materials is
consistent with policy. The roofline is varied, the front door has a ten -foot door, and stonework
chimneys and dormers are included in the design. This is an evolving neighborhood and the
proposed colors and materials are consistent.
• Informed that there are 19 significant trees on site that will be retained. Protection measures have
been outlined by the Arborist and are incorporated into the Conditions of Approval.
• Fencing will be limited to 4,000 square feet. Fencing exists on the east, south and west sides while
the north side is unfenced.
• The proposed cut and fill is less than 1,000 cubic yards, which is considered minimal. Additionally,
the City's Geotechnical Engineer will review the construction documents.
Saratoga Planning Commissi� Qinutes of November 28, 2001 Page 7
• Advised that there are three proposed fireplaces and three chimneys. Only one will be wood
burning. The specifics as to which will be the wood burning and which would be gas will be noted
on the building plans.
• Informed that the Commissioners have been provided with a memorandum from the City Attorney
on the issue of Trails Access.
• Recommended approval.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked for more information on the Trails Access Program.
Director Tom Sullivan said that the location is depicted on the Master Plan for trails.
Acting Chair Kurasch opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:02 p.m.
Mr. Wilheim Kohler, 21842 Via Regina, Saratoga:
• Identified himself as a 30 -year resident of Saratoga, 25 years on this property.
• Pointed out that he has many beautiful trees on his property.
• Said that the impervious surfaces on his property will be reduced by about 8.5 percent with his new
home while he will gain 1,000 square feet in living space. Additionally, more open space will be
left around the house.
• Said that the second story will be less obtrusive than the current house's second story.
• Said that this will be a nice home.
• Advised that he has always allowed access to the equestrian trail and has signs to that effect.
However, he does not want this to become a public trail access as that would create more intense
use close to his house that he could not control. He is okay with horses crossing his property with
his permission and under his control.
• Pointed out that many inaccuracies were included in the mailer sent out by the Trails Group.
• Introduced his architect and attorney.
Mr. Jun Sillano, Architect:
• Thanked staff.
• Said that there is minimal bulk in the structure, that it will be constructed on the existing pad with
the second story portion situated behind the single story as seen from the front elevation. The
roofline reduces the mass. They have exposed wood beams and corbels and undulating walls. They
have used different textures and fenestration.
• To satisfy Policy 2, requiring the integration into the environment, they are able to integrate this
house into the environment due to the existing mature landscaping that will be retained. They will
also retain the existing driveway.
• To satisfy Policy 3, requiring sensitivity to privacy of neighbors, they have done so by meeting
required setbacks and by providing privacy screening through landscaping.
• Said he was available for any questions.
Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Sillano to identify where the wood burning fireplace would be located.
Mr. Jun Sillano replied the family room.
Commissioner Zutshi asked if the fireplace in the courtyard will be gas or wood.
Saratoga Planning Commissit- Minutes of November 28, 2001 Page 8
Mr. Jun Sillano replied gas.
Acting Chair Kurasch expressed concern about the closeness of the garage and drive to a ravine.
Mr. Jun Sillano advised that just a small sliver of the ravine is being encroached by the drive. They
plan to keep the topography as it is.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked Mr. Sillano if they are willing to drain water away from this ravine to
avoid runoff into the Bay.
Mr. Jun Sillano assured that on -site water will be collected.
Director Tom Sullivan pointed out Condition No. 10 to that fact.
Acting Chair Kurasch suggested the use of predominately native landscape materials for any future
landscaping.
Commissioner Hunter asked if there is a ravine on the property.
Mr. Jun Sillano said no. He added that this is just a sloping side.
Mr. Bill Sweitzer, 14151 Woodview Lane, Saratoga:
• Identified his home as being on the flatlands and advised that he owns four horses that have been
boarded at Garrett's for a number of years.
• Said that he has used trails over the years without issue.
• Cautioned that making it public could be detrimental to equestrians if bicyclists and motorcyclists
were to begin to use these trails used by equestrians. These activities would spook horses.
• Pointed out that an arrangement has been in place for a number of years and works well so there is
no need to make a change.
Ms. Jane Wilson, 14040 Pierce Road, Saratoga:
• Advised that she boards horses on Via Regina and that Mr. Kohler has allowed access to the trails
through his property.
• Read a letter by friend, Nancy White, who could not be in attendance. The letter thanked for the
opportunity to provide input. Stated support for the new home. Expressed concern about the
potential loss of accesses to trails and stated how important it is to keep this trail link open.
Ms. Laura Yelavich, 1677 Blaney Avenue, Saratoga:
• Advised that she is 10 years old and that her grandparents live next door to the Kohlers.
• Informed that she has ridden horses since she was three.
• Suggested that the use of the access be limited to residents of Via Regina.
Ms. Linda Yelavich, 1677 Blaney Avenue, Saratoga:
• Thanked Mr. Kohler for the continued use of his access to the trail.
• Expressed support for his project and said that her only concern is with future owners.
• Said that she would like to see the trail access dedicated as an easement access.
Saratoga Planning Commissi, Minutes of November 28, 2001
Page 9
Acting Chair Kurasch stated that the Planning Commission does not have a mechanism to require a trail
access easement in this application.
Ms. Linda Yelavich advised that she has used trails for 40 years and would love to see Mr. Kohler
dedicate it as a trail access.
Mr. James Baron, 19830 Via Escuela, Saratoga:
• Stated that this is a unique situation for a trail and the only people who have used this trail over the
last 40 years are neighbors. This is a neighborhood community trail in his opinion.
• Expressed concern that the property will be sold and access closed off.
• Said that Mr. Kohler had the public trail aligned with his property and that he has benefited
financially from that fact by boarding horses on his property.
• Suggested that this area has been maintained, marked and fenced as a trail with public funds over
the years.
• Offered that he believed the Commission can require trail access because more than a 50 percent
addition is being constructed.
• Said that the elevations are excessive and bulky, that story poles should be installed on all corners
of the property and stabilization of the slide area should occur.
• Requested a bond be required to ensure repairs to the private road that may result from construction
traffic.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked Director Sullivan if there is such a provision.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that such a Condition can be imposed.
Ms. Teri Baron, 19830 Via Escuela, Saratoga:
• Said that she boards horses and did so with the Kohlers for eight years previously.
• Advised that she developed a group, Saratoga Trail Enthusiasts, and has spent a great deal of time
and effort to ensure that trials were properly put in as required.
• Stated that trails provide community accesses only. They are minimally marked and only used by
pedestrians and equestrians.
• Suggested that Mr. Kohler put in writing that access for equestrians will continue. Access can be
specific and private to those on Via Regina, such as a private easement.
• Stated that she believed this property would be sold soon and that this is the time to ask.
Acting Chair Kurasch pointed out that the Mt. Eden Trails were required during a subdivision.
Ms. Teri Baron stated that she wants the access use in writing for permanent access for residents of Via
Regina.
Commissioner Zutshi asked how Ms. Baron if she believes the City funded the trail.
Ms. Teri Baron said yes.
Commissioner Zutshi asked Director Sullivan if this issue is within the purview of the Commission.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that, in the view of the City's Attorney, it is not.
Saratoga Planning Commissic iinutes of November 28, 2001 Page 10
Jolie Houston, Esq., Berliner Cohen:
• Said she wished to clarify for the record that they object to the allegation that the access has been
used for 40 years and that it was designated a trail in the past. Access was made available by
permission only. Mr. Kohler wants to maintain his rights. Additionally, he has the right to sell his
property. He is willing to allow use by permission only.
• Offered that a lot of opinions have been shared that are not relative to this Design Review.
• Clarified that the City Engineer and Architect have relied on maps for square footage and this is
well within the 50 percent improvements range.
• Stated her concurrence with the City Attorney's finding that there is no legal nexus for trail
dedication at this time.
Acting Chair Kurasch clarified for Ms. Houston that the Commission did not hear anyone say that this
trail was dedicated.
Ms. Sheila Daly, 21931 Via Regina, Saratoga:
• Advised that she has lived here 18 years and has been riding in the area over 20 years.
• Thanked Mr. Kohler for access to the trail for her and her children.
• Said that the only access is through Mr. Kohler's property and that he did work hard to have the
public trail access to his property.
• Stated that this is the only rural pocket left for equestrians.
• Suggested that road dedication be given and perhaps locks and gates could be installed to control
access such as she has seen done in Woodside.
• Said that requiring a bond to ensure the road's condition following construction of this house is a
terrific idea. Advised that between $35,000 to $50,000 was recently spent by the property owners
on Via Regina to put in a new road.
Mr. William Brooks, 20230 Merrick Drive, Saratoga;
• Stated that he has been riding horses in the area for 20 years and using this access to the trail,
although he is not a neighbor of the Kohlers.
• Said that he was sad to see that support has disappeared.
• Pointed out that the access does not divide the Kohler property but is situated beneath a PG &E
easement to one side.
• Questioned the legal size of the existing Kohler home, stating that he felt is important to determine
whether the new house is greater or less than 50 percent in order to see if the City does have the
power to require a permanent trail access. With this, there is the potential of finding that a trail
access is a matter of public necessity.
• Urged the Commission not to allow the loss of a link. Once that link is lost, it is gone forever.
• Asked the Commission to use its ingenuity.
Director Tom Sullivan advised the Commission that if it was so disposed, they could adopt a motion
suggesting that Council pursue eminent domain or purchase of easement rights.
Mr. Mike Moazeni, 21781 Via Regina, Saratoga:
• Stated his full support of the construction and opposition to the idea of establishing a public trail
access on the Kohler property.
• Pointed out that Via Regina is a private road that is not maintained by the City.
Saratoga Planning Commissi( linutes of November 28, 2001 Page 11
• Described that there are a lot of flies in his neighborhood as a result of the number of horses in the
area and asked that Ordinance standards, which limit the number of horses, are enforced.
Ms. Delora Sanfilippo, 21834 Via Regina, Saratoga:
• Said that she believed Mr. Kohler has complied with City requirements regarding any previous
construction on his home.
• Said that if the garage requires a retaining wall, she would request screening of that wall from her
property.
• Expressed opposition to the idea of a public trail access.
• Explained that the property owners of Via Regina pay for the maintenance on their private road and
requiring public access across private property constitutes a taking.
• Stated that there are liability issue concerns with public use of this access.
Commissioner Hunter asked Ms. Sanfilippo how long she has resided on this road.
Ms. Delora Sanfilippo replied 16 years.
Ms. Kathy Horner, 13857 Pike Road, Saratoga:
• Advised that she has boarded her horse on Via Regina for the last 9 years and used the access on the
Kohler property for the last 17 years.
• Said that this trail access is a necessity.
• Declared that most points made have been well stated.
• Opined that this situation affects only Mr. Kohler's neighbors, who would have to walk or ride their
horses on busy Pierce Road as an alternative to using his access to the trail.
• Agreed that this should not be a public trail.
• Thanked Mr. Kohler for the years he has been permitting access through his property to the public
trail and stated that to let this access continue would be a legacy to him.
• Asked Mr. Kohler to please allow the continued access.
Mr. Wilheim Kohler, Applicant:
• Said that he wants to stay nice and keep the access available for neighbors and friends.
• Provided a historical background on the trail, advising that it did not exist when he first purchased
the property. Riders used to simply cross his front yard so he put wire fencing 30 to 40 feet to
channel people away from the house. Since that time, people just crossed since it was open
although he never made an official trail.
• Restated that this is a private road and there are nine signatures from Via Regina property owners
who do not want the trail made public and three additional signatures were faxed under separate
cover.
• Emphasized that he did not wish to establish a public trail.
Commissioner Zutshi pointed out the Mr. Kohler that people seem to be concerned about what might
occur in the event that he sells this property.
Commissioner Garakani said that it is important to try to reach a win -win situation. Said that while the
public does not have the right to access his property, during this pending construction the neighbors will
experience disturbance. Said that it would be nice if Mr. Kohler could write something that assures that
Saratoga Planning CommissiL Qinutes of November 28, 2001 Page 12
if this property is sold the new owners will give the right to access until all the horses that are presently
boarded on Via Regina properties die.
Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Kohler if he supports the requirement for a bond to assure the
condition of the road by the conclusion of construction.
Mr. Wilheim Kohler said that there is a lot of building underway in the area and always something
going on. Assured that he would make sure that no damage occurs to the roadway as a result of his
construction.
Acting Chair Kurasch clarified that Mr. Kohler appears to have no objection to a reasonable bond for
potential damage to the road.
Acting Chair Kurasch closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 9:07 p.m.
Commissioner Hunter expressed confusion over questions raised about the size of the existing house.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that City records are based on building plans submitted for the
1992/1993 remodel whereas the County Tax Assessor's information is different. The City is convinced
the size is the same as is reported in the staff report.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked why both the City and County keep records.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that the County keeps its own records for tax purposes. Staff triple
checked City records. Square footage counts anything not open on three sides.
Commissioner Hunter reminded about the concerns expressed over the retaining wall.
Director Tom Sullivan suggested that the Commission can add a Condition of Approval regarding
facing the retaining wall with stone and reminded that the City's Geotechnical Engineer will be
reviewing the proposed plans to ensure applicability of the retaining wall.
Commissioner Hunter asked for verification of the PG &E easement.
Director Tom Sullivan said that there is such an easement. Such easements are generally for a specific
use.
Commissioner Hunter asked Director Sullivan if it is possible to have more than one use for an
easement.
Director Tom Sullivan replied yes.
Commissioner Garakam expressed concern about the bulkiness of the garage and questioned the
function for dormers on the windows for this garage.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that the dormers serve to break up the roofline.
Saratoga Planning Commissi,_ Minutes of November 28, 2001 Page 13
Commissioner Garakani said that it creates mass. Pointed out that the roof of the garage is much higher
than the roof on the front section of the home. Also brought attention to the fact that there are four
rather tall chimneys.
Acting Chair Kurasch reminded that there is a limit of one woodburning fireplace. The other chimneys
will simply be venting chimneys for gas fireplaces.
Director Tom Sullivan said that this is for the architect to say. Perhaps it is a design issue to provide
clearance over roof areas.
Acting Chair Kurasch suggested that the Commission can require the chimneys to be limited to the
minimum height necessary to meet Code requirements.
Commissioner Garakani suggested a reduction in the garage roofline and stated his concern over
potential impacts on the root line of the Oak tree.
Acting Chair Kurasch said that she too was concerned about the configuration of the garage to the
slope.
Acting Chair Kurasch reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 9:17 p.m.
Mr. Mark Thomas, Project Builder:
• Assured that he has met with the City's Architectural Advisor, Barrie Coates, to specifically discuss
the garage and potential construction impacts on the oak tree. Mr. Coates recommendation was to
build using pier and beam construction so that no trenching activity will occur. With that, Mr.
Coates is satisfied.
• Stated that the height of the retaining wall is a minimal two to three feet.
Commissioner Garakani asked if any fill would be required for the area around the garage.
Mr. Mark Thomas replied that there will be fill inside the foundation for the garaged but not outside the
foundation.
Commissioner Garakam asked for the purpose of the windows in the garage.
Mr. Jun Sillano, Project Architect, replied that they are necessary to bring in natural light into the three -
car garage. There are no privacy impacts on the neighbors. Pointed out that the roof height of the
garage is only 18 feet.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked Mr. Sillano if the garage can be made smaller in order to reduce its mass.
Mr. Jun Sillano answered that the garage is only 34 by 21 feet in interior space, which is not big for a
three -car garage.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked if the stone pillars between the garage doors can be reduced in width.
Mr. Jun Sillano clarified that the area between the doors is stucco and not stones and that the size is
necessary to provide the three -car garage.
Saratoga Planning Commissi. Iinutes of November 28, 2001 Page 14
Commissioner Garakam asked for the roof height.
Mr. Jun Sillano advised that the garage roof's pitch will match the house's.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked for clarification on why the fireplace chimneys are so tall.
Mr. Jun Sillano advised that Code requires these chimneys to be two feet above the highest ridge.
Assured that they will build chimneys only as allowed by Code.
Acting Chair Kurasch reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda No. 2 at 9:28 p.m.
Commissioner Garakani said that his concerns include the questions about the legality of the square
footage of the existing house, the garage height and the furthest back chimney's height.
Commissioner Zutshi agreed that the garage height should be reduced.
Acting Chair Kurasch:
• Stated that the house design is thoughtful and well - planned design of which she has no objection.
• Said that she could support a modification to the roof of the garage so that it appears less bulky and
did not believe this change would harm the architecture.
• Suggested the use of native landscaping particularly near the ravine.
• Supported the idea of a bond for the protection of the private road.
• Declared that she did not believe the Planning Commission hearing is the venue for consideration of
trail access and could not be considered as a part of this application.
• Expressed that she did not feel that staff has made calculation errors in the size of the existing
home.
• Pointed out that any decisions of the Commission can be appealed to Council.
• Supported a requirement for limiting the minimum height of the chimneys per Code.
Commissioner Hunter:
• Said that she has no problem with the garage as proposed and pointed out that it faces the side.
• Supported the bond to protect the road.
• Pointed out that Mr. Kohler seems willing to talk with his neighbors and will keep things as they are
as long as he owns the property.
• Agreed that one solution to limit access is to install fences.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked if Commissioner Hunter is supportive of a requirement to reduce the roof
height for the garage.
Commissioner Hunter said that the roof height is right for the house and supports the chimneys' heights
as long as they are to Code.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the
Planning Commission approved a Design Review (DR -01 -042) to allow a new 6,174
square foot, two -story residence on property at 21842 Via Regina with the added
Conditions of Approval to:
Saratoga Planning Commissi( linutes of November 28, 2001 Page 15
1. Reduce the height of the garage roof;
2. Assure that the chimney heights are no higher than the minimum required by
Code;
3. Submit a bond to ensure the good condition of the private road by the
completion of construction;
4. Add a natural material stone to face the retaining wall; and
5. Use predominately native landscaping on the site.
AYES:Garakani, Kurasch and Zutshi
NOES: Hunter
ABSENT: Barry, Jackman and Roupe
ABSTAIN: None
Acting Chair Kurasch advised that there is a 15 -day appeal period.
Acting Chair Kurasch called for a break at 9:38 p.m.
Acting Chair Kurasch reconvened the meeting at 9:49 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.3
DR -01 -038 (397 -35 -011) — JONES, 19369 Crisp Avenue: Request for Design Review approval to
construct a new 5,493 square foot single -story, single - family residence. The existing 4,239 square foot
single - family residence would be demolished. The 40,093 square foot parcel is located in the R -1-
40,000 Zoning District. The proposed height is 21 feet.
Mr. John Livingstone, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that this application seeks Design Review approval for the construction of a 5,400 square
foot, single -story residence and the demolition of the existing 4,200 square foot home. The
maximum height will be 21 feet and the 40,000 square foot lot is located in an R -1- 40,000 Zoning
District.
• Pointed out that such a project would typically be handle through an Administrative Design Review
since it involves replacing a single -story home. However, the new home's proposed height exceeds
18 feet, which requires Planning Commission review.
• Stated that the applicant is seeking approval for 21 -foot height in order to allow an increase in roof
pitch. The actual maximum allowable height limit is 26 feet.
• Advised that all criteria are met by this project. The house will be located on the same pad and may
use the same foundation, if possible. The majority of the mature landscaping will be retained. The
project has a varied roofline and articulation is achieved with architectural windows and use of
stone.
• Said that staff is in support of this proposal.
Acting Chair Kurasch opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 9:55 p.m.
Mr. Gary Kohlsaat, Project Architect:
• Advised that this project began when Mrs. Jones wanted a new cooktop.
• Stated that they plan to leave the rear landscaping alone.
Saratoga Planning Commissic linutes of November 28, 2001 Page 16
• Said that they came to the realization that remodeling this home did not make sense. The Jones
wanted higher ceilings and walls, a more custom home. This new design has articulation and fits
better into the neighborhood. The new home will have approximately 1,100 square feet of
additional living area.
• Informed that they had tried to keep the house under 18 feet in height but felt that the increase in
height was important enough to make it worth participating in a Public Hearing before the Planning
Commission.
• Said that the existing home is already 18 feet and this new home will not block any views. Overall
this project is pretty straightforward.
Commissioner Garakani asked for the width of the arch column.
Mr. Gary Kohlsaat replied 30 inches.
Commissioner Garakani said that it appears to be bulky.
Mr. Gary Kohlsaat reminded that it is symmetrical on both sides.
Acting Chair Kurasch said that the arch does not come out too far. She added that the driveway,
currently long and wide is changing.
Mr. Gary Kohlsaat said that they are reducing impervious surfaces by quite a bit.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked if all existing trees will be retained.
Mr. Gary Kohlsaat replied yes.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked what material is being used for the garage door.
Mr. Gary Kohlsaat said that they are looking at several custom garage doors. They are gearing toward
a cedar with a whitewash stain.
Commissioner Garakani asked what material is being used on the entry pillar.
Mr. Gary Kohlsaat replied solid wall veneer faced with stone.
Commissioner Hunter asked if the roof is really speckled.
Mr. Gary Kohlsaat said that there is some variation in color but the material is a beautiful natural clay
tile.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked about the wall outside the dining room.
Mr. Gary Kohlsaat said it encloses a little patio and has been counted into the total square footage. This
wall is two to two -and -a -half feet high.
Acting Chair Kurasch stated that this house seems reasonable, is not overly huge and has a nice quality
design that will fit in well.
Saratoga Planning Commissic linutes of November 28, 2001 Page 17
Acting Chair Kurasch reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 10:01 p.m.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the
Planning Commission approved DR -00 -038 to allow the construction of a new
residence on property located at 19369 Crisp Avenue:
AYES:Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barry, Jackman and Roupe
ABSTAIN: None
Acting Chair Kurasch advised that there is a 15 -day appeal period.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.4
DR -01 -020 (397 -05 -055) — 4 QUARTERS INC., 14377 Old Wood Road: Request for Design Review
approval to construct a new 6,175 square foot two -story single - family residence. The existing 2,476
square foot residence would be demolished. The 49,701 square foot parcel is in the R -1- 40,000 Zoned
District. The proposed height is 26 feet.
Director Tom Sullivan, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicants are seeking approval to demolish a 2,476 square foot, single -story
residence and Design Review approval to construct a new 5,559 square foot, two -story residence
with a 927 square foot basement. The maximum height would be 26 feet. The 615 square foot
existing detached garage would remain. The 49,701 square foot site is located in an R -1- 40,000
Zoning District.
• Pointed out that the westerly portion of this property is heavily treed and has a creek.
• Stated that staff is pleased with the selection of colors and materials. The house is to be situated on
a nearly flat portion of the lot. The front portion of the house will be single -story with the two -story
element situated to the rear of the home. The front entry is 60 feet away from the front property line
while the existing house is 195 feet from the front property line. The existing driveway will be
retained and little grading is required at about 400 yards. The conditions derived from the
Geotechnical Report have been incorporated.
• Advised that a woodburning fireplace will be situated on the outside patio and interior fireplaces
will be gas.
• Stated that staff is recommending approval as this project meets the guidelines of the Residential
Handbook and the French Country design is not out of character for the area.
Commissioner Garakani asked if the square footage of the garage has been counted.
Director Tom Sullivan replied yes.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked what the curved roof edges are called.
Director Tom Sullivan replied he was unsure.
Commissioner Zutshi asked if the exterior stairs are normal.
Saratoga Planning Commissic linutes of November 28, 2001 Page 18
Director Tom Sullivan said they were not untypical.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked if the area along the driveway is stabile enough.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that remediation will be required if it is found not to be sufficiently
stabile. This is a nice place to keep the driveway.
Acting Chair Kurasch opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 10:11 p.m.
Mr. Andrew Barnes, Applicant:
• Stated that he has resided in this home for 15 years.
• Advised that a few neighbors who had come this evening to support his application left as a result
of the late hour.
• Stated that he wanted a French -style home in recognition of his being half French.
• Described his roof style as being Peragold.
Commissioner Garakani asked about whether the roof of the foyer is flat on top.
Mr. Andrew Barnes replied yes.
Commissioner Garakani asked if there is a chimney on the back of the house.
Mr. Andrew Barnes replied yes.
Commissioner Garakani asked for the roof height.
Mr. Andrew Barnes replied 21 -foot ceilings inside with a 25.5 -foot exterior roof height. The added
height is to accommodate the height of the foyer.
Acting Chair Kurasch said that the second roof in front of the foyer doesn't appear to blend with the
roof.
Mr. Andrew Barnes advised that the purpose of the element is to give style to the house.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked for the height of the entry doors.
Mr. Andrew Barnes replied 42 inches wide by eight feet tall with a two -foot transom. There are double
doors.
Acting Chair Kurasch stated that the entry roof seems awfully imposing compared to the rest of the
house.
Mr. Andrew Barnes pointed out that the entry feature is located at 60 feet from the front property line
with the remainder of the house back an additional six feet.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked if bringing the house so much closer up front is to provide a larger rear
yard.
Saratoga Planning Commissi( linutes of November 28, 2001 Page 19
Mr. Andrew Barnes said that the placement of the new house is based on where trees are located in
order to maximize privacy of his neighbors.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked about the sewer easement on the property.
Mr. Andrew Barnes:
• Replied that it runs all the way across the property.
• Added that he cannot go further back without encroaching into that easement without redesigning
the house.
• Pointed out that he planted 40 trees on his property at a cost of $40,000 and asked for a waiver on
the requirement for an $18,000 bond for the protection of trees.
Director Tom Sullivan clarified that the north -to -south easements do not run parallel to the eastern
property line.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked Mr. Barnes if he is willing to change the color of the balcony railing to
light gray instead of the proposed blue.
Mr. Andrew Barnes said sure.
Commissioner Hunter stated that she is delighted to see the use of Vermont slate.
Mr. Andrew Barnes added that this slate is 3/4 inches thick and'the house will last for many years to
come.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked if all sides will be veneered in stone.
Mr. Andrew Barnes replied yes.
Commissioner Garakam questioned the bulk and mass of the front entry.
Mr. Andrew Barnes advised that there is a dome in the foyer so the ceiling must be higher to
accommodate it.
Commissioner Hunter asked about the two dormers in front.
Mr. Andrew Barnes advised that one is in a closet and one brings light to the attic.
Acting Chair Kurasch pointed out that there are a lot of details to this design.
Mr. Andrew Barnes replied that this is not a small house or undertaking.
Acting Chair Kurasch pointed out there is not a lot of symmetry to the two sides of the front elevation.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that on the left side the windows are in a semi - circle for the dining
room.
Saratoga Planning Commissit linutes of November 28, 2001 Page 20
Mr. Andrew Barnes offered that he could move the windows on the right all the way to the floor easily
to achieve more symmetry.
Acting Chair Kurasch stated that there appears to be a lot of transoms in back but not in front. They are
a bit busy which dilutes the effect of each one.
Commissioner Garakani asked if there are gas or woodburning fireplaces.
Director Sullivan advised that this is designated on the plans. If used primarily for a barbecue, the
applicant can have a woodburning fireplace outside as well as one inside the home.
Commissioner Garakam expressed doubt that such a big chimney is required for the outside
fireplace/barbecue.
Director Sullivan said that since it is situated so close to the building, a chimney of that size is required.
He added that a minor technical correction to the Fire Conditions needs to be noted. A few conditions
from a previous project were inadvertently left when used as a template and should be deleted.
Additionally reference was made to a Code Section that should be 16 -15070 rather than 16 -15090 as
noted in the Conditions.
Acting Chair Kurasch closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 10:34 p.m.
Commissioner Hunter said that with the use of gray rather than blue balcony wrought iron railing and a
bond for the trees, she is fine with this home design.
Commissioner Garakani said that as long as the front windows to the right of the front elevation are
changed to match the left side, everything else is okay. He stated a problem visualizing the bulkiness
of the foyer, which he believed should be thinned out and reduced.
Director Sullivan pointed out that there is a functional side to the foyer element in that it also contains a
stairway.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked Commissioner Garakani if his concern is the size or height.
Commissioner Garakani said both. Questioned if it is possible to reduce without adversely affecting the
design.
Director Sullivan suggested that if this is the consensus of the Commission, it could give staff that
direction to work with the applicant and his architect to reduce as possible.
Commissioner Garakani asked that it be made more modest and in keeping with the rest of the house.
Acting Chair Kurasch agreed. Stated her support for the use of the same window features on both sides
of the front elevation, which would look nice. Also supported the use of gray in place of blue wrought
iron railing for the balcony.
Commissioner Zutshi said that the home seems busy.
Saratoga Planning Commissil, linutes of November 28, 2001 Page 21
Director Sullivan assured that the stone will blend in together while the drawing seems to pop the
details out.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the
Planning Commission approved DR -00 -056 to allow the construction of a new
residence on property located at 14377 Old Wood Road with the added Conditions
to:
1. Reduce the size of the entry and foyer;
2. Resize the front windows to the right of the front elevation to match those on
the left of the front elevation; and
3. Use gray wrought iron on the balcony railing.
AYES:Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barry, Jackman and Roupe
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner Garakani asked if interest is paid on the bond.
Director Sullivan advised that the bond is in the form of a Certificate of Deposit.
Acting Chair Kurasch advised that there is a 15 -day appeal period.
DIRECTOR ITEMS
Cancellation of December 26, 2001, Planning Commission Meeting:
Director Tom Sullivan advised that the next meeting would be cancelled in light of the holiday.
COMMISSION ITEMS
Planning Commission Subcommittees
Director Sullivan advised he would keep this item on the agenda in case issues come up.
COMMUNICATIONS
Minutes from Council meetings on September 5, 19 and October 9, 2001.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Acting Chair Kurasch adjourned the meeting at 10:43 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for
Wednesday, December 12, 2001, to begin at 7 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, November 14, 2001
PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Acting Chair Kurasch called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi
Absent: Commissioner Barry and Jackman
Staff: Director Tom Sullivan and Planner Lata Vasudevan
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of October 24, 2001.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the
regular Planning Commission minutes of October 24, 2001, were approved with
the following addition to page 8 ... Asked if the Geologic Report and development of
driveway improvements is are compatible with the Hillside Specific Plan.
AYES:Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barry and Jackman
ABSTAIN: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no oral communications.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Director Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting
was properly posted on November 8, 2001.
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET
Director Sullivan advised that any technical corrections would be provided during each respective staff
report.
CONSENT CALENDAR
SD -95 -007.4 (503 -82 -006) — RODEO CREEK HOLLOW — PHASE II — K2M ASSOCIATES,
LLC, Paramount Court: Request for a two -year time extension to Phase II of a previously approved
Tentative Map. (OOSTERHOUS)
i
Saratoga Planning Commissiu_ _✓Iinutes of November 14, 2001
Page 2
Commissioner Roupe asked for verification that an extension had previously been granted and that this
second extension would be the last allowed.
Director Sullivan advised that per State Law this would be the last permitted extension of this approval.
Commissioner Roupe asked if there is any required rational for the granting of an extension.
Director Sullivan replied no and suggested that the Commission take minute action approving this
extension.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the
Planning Commission granted a two -year extension to SD -95 -007.4 for property on
Paramount Court.
AYES:Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barry and Jackman
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner Roupe suggested hearing Item No. 5 first since the recommendation is for continuation.
Acting Chair Kurasch announced that Non - Public Hearing Item No. 5 would be taken out of order.
NON - PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 5
GARROD FARMS, 22600 Mount Eden Road (503 -10 -028): Request for General Plan clarification to
allow three new dwelling units on one parcel of land where two dwelling units currently exist. The area
is located within the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County and is pre -zoned Hillside Residential. The
County requires the project to be consistent with the City of Saratoga's General Plan.
(LIVINGSTONE) (CONTINUED FROM 10/24/01) (Request for continuance to January 9, 2002)
Director Tom Sullivan provided the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicants have requested a continuance to the Planning Commission meeting of
January 9, 2002.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
Planning Commission continued consideration of Item No. 5 (Garrod Farms, 22600
Mount Eden Road) to its meeting of January 9, 2002.
AYES:Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barry and Jackman
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner Hunter acknowledged the students from Saratoga High School who are in attendance at
this evening's meeting.
Saratoga Planning Commissit _✓linutes of November 14, 2001 Page 3
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2
DR -01 -036 (397 -18 -048) — BRAMLETT, 14920 Farwell Avenue: Request for Design Review
approval to remodel and expand an existing single -story 3,375 square foot residence and construct a
new 875 square foot second story. The proposed 4,752 square foot residence would be 26 feet in
height. The site is 28,229 square feet and is located in the R -1- 40,000 zone district. (VASUDEVAN)
Ms. Lata Vasudevan, Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicants seek approval for an 875 square foot second story addition with a
maximum height of 26 feet.
• Informed that the property consists of 28,229 square feet.
• Described the materials as including beige smooth plaster with gray accents, a wood shingle roof on
a California ranch style home that will be similar to the existing home.
• Stated that a non - conforming wrought iron fence exists on the property that is between six and
seven feet in height. Ordinance permits no more than a six -foot high fence and limits the height to
three feet for the front of the property. The maximum allowable height with an electronic gate is
five feet.
• Advised that staff is proposing an added condition of approval that this non - conforming wrought
iron fence be brought into compliance with Ordinance regulations prior to issuance of building
permits for this addition/remodel.
• Stated that the project meets the required findings for approval and that staff is recommending
approval.
• Said that the applicant /owner is in the audience.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Stated that upon the site visit, he is concerned about ensuring the protection of the live oak trees in
the front.
• Pointed out that the Arborist has called this out as a serious concern in his report.
• Asked staff if these concerns have been addressed with the conditions of approval.
Planner Lata Vasudevan replied yes.
Acting Chair Kurasch opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:12 p.m.
Mr. Gary Schloh, Project Architect:
• Thanked staff and reminded the Commission that he was before them about two years ago with a
proposal for this same property. Their project is now smaller with a second story addition and the
remodel of the existing house.
• Said that while they seek approval for a maximum height of 26 feet, he did not believe the home
would reach 26 feet in height.
• Declared that the fencing issue comes as a surprise.
• Distributed photographs depicting other fencing in the nearby area, including the adjacent property
and one across and down the street. These fences are between seven and nine feet in height.
• Added that they are hoping to keep this existing fence as it represents a safety feature for the
children of this household since the property is located close to Highway 9.
Saratoga Planning Commissi,- _Minutes of November 14, 2001 Page 4
• Pointed out that this is not a proposal for a new house.
• Said that in his experience with remodels and additions, non - conforming conditions can usually be
kept as long as they are not made worse.
• Said that he is available for questions.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Said that the fence can be six feet in height if located further back on the property.
• Expressed his appreciation to Mr. Schloh for bringing in photos of other fencing installations and
asked when this fence was installed on the subject property.
Mr. Gary Schloh said that it appears to have been installed approximately in 1986 although there are no
permit records on microfilm to substantiate the installation.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked Director Sullivan for direction.
Director Sullivan suggested that this issue is a policy decision for the Commission to make. Added that
when a substantial addition is under consideration, the opportunity is there for the Commission to bring
non - conforming issues into compliance or it can determine that the addition is not a significant one and
therefore requiring conformance is not required.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked staff if a Variance was approved for this fencing installation.
Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that there is no record that this fence was considered by the City at all
for any types of approval. Added that typically, there is no fence approval required for wood or
wrought iron fences six feet or less in height.
Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Schloh how long the current owners have owned this home and
whether it was before 1986.
Mr. Gary Schloh replied that the Bramletts have owned the home since that time.
Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Schloh if they are prepared to honor the conditions for the
protection of the oak trees, including the requirement to remove the turf currently in place beneath the
trees.
Mr. Gary Schloh replied that the turf has been in place for a number of years and that oaks tend to
acclimate to their surroundings. Pointed out that they are not in bad health.
Commissioner Roupe cautioned that if this project receives approval, the conditions of approval would
mandate that the turf located below these trees must be removed.
Director Sullivan pointed out that Condition 8 is clear and to the point on that issue.
Commissioner Roupe stated that this is not an item for discussion but rather a requirement of approval.
Acting Chair Kurasch opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:26 p.m. and, as there were
no parties present who wished to address the Commission, she immediately closed the hearing.
Saratoga Planning Commissiu__ Minutes of November 14, 2001 Page 5
Commissioner Zutshi pointed out an area on the plans that does not specify use.
Ms. Lata Vasudevan replied that this space is for storage and has been counted with the total square
footage.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Stated that as this is a substantial modification to this home he feels justified in requiring the
modification of the non - conforming fence.
• Stated that the conditions of the Arborist's report must be honored.
• Said that this project will be a nice addition to the community.
Commissioner Hunter agreed with Commissioner Roupe's comments. She advised that while she too
has grass beneath a large oak tree on her property, she must defer to the recommendations made by the
Arborist.
Commissioner Garakam:
• Said that since this is basically a remodel and there are at least two other non - conforming fences in
this area, he does not find it necessary to require the removal of the fence.
• Suggested that this fence be painted black so that it is less visible.
Commissioner Zutshi said that she is fine with the project as proposed.
Acting Chair Kurasch:
• Said that she supports the application as proposed but that this request offers the City the
opportunity to correct past mistakes so she prefers to see the fence lowered so as to be conforming.
• Added that she is not willing to second guess the Arborist's report and so she agrees with the
remedies for the oak trees.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the
Planning Commission approved DR -01 -036 to allow a remodel and expansion of an
existing home on property located at 14920 Farwell Avenue with the added
condition that the existing non - conforming fence be brought into conformance with
Ordinance requirements:
AYES:Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barry and Jackman
ABSTAIN: None
Acting Chair Kurasch advised that there is a 15 -day appeal period before this action is final.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO. 3
DR -01 -028 (397 -17 -033) — JALAN, 19805 Versailles Way: Request for Design Review approval to
construct a new single -story 6,037 square foot residence and demolish an existing 4,217 square foot
home. The proposed height is 25.5 feet. The lot is 40,060 square feet in area and is located within the
R -1- 40,000 zoning district. (SULLIVAN)
Saratoga Planning Commissi,- _✓linutes of November 14, 2001 Page 6
Director Tom Sullivan, presented the staff report as follows:
• Provided technical corrections to the table to reflect maximum coverage for this specific lot
configuration to be 6,020 rather than the 7,200 listed. Therefore, this project will have to be
trimmed by 17 square feet.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that there is a typographical error on Page A -1 of the plans. The
square footage is depicted as 6,037 in one spot and 6,137 in another.
Director Tom Sullivan:
• Said that he would defer to the architect to clarify which number is accurate.
• Added that all setbacks have been met and /or exceeded.
• Pointed out that all conditions imposed by the Commission on the home across the street have been
added to this project.
• Said that the 4,217 square foot home will be demolished and a new 6,037 square foot home
constructed.
• Advised that the applicants had invited the neighbors to a meeting. Several letters were received
from the neighbors. One suggested moving the home further back from the street. No problems
were raised about the home's design.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out an error to page 6 of the report for a setback that reads 43 feet that
must be larger to make sense.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that this number should actually read 83 feet.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked Director Sullivan how far the portico is from Versailles Way.
Director Tom Sullivan replied 49 feet.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked how far the rest of the house is from Versailles Way.
Director Tom Sullivan replied an additional 16 feet.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked how far the house is set back from the house next door.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that he has spoken with this neighbor and they are asking for screening
landscaping and to have the pool equipment relocated, which is not a problem with the applicant.
Acting Chair Kurasch questioned why a landscaping plan is not available.
Director Tom Sullivan reminded that this project pre -dates that requirement.
Acting Chair Kurasch opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 7:41p.m.
Mr. Greg Kawahara, Project Architect:
• Reminded the Commission that they approved another house he designed across the street from this
site. At that time he was given two directions from the Commission. One was to work with staff to
Saratoga Planning Commissi, Ainutes of November 14, 2001 Page 7
ensure that this house is different from the first one. The second requirement was to work with the
neighbors.
• Advised that he met with Director Sullivan to review materials. The wainscoting on this home will
be natural stone (limestone).
• Added that they conducted an Open House for the neighbors on September Sth at which two
adjacent neighbors attended. Two issues were raised. The placement of the pool equipment shed
and windows facing their yard.
• Advised that they are willing to move the pool equipment shed as well as adding landscaping to
hide any windows from the adjacent property.
• Added that on September 11 1h, they met with two other neighbors across the street. One asked them
to rotate the placement of the pool.
• Said that on October 27th they had an Open House with notices sent to the neighbors. Two adjacent
neighbors showed up.
• Said that on November 4th one neighbor asked them to move the house back on the site.
• Stated that they can reduce the 6,037 square feet to 6,015 square feet easily.
• Informed that they had a surveyor measure the height of homes in the immediate area. Their
structure will actually be 24 feet, 2 inches high from the grade at the front door to the highest ridge.
This is because the street is higher than the house.
• Added that as seen from Versailles Way, this house will be two feet lower at the ridge than the
house next door and 5.5 feet lower than the house across the street.
• Pointed out that the architectural styles are diverse on this street and made himself available for
questions.
Commissioner Zutshi asked for clarification for a space depicted on the plans.
Mr. Greg Kawahara advised that this is an elevator.
Commissioner Zutshi asked if the additional roof ridge is necessary and, if so, whether the elevator
could be relocated elsewhere.
Mr. Greg Kawahara advised that he has broken up the roof ridge per the City's guidelines and that the
roof over the elevator also ties in with the roof over the playroom.
Commissioner Roupe advised Commissioner Zutshi that the plans are depicting a footprint.
Director Tom Sullivan added that every time the facade is moved back, they get a new hip.
Commissioner Zutshi asked the height of the front door.
Mr. Greg Kawahara replied 9 feet, 9 inches.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that per the plans and rendering, the portico appears to stand out and
seems to be a bit bigger than required per a functional point of view. Asked if there is any functional
reason for this height.
Mr. Greg Kawahara replied that the height is intended to bring attention to this architectural feature.
Commissioner Roupe said that this portico is ostentatious.
Saratoga Planning Commissk ✓Iinutes of November 14, 2001
Page 8
Mr. Greg Kawahara pointed out that this house has but one arch while a house across the street has five
arches. Added that the house next door has a two -story front entry feature.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked for the height from natural grade.
Mr. Greg Kawahara advised that they had to get the height from a surveyor.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked Director Sullivan if the Commission has had this problem before.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that it is easier to establish the grade from vacant land that from land
with something on it. He advised that 25 feet, 6 inches is the best estimate.
Commissioner Roupe asked if this height is compatible with adjacent properties.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked if there is a conflict with the tree when considering moving the house back.
Mr. Greg Kawahara said that this decision would be up to the Arborist.
Commissioner Roupe said that it appears that there is about five feet of space available to back up the
structure without encroaching on the tree, subject to the Arborist's agreement. Asked Mr. Kawahara if
he is willing to defer this decision to the Arborist's counsel.
Mr. Greg Kawahara replied yes.
Acting Chair Kurasch suggested adding a condition requiring a completed landscape plan for the front.
Added that screening for the side landscaping should be determined in cooperation with the neighbor.
Mr. Paul Doble, Project Builder:
• Stated that they have no problem with preparing a landscaping plan.
Mr. Greg Kawahara said that if the plan must rely on neighbor consent the project could be delayed.
Commissioner Roupe said that the intent is not to require the neighbor's approval but rather to require
staff review and approval.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked staff how this issue is typically handled.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that staff will require that additional screening be negotiated with the
neighbors and that per the Conditions of Approval, mature replacement trees will be required.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked how many neighbors met.
Mr. Greg Kawahara replied two neighbors met face -to -face with them.
Commissioner Garakani suggested installing a retaining wall with landscaping to solve the need for
screening.
Saratoga Planning CommissK ✓linutes of November 14, 2001 Page 9
Mr. Paul Doble said that they might be able to add a 2.5 -foot berm if the neighbor supports that idea.
Acting Chair Kurasch said that the portico might not tie into the neighborhood. Asked if this feature
could either be redesigned or eliminated.
Mr. Greg Kawahara advised that they would not want to outright eliminate the portico but could
consider reducing its size, making it rectangular instead of square.
Commissioner Roupe suggested that the height of the portico be dropped.
Mr. Greg Kawahara said that it would be possible to drop it by about a foot.
Director Sullivan said that it might be possible to change the gable to a hip roof on the portico.
Ms. Yvonne Pillai, 19800 Versailles Way, Saratoga:
• Said that she lives across the street and that her husband submitted a letter.
• Added that this house will be closer to the street and obscure their view of trees.
Commissioner Garakani asked Ms. Pillai if added trees in the front would be helpful.
Ms. Yvonne Pillai replied yes.
Ms. Catherine Lin, 19779 Versailles Way, Saratoga:
• Said that she would like to see the pool shed relocated closer to the pool due to noise concerns.
• Added that the owner has agreed to do so but she wants to be sure it occurs.
• Said that her property is to the east of this site and that bedroom windows will face her backyard
while the existing house has only a bathroom window.
• Recommended screening landscaping to ensure privacy.
Commissioner Garakani asked Ms. Lin how she would feel about a six foot fence that appears to be
eight feet from her property, which would be the case since the grade of her property is lower than her
own property grade.
Ms. Catherine Lin said that perhaps lattice could be installed but that first she would want to see if her
other neighbors would be willing too. She does not want to have lattice solely on one of her four shared
fence sides. Added that she would prefer landscape screening to lattice.
Commissioner Hunter suggested some sort of vine to provide screening.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that actually the new window will be smaller than the existing
window.
Mr. Greg Kawahara clarified that there will be one large window for the bedroom and two small frosted
glass windows for two bathrooms on this elevation. However the windows are eight feet off the floor
therefore offering no privacy impacts.
Mr. Raj Jalan, Applicant and Property Owner, 19805 Versailles Way, Saratoga:
• Said that the portico is a feature he requested.
Saratoga Planning Commissi, ✓Iinutes of November 14, 2001 Page 10
• Added that while he is willing to reduce the width and height of the portico he wants to retain the
gable roof on the portico.
Acting Chair Kurasch closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:24 p.m.
Commissioner Zutshi:
• Stated that it appears the neighbor's privacy concerns have been taken care of
• Advised that she has a problem with the entrance's 10 -foot high door.
• Added that if the door is lowered, the roof can also be lowered.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked Director Sullivan for the height of the portico roof.
Director Tom Sullivan replied 20 feet.
Commissioner Roupe said that he supports moving the structure back from the front property line by
five feet, with the approval of the Arborist.
Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the feeder roots are located 30- inches beyond the drip line.
With the condition of approval to obtain the Arborist's approval for moving this structure back, this
requirement works.
Commissioner Hunter:
• Said that she thought moving the house would adversely impact the tree and therefore she supports
leaving it where it is.
• Added that she has no problems with the house but finds the portico to be too big and intrusive.
She would like to see its height reduced.
• Pointed out that the owner and neighbor seem willing to work together on landscape screening.
Acting Chair Kurasch pointed out that the mitigation for the tree includes the requirement to remove
existing fill per the Arborist's report.
Commissioner Garakam:
• Said that it was unfortunate that some smaller trees cannot be saved under the Ordinance.
• Suggested a flat roof on the portico.
• Said that he expects the final house to closely resemble what is depicted on the rendering.
Acting Chair Kurasch:
• Said that this project is over the top.
• Stated that she does not like the portico and would like to see it eliminated outright but that
minimally it must be reduced from the current 20 foot height in order to bring it more into scale
with what is appropriate to the neighborhood.
• Pointed out that she does not like overly big houses.
• Expressed her faith that staff will approve a landscape plan that meets the screening needs.
• Said that she found the multiple roofs to be busy.
• Agreed that the pool equipment issue has been settled.
Saratoga Planning Commissi,- Qinutes of November 14, 2001
Page 11
Director Tom Sullivan said that the pool equipment still appears in the wrong place on the plans and
that a condition of approval should be added to ensure its relocation to the west side of the property,
closer to the pool.
Commissioner Garakani said that he likes the fact that the garage is not facing the street.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
Planning Commission made a motion to approve DR -01 -028 to allow a new single -
story residence on property located at 19805 Versailles Way with the added
conditions that:
1. The portico be lowered and reduced in dimension:
2. That screening landscaping be provided along the east side of the property;
3. That the pool equipment be moved to the west side of the property, closer to
the pool;
4. That a detailed landscape /irrigation plan be submitted to the Community
Development Director for final approval.
Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the
motion was amended to include the requirement to move the house back from the
front property line, subject to the consent of the Arborist that to do so would not
endanger the tree, and taking into consideration post and beam construction of
necessary to assure the health of the tree.
The first vote on the Amendment to the original Motion was:
AYES:Garakani, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: Hunter
ABSENT: Barry and Jackman
ABSTAIN: None
The second vote on the overall Motion for Approval was:
AYES:Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barry and Jackman
ABSTAIN: None
Acting Chair Kurasch called for a break at 8:42 p.m.
Acting Chair Kurasch reconvened the meeting at 8:54 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.4
DR -00 -056 & V -00 -022 (517 -13- 018/019) — SOBRATO 14800 Bohlman Road: Request for Design
Review approval to construct a new 6,281 square foot residence, a 755 square foot garage, 1,512 square
foot open pavilion (162 square feet enclosed) and a 4,598 square foot basement on a vacant lot. As an
alternative, the applicant is requesting Variance approval to exceed the allowable floor area permitted
by code. The Variance would allow the pavilion to be fully enclosed and 751 square feet of open
Saratoga Planning Commissi-_ Qinutes of November 14, 2001 Page 12
vaulted ceiling in excess of 15 feet ceiling height. The site is 6.19 acres and located within an R -1-
40,000 zone district. (SULLIVAN)
Director Tom Sullivan, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the Design Review is for a 6,281 square foot single - family residence with a 755 square
foot garage, a 1,512 square foot open pavilion and 4,598 square feet of basement space.
• Added that a Variance is required to exceed the allowable floor area.
• Described the property as consisting of 6.19 acres within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district.
• Pointed out that this parcel is part of the Sobrato Subdivision for which Council granted final map
approval.
• Stated that Code establishes maximum floor area ratios based on zoning districts and regardless of
the actual size of a parcel. While there is no penalty for height of structure, the vaulted ceiling
space above 15 feet in height is counted as additional floor area. The intent of this provision is to
reduce bulk and mass of a project.
Commissioner Roupe asked what the maximum allowable square footage is for this site.
Director Tom Sullivan:
• Replied 7,200 square feet is the maximum under the R -1- 40,000 zoning.
• Advised that the Commission must make two findings in support of the Variance to allow the full
enclosure of the pavilion/pool house and the vaulted area being left open above 15 feet.
Commissioner Roupe asked if fencing or grading require Variances on this site.
Director Tom Sullivan:
• Replied no.
• Advised that those issues are development standards and not Variance issues.
• Provided the three findings required for support of the Variances:
• Is there a special circumstance? The parcel is larger than normal and half the property
represents a scenic easement. Additionally, there are 1,000 trees on the property.
• Are special privileges being granted? There are other houses where the floor area ratio has been
exceeded to allow pool houses.
• Is the Variance a detriment to the public? Per the applicant, no.
• Pointed out that usually a Variance is needed because a lot is too small, whereas this lot is quite
large.
• Informed that staff does not believe that the necessary findings can be made.
• Discussed the house design. The home is a shingle type design that was designed to appear as if the
house has been constructed at different stages over time.
• Advised that the required findings in support of the Design Review request can be made in the
affirmative.
• Said that a substantial amount of grading is required, much of it for a road that has been designed in
such a way in order to save as many trees as possible. Additional grading is for the pool and the
basement as well as around the house. A great deal of thought went into the grading design.
• Advised that the delineation of the scenic easement is depicted on the exhibit behind the
Commissioners. It represents half to site.
Saratoga Planning Commissh Minutes of November 14, 2001
Page 13
Added that the Commission asked for a fencing plan. The proposed fencing connects buildings and
a substantial amount of fencing encloses the pool area. The only enclosed area is the pool and
terrace area.
Advised that staff recommends approval of the Design Review while it has no recommendation on
the Variances.
Commissioner Zutshi asked for the maximum allowable floor area on a three -acre lot.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that he did not have that figure available. Said that they must consider
one parcel at a time and not an entire subdivision. Added that this lot cannot be further subdivided.
Commissioner Garakani asked if there are any trails easements.
Director Tom Sullivan replied no.
Commissioner Roupe asked if grading for a property is approved at the time of recordation of the map.
Director Sullivan replied no. He added that the work underway on the property is not a part of this
development but rather for access to the culvert project by the Water Company.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked if the Public Works conditions are included.
Director Tom Sullivan replied yes.
Acting Chair Kurasch:
• Mentioned the hold harmless condition for the project based upon being constructed on a slope.
• Pointed out that there is no variance needed for retaining walls.
• Asked if there are any conditions for a no build zone on the scenic easement.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that these are depicted on the Subdivision and Final Maps.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked where the cut for the basement would be exported.
Director Tom Sullivan said he was uncertain.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked for calculations on impervious coverage.
Director Sullivan replied that this figure is 26.5 percent of lot coverage including the driveway, which
is not in excess of maximum allowable.
Commissioner Hunter said that she would have to recuse herself. She left the dais to sit in the audience
at about 9:22 p.m.
Acting Chair Kurasch opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:23 p.m.
Mr. John Sobrato, Applicant:
• Said that he would limit his remarks to two key areas, grading /fencing and floor area ratio.
Saratoga Planning Commissi, Ainutes of November 14, 2001 Page 14
• Regarding grading and fencing, he reminded the Commission that a letter from his Civil Engineer
was provided in their packets.
• Pointed out that a vast amount of the required grading is for the driveway and basement, which will
impact a small portion of this site.
• Reminded that they will save 1,000 trees, with only 40 to be removed.
• Advised that they have 11 -foot ceilings in the basement. This height is intended to give quality to a
basement space without windows. There will be no visible impact from this basement.
• Pointed out that 93 percent of the property is unfenced. The only fenced area is around the pool,
which will be completely fenced in.
• Said that while he understands the need to have limits on floor area ratios, the same rules should not
apply for all size properties.
• Stated that he and his wife are very involved in community and charitable activities and their home
will be used for entertaining for those pursuits.
• Added that he would be willing to record a deed restriction assuring that the pavilion space would
not be used as habitable space.
• Said that they have meet all requirements of the City and takes exception to the FAR.
• Informed that he has met with his neighbors and obtained their support.
• Added that his parcel is quite large and encircled by a lot of trees.
• Said that the finding for special circumstance can be made due to the larger size of his property.
Pointed out that he has agreed to a 3.5 -acre scenic easement, which has been recorded.
• Said that the finding for special privilege can be disproved since neighbors in the area have received
variances in order to enclose pool houses. This therefore is not a special privilege. In fact, not
allowing him to do so would be inconsistent with past approvals.
• Said that other local cities to not have a cap on the FAR once lots go beyond a certain size.
• Said that there is a deed restriction that would prevent him from further subdividing this property.
This parcel will remain 6.5 acres in perpetuity,
• Assured that the culvert grading is being done under permit with the Public Works department.
• Answered Commissioner Kurasch's question about what is done with cut dirt by saying it is sold.
He added that sometimes it is used for freeway projects. Other times it is used for sites that need
fill. Still other times, dirt is used at the dump as part of the process to build layers.
• Said that he did not believe that there is a limit to the impervious coverage on this site.
Director Tom Sullivan corrected him by saying the limit is 35 percent.
Mr. John Sobrato advised that he had to have the story poles brought onto his property by chopper.
Commissioner Roupe advised Mr. Sobrato that neighbors are saying that work is occurring on his
property at night.
Mr. John Sobrato said that he could not imagine what is occurring since the culvert work was
completed in three days and none of that work took place at night. Said that he had the Arborist
recheck the site to assure everyone that there is no deviation.
Commissioner Garakani asked Director Sullivan if the issue is excessive FAR.
Director Tom Sullivan replied yes.
Saratoga Planning Commissik Qinutes of November 14, 2001 Page 15
Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Sobrato if he would be willing to record a deed restriction on the
pavilion space.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that any structure not open on three sides is counted as FAR. The
Commission will have to take what the Ordinance says and weigh special circumstances.
Commissioner Garakam asked if the pavilion would be enclosed by glass.
Mr. John Sobrato replied yes. The pavilion would be enclosed by sliding doors.
Acting Chair Kurasch declared that 4,600 cubic feet of grading for the basement is a lot and she
questioned the need for such a high ceiling in the basement. Asked Mr. Sobrato for his justification.
Mr. John Sobrato replied that this basement space is not simply the storage space of the past but rather
is living space. Said that basements are actually encouraged because this below ground space has no
visible impact. Therefore, what's the harm. Reminded that the cut will be used elsewhere in an
approved way.
Acting Chair Kurasch said that while she agrees there would be no visible impact, there is an impact on
the environment. Said that there are other choices to meet the FAR limits.
Mr. John Sobrato agreed and said that if the Commission does not approve his requests he will skim
back on the design but that he sees no benefit in the Commission asking him to do that.
Acting Chair Kurasch closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No 4 at 9:44 p.m.
Acting Chair Kurasch reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:45 p.m.
Ms. Jill Hunter:
• Said that she is surprised that there are no neighbors present tonight.
• Said that she has concerns about the number of trucks moving dirt of the property, which will be
disruptive and questioned how long this project will take.
• Agreed that the house design is beautiful and that she appreciates what the Sobratos do for the
community, being a parent of a Santa Clara student.
Commissioner Garakam asked Ms. Hunter how much less the impact would be if the house is 7,000
square feet.
Ms. Jill Hunter said that she is not concerned just about this house but also with the whole
development. Pointed out that the nuns who previously owned this site did not adversely impact the
area. Said that while she realizes change does happen, she has mixed feelings and feels that big
changes will occur in the area as a result of this development.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that there is a recorded approval for nine parcels.
Commissioner Garakani said that development of these approved parcels is going to happen.
Mr. John Sobrato:
Saratoga Planning Commissi, Qinutes of November 14, 2001 Page 16
• Said that he is sympathetic to the concerns of the neighbors and wants to get in and get out quickly
with the grading aspect in order to minimize the disruption to the area.
• Suggested adding a condition that requires the continuous operation of the grading process so as to
be completed in as short a time frame as is possible.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that Code limits the hours of operation for this task.
Mr. John Sobrato pointed out that trucks will have to be covered and that approved truck routes will
have to be established. Added that he will be sensitive to the neighborhood but that this is a significant
development project in scope.
Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Sobrato for an estimate of how long his project will take.
Mr. John Sobrato said that he would be selling the other lots, following the construction of the street
improvements. His own home will commence construction by April 15th and will take about a year and
a half to complete.
Acting Chair Kurasch reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:52 p.m.
Commissioner Zutshi said that she has no problem with the house due to the size of the 6.5 -acre lot. It
is not unusual to have a 5,000 square foot house on a one -acre lot. This is a fine and beautiful house.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Said that this house is beautifully designed and will be a great addition to the community.
• Stated that he was not sure how to make the necessary affirmative findings. While the vaulted
ceiling is easy to accept, he has trouble with the pavilion enclosure.
• Added that he is unclear about how other cabanas have been approved in the past.
Commissioner Zutshi suggested simply using shutters to enclose the pavilion.
Commissioner Roupe questioned if sliding doors really equal walls. Agreed that plantation shutters
could also serve as a means of enclosing the pavilion.
Director Tom Sullivan cautioned that if the Commission finds that the shutters /glass doors do not
represent an enclosure in this circumstance, that becomes a standard that would have be used elsewhere
too.
Acting Chair Kurasch stated that the Commission's role is to define what legally can be applied equally
and fairly for all property owners. Stated that an enclosure equals floor area.
Director Tom Sullivan said that the Design Review could be approved without necessitating the
Variance. However, the pavilion would have to be constructed without walls, opened on three sides,
and either the vaulted ceiling would have to be reduced or the home's square footage reduced.
Acting Chair Kurasch added that the pavilion could still be enclosed if the house is scaled back in size.
Commissioner Garakam stated that the large scenic easement could be considered the basis for the
Variance.
Saratoga Planning Commissi� Qinutes of November 14, 2001
Page 17
Acting Chair Kurasch disagreed and stated that this scenic easement was given freely by the applicant
before he came before the Commission for consideration of this application. Said that she agrees with
staff's analysis.
Commissioner Roupe said that he could find special circumstance due to the scenic easement as long as
the pavilion is not used as habitable space. This meets the intent of Code. Added that he could make
this same judgement in the future under the same circumstances.
Acting Chair Kurasch asked Director Sullivan why staff cannot support this Variance.
Director Tom Sullivan said one reason is simply that he is very hard -nosed about Variances. The
Ordinances set the guidelines.
Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that if this property had been created as three lots, more square
footage would be allowed. This large lot is special.
Commissioner Garakani stated that this property is not easily accessed and there are no neighbor
impacts.
Acting Chair Kurasch questioned how this special circumstance could be applied to other properties.
Commissioner Garakani said that the scenic easement and consideration of this property as a
"community" house.
Acting Chair Kurasch said that she would respectfully disagree with that thought process.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the
Planning Commission approved DR -00 -056 to allow the construction of a new
residence on property located at 14800 Bohlman Road as proposed:
AYES:Garakani, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: Kurasch
ABSENT: Barry and Jackman
ABSTAIN: Hunter
This motion passed.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the
Planning Commission approved V- 00- 022(vaulted ceiling) to allow a vaulted ceiling
in excess of 15 feet in height, and the associated square footage attributed to that
vaulted ceiling, in conjunction with the construction of a new residence on property
located at 14800 Bohlman Road, with the findings:
• This approval is not granting a special privilege since other vaulted ceilings
have been approved; and
• A finding for special circumstances can be made because of the large size of the
property and the fact that it does not impinge on neighbors:
AYES:Garakani, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: Kurasch
Saratoga Planning Commissi., Minutes of November 14, 2001
ABSENT: Barry and Jackman
ABSTAIN: Hunter
This motion passed.
Page 18
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the
Planning Commission recommended approved V- 00- 022(enclosed pavilion) to allow
the enclosure of a pool pavilion with the added conditions that:
• A deed restriction be recorded that this space be non - habitable;
• All enclosing elements be designed so as to present as open appearing a
structure as is possible
Based upon the following findings:
• This approval is not granting a special privilege since other enclosed pool
structures have been approved in the past and could be granted in the future;
and
• A finding for special circumstances can be made because of the large size of the
property and the fact that this space will be deed restricted as non - habitable:
AYES:Garakani and Roupe
NOES: Kurasch and Zutshi
ABSENT: Barry and Jackman
ABSTAIN: Hunter
This motion failed.
Director Tom Sullivan restated that the Variance for the vaulted ceiling has been approved while the
Variance for the enclosed pool pavilion has been denied.
Acting Chair Kurasch advised that there is a 15 -day appeal period.
DIRECTOR ITEMS
Planners Institute:
Director Tom Sullivan advised that he has helped develop the program for the next Planners Institute
set for March 20 -22, 2002, in Monterey. He added that a traveling mini - institute is proposed for about
five locations throughout the State. He informed that the Annual Institute would most likely return to
rotating between Monterey and locations in Southern California. Advised that the City budgets for the
Commissioners to attend this Conference.
Housina Element
Director Tom Sullivan advised that on Tuesday, November 13, 2001, he was meeting at the State HCD
office going over the preliminary comments on the City's Housing Element update. The Update is
about 85 percent completed and appears to be on schedule for completion by the December 2001
deadline.
COMMISSION ITEMS
Saratoga Planning Commissi-, Iinutes of November 14, 2001 Page 19
Historic Preservation Commission Request to Participate on Planning Commission Subcommittees
Director Sullivan advised that members of the HPC would like to be included in the activities of the PC
Subcommittees. He added that it would be a benefit to everyone to have this interaction and that he
will send a sign up list for their review and consideration.
Confirmation of Special Meeting Availability on November 28, 2001
Director Sullivan sought confirmation from the Commissioners on availability for a special meeting to
review the addition to St. Andrew's Church School, which is extensive. This special meeting will
include a site visit and workshop. The proposed time is 5 p.m. on Tuesday, November 28, 2001, just
prior to the regular Planning Commission meeting. Alternately, the Commission can meet in
December. It would be possible to have dinner provided.
Comvnissioner Roupe stated that he would not be available as he would still be on Thanksgiving travel.
Commissioner Zutshi asked when this project will come before the Commission for public hearing.
Director Sullivan replied that it would be some time early next year as it has not yet been scheduled.
Library Site
Commissioner Zutshi encouraged the Commissioners to look at the library site, as she is concerned
about the condition of a tree on the property.
Director Sullivan said that he would dispatch staff to review the condition of this tree.
COMMUNICATIONS
There were no communication items.
MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS
Commissioner Roupe complimented staff on the new chairs.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEE
Acting Chair Kurasch adjourned the meeting at 10:28 p.m. to a special meeting set for Wednesday,
November 28, 2001, to begin at 5 p.m. at St. Andrew's Church School.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, October 24, 2001
PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Chair Barry called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakam, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi
Absent: Commissioner Jackman
Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner John Livingstone, Planner Allison Knapp
and Planner Christy Oosterhous
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of October 10, 2001.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the
regular Planning Commission minutes of October 10, 2001, were approved with
three typographical corrections on pages 2, 9 and 11.
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Jackman
ABSTAIN: Roupe
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no oral communications.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Director Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting
was properly posted on October 18, 2001.
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET
Director Sullivan advised that any technical corrections would be provided during each respective staff
report.
Saratoga Planning Commissi, _Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 2
CONSENT CALENDAR
DR -98 -046, UP -98 -015 & SD -98 -006 — AZULE CROSSING, 12340 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Drive:
The applicant requests Planning Commission approval for exterior lighting at the commercial portion of
the Azule Crossing project as required by Resolution No. 00 -09. Six refractive globes with black poles
are to be located throughout the parking lot of the 1.28 -acre commercial site. The proposed refractive
globes have downward street side reflectors and house side reflectors. The globes are to be mounted at
a height of 12 feet. According to the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, the proposed
exterior lighting is in compliance with industry standards. (OOSTERHOUS)
Commissioner Roupe asked that a Public Hearing be opened for this Consent Item.
Ms. Christy Oosterhous, Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that this is a request for Planning Commission approval for exterior lighting to include six
globes on black poles with downward streetside reflectors.
• Added that per the standards of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, this
proposal is compliant with industry standards.
• Concluded by stating that staff is recommending approval of this request, finding that the
installation will be both decorative in its appearance and functional in promoting site security.
Commissioner Kurasch inquired why the applicants did not choose to install lights on the buildings
instead.
Planner Christy Oosterhous said she would defer response to this question to the applicant.
Chair Barry opened a Public Hearing regarding Consent Calendar Item No. 1 for proposed parking lot
lighting at Azule Crossing at 7:09 p.m.
Mr. Brent Londre, Frank Electric, Project Lighting Contractor:
• Advised that the selection of a pole in lieu of placement of fixtures on the buildings was made
because of the structure of the parapet wall, which juts out. Installation of lights on the walls would
not enhance the architecture.
• Said that the installation of lighting is for safety.
• Informed that he has proposed a fixture that is identical to the one used on the adjacent residential
project.
• Said that they have provided a photometric layout.
• Said that these proposed fixtures provide enhanced light in a way that addressed spill with a top and
side splash.
• Added that a lot of thought went into the selection of this particular fixture in this installation.
• Pointed out that to the south of this site are train tracks, to the east are residences and to the north a
convenience store that already has an electrolear streetlight.
Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Londre if they have spoken with adjacent residents regarding this
lighting proposal.
Mr. Brent Londre replied that he has worked only with the owner and has not interacted with any
neighbors.
Saratoga Planning Commissi _Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 3
Planner Christy Oosterhous advised that staff contacted the neighbors. One came to see the plans and
expressed no concerns and did not elect to come to this evening's meeting.
Chair Barry:
• Expressed concerns with the fact that some of these poles will be located in front of homes, almost
in their front yards.
• Suggested that alternative lighting located on the face of the stone wall might be preferable to the
proposed 15 -foot high poles, which will be clearly visible from the adjacent residences.
Mr. Clint Sanders, Associated Lighting Representatives, Oakland:
• Suggested that wall fixtures on this project would be an eyesore.
• Said that it would take a great number of fixtures to reach the lighting level required.
• Added that these proposed pole lights are ideal and meet all requirements without imposing glare on
neighbors.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if these fixtures tie in with the ones already on site.
Mr. Clint Sanders said that there is just one fixture existing on site. Added that this was a nicely
planned out job.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Suggested an alternate installation, perhaps using a combination of fixtures that would be more
sensitive to neighbors.
• Said that the homes will see these 15 -foot high light poles directly from their front room windows.
• Inquired why such lighting is even required since the stores are not opened beyond 5 p.m.
Mr. Dennis Griffin:
• Said that the installation was designed to provide security for the stores.
• Added that employees working on site leave late.
• Stated that perhaps the poles don't need to be as high as 15 feet.
• Said that light fixtures placed on the building walls would not provide adequate lighting for
necessary site security.
Mr. Clint Sanders:
• Said that a reduction in height might require additional fixtures. However, if taller fixtures are used,
perhaps fewer fixtures might be required.
Commissioner Garakam asked for the height of the building.
Mr. Dennis Griffin cautioned that placing lights on the building would cause the light to shine onto the
residential properties.
Chair Barry wondered if the lighting could be placed on sensors so they would not be illuminated when
no one was on the property.
Mr. Dennis Griffin replied that he was not certain. Said that if the lighting were on sensors there is
potential that they would be on all the time as people and/or cars passed by.
Saratoga Planning Commissi, _✓Iinutes of October 24, 2001 Page 4
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Suggested a combination of taller lights at the ends of walls so that the fixtures would not be visible
directly from the homes.
• Proposed placing one fixture near the planter holding a tree.
Mr. Dennis Griffin said that the property owner has a legal requirement to provide parking lot safety to
their tenants.
Chair Barry:
• Said that the Commission does not disagree about the need for security but would like to see an
alternative to very tall poles.
• Added that they are open to suggestions.
• Said that the applicants have heard the direction of the Planning Commission and can now work
out the details with staff.
Mr. Dennis Griffin said that he is willing to have the Planning Commission select an acceptable
alternative.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Suggested that the applicants confer with staff.
• Said that installing lights on the walls would be less obtrusive than 15 -foot high poles.
• Asked that the applicants look at alternatives and work with staff.
• Said to look at safety but in a way that is less obtrusive.
Mr. Brent Londre:
• Said that the professional standard has been met and all considerations have been taken.
• Added that wall fixtures placed at a low height are oftentimes vandalized.
• Added that it is not feasible to use motion sensors with this type of light fixture.
• Said that this proposed installation addresses the needs while wall packs would shoot light out.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Reiterated that the issue for the Commission is not the illumination standard but the aesthetics of
the 15 -foot high light fixtures being visible from the residences.
• Said that they would like to see a more subdued installation.
Chair Barry:
• Said it is not the Commission's intent to put the applicants on the spot to make a decision this
evening.
• Pointed out that the adjacent residences have not yet been sold and are currently unoccupied.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Consent Calendar Item No. 1.
Director Sullivan said that staff would visit the site one evening to assess the potential impact of this
proposed lighting on residents.
Saratoga Planning Commissi _Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 5
Planner Christy Oosterhous questioned whether a 10 -foot high pole is found to be out of scale by the
Commission.
Commissioner Roupe said the Commission would defer the final decision to staff's discretion.
Commissioner Kurasch instructed staff to direct the placement of fixtures and minimize the number of
poles installed.
Chair Barry:
• Said that the proposed lighting fixtures are a nice design and that the only issue is their placement
and the height of the poles.
• Reiterated the suggestion that a combination of fixtures be installed to meet the lighting needs
while also being sensitive to adjacent properties, to the satisfaction of staff.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the
Planning Commission instructed the applicants to work with staff to develop an
alternative lighting plan for Azule Crossing at 12340 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Drive
that takes into account the safety and aesthetics with a test to be conducted from
the adjacent residences to ensure that no adverse impacts occur.
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Jackman
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Barry announced that Non - Public Hearing Item No. 4 would be taken out of order.
NON - PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO.4
GARROD FARMS, 22600 Mount Eden Road (503 -10 -028): Request for General Plan clarification to
allow three new dwelling units on one parcel of land where two dwelling units currently exist. The area
is within the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County and is pre -zoned Hillside Residential. The County
requires the project to be consistent with the City of Saratoga's General Plan. (LIVINGSTONE)
Director Tom Sullivan provided the staff report as follows:
• Said that currently staff is not supportive of this application but that consultation is needed with the
City Attorney to develop potential alternatives which staff can support.
• Suggested that the Commission make a motion to continue consideration of this application to the
next meeting on November 14, 2001.
Chair Barry asked the applicant if he will support a continuance to the next meeting.
Mr. Cooper replied yes.
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO.2
Saratoga Planning Commissi _✓linutes of October 24, 2001 Page 6
DR -01 -019, V -0 -011, UP -01 -016, BSA -01 -001 & ED -01 -001 (503 -13 -117) — HUERTA, 22551
Mount Eden Road: Request for Design Review and Building Site Approval to construct a 4,830
square foot two -story residence with garage on a vacant lot. A variance is requested in order to
construct retaining walls in excess of five feet for geotechnical mitigation. The maximum height of the
residence would be 26 feet. The 1.42 -acre site is located within the Hillside Residential (HR) Zoning
District. (KNAPP)
Ms. Allison Knapp, Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that there are technical corrections to the staff report:
• Page 3 — lot coverage is 13 percent not 17 percent as reported.
• Page 6 — replace net site area with gross site area, with the percentage being 13 percent rather
than the reported 12 percent.
• Advised that this project site is being evaluated as net site rather than gross. The lot coverage has
been calculated using the total lot area.
• Informed that the proposed structure is a 26 foot high, 4,830 square foot, two -story, single - family
residence with a detached garage that is 14 feet high. A carport is attached to the detached garage.
The site consists of 1.42 acres.
• Said that the property has a slope of 31.17 percent. Therefore, this project is not Categorically
Exempt.
• Said that staff did an Initial Study for this project and has prepared a Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
• Added that staff is recommending that the Commission adopt this Mitigated Negative Declaration
for this project as well as to review the Building Site Approval, for which the same findings apply
as are made for the Design Review.
• Added that two variances are required for this application. One is to allow building on a site with a
slope greater than 30 percent. The second is required per Code because of the need for two
retaining walls, which cumulatively exceed an allowable height of 10 feet. This project requires
two sets of retaining walls, one at the front and another at the back.
• Said that the Design Review is very straightforward.
• Added that the Conditional Use Permit is required to allow a detached accessory structure that is 14
feet in height.
• Said that the proposed structure steps up the hillside on the most stable portion of the lot. The
proposed home meets Ordinance requirements and geotechnical clearance has been obtained from
Engineering. The lot complies with the Subdivision Map Act.
• Distributed a color materials board.
• Advised that staff believes that necessary findings can be made in support of this project and
recommends the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration by Council. The Commission would
conditionally approve the project with the requirement that Council finalize action granting the
Negative Declaration.
Commissioner Zutshi questioned the ramifications of building on property with greater than 30 percent
slope.
Planner Allison Knapp advised that the lot coverage is calculated based on Hillside Residential
standards and that allowable lot coverage is reduced by 10 percent as a result of the slope being in
excess of 30 percent.
Saratoga Planning Commissi _✓Iinutes of October 24, 2001 Page 7
Commissioner Kurasch inquired whether the Geologic Report is part of the Environmental Approval.
Planner Allison Knapp replied yes.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Pointed out page 58 of the report that describes slope stability as being relatively stable.
• Asked if the Geologic Report and development of driveway improvements are compatible with
the Hillside Specific Plan.
Planner Allison Knapp:
• Replied that all on -site improvements are taken into consideration at the discretion of the
Commission. Staff finds that there is a net improvement in conditions over existing conditions
with this development following mitigations.
• Added that the residential footprint is outside of the area of landslide movement.
• Acknowledged awareness that maintenance of the driveway will be required but that this is a
private property issue for the owners and not the responsibility of the City.
Commissioner Hunter expressed concern for the approximately 20 -year old home situated directly
below the project site.
Planner Allison Knapp:
• Assured that required setbacks are being met.
• Acknowledged that the carport will be but 20 feet away from the existing home.
• Agreed that there are tough Design Review issues with which to grapple.
Commissioner Hunter:
• Pointed out that the earth is shifting all the time according to acquaintances she has in this area.
• Asked if staff and the applicant are aware of that fact.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that this is why the application was required to submit a privately
performed Geotechnical Report. That report was then peer reviewed by the City's Geologist in a
process that takes six to nine months to complete.
Commissioner Hunter asked if this proposal is considered safe.
Director Tom Sullivan replied yes and more importantly the Geotechnical Engineers find it safe.
Added that the residence will be constructed with a significant foundation.
Commissioner Zutshi asked whether the excavation of the basement could potentially disturb the
hillside itself by causing shifting.
Planner Allison Knapp advised that this question is one reason a Geotechnical Review was required.
The report provides a menu of what has to be done to mitigate and prevent sliding on the site.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that compacting the soil will help prevent any problems.
Saratoga Planning Commissi. _✓Iinutes of October 24, 2001 Page 8
Director Tom Sullivan said that new things are learned after every major earth movement but, based
upon what is known right now, this project is a sound one.
Chair Barry asked whether any soils on this site are considered unstable since both the net and gross is
calculated to be the same.
Planner Allison Knapp replied that there are no "MD" soils to be netted out.
Commissioner Hunter questioned the request for two variances to accommodate this project, stating
that she was under the impression from personal experience that any variance is difficult to obtain.
Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that there are three primary findings that must be made by Code.
These are outlined in the staff report.
Chair Barry pointed out that while there are two slide areas on the property, it appears that only one has
proposed mitigations.
Planner Allison Knapp assured that both slide areas are being mitigated.
Commissioner Garakani pointed out that an incorrect site address is incorporated into the supplemental
geotechnical report dated January 10, 2001. Said that it is a concern since it appears on the page that is
professionally stamped.
Director Tom Sullivan said that this appears to be a word processing error, which will be corrected.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:12 p.m.
Mr. Charles Brown, Applicant's Representative:
• Stated that the retaining walls would be installed prior to the basement excavation to provide
stability.
Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Brown if any mitigation was proposed down the ravine or if just the
area on which the home would be constructed would have mitigation.
Mr. Charles Brown replied that the old major slide area on the property would not be mitigated while
the property where the new house would be constructed would be mitigated.
Chair Barry asked if the old major slide area could be mitigated.
Mr. Charles Brown replied that they are following all guidelines prepared by the Geotechnical
Engineers.
Planner Allison Knapp reminded that both a private Geotechnical Engineer and the City's Geotechnical
Engineer have authorized the proposal.
Chair Barry suggested that adding additional conditions to require the mitigation of the second major
slide area should be imposed.
Saratoga Planning Commissi� Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 9
Mr. Charles Brown advised that this is a long time slide that is older than everyone present this evening.
It has not caused problems to the property below in more than 50 years.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Said that it appears that the best probability is that the old slide area will remain as it has for all
these years.
• Suggested that an Open Space Easement is a possible mitigation.
• Added that additional mitigations are a reduction in the size of the building as well as the placement
and design of the building. Said that she has concerns and questions.
• Suggested moving the home away from the edge of the slide plane and slope as is possible. This is
the east property line.
Mr. Charles Brown:
• Said that they are willing to do anything that is constructive.
• Added that perhaps the Variance for the retaining wall would no longer be required as a result but
that a different Variance for encroaching into the other side setback would be needed instead.
• Said that they can move the house as far as authorized by the Commission.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Suggested at least five to ten feet.
• Commended the design, which blends into the slope.
• Supported the shift in Variance to the East Side setback in order to accommodate moving the house
back or uphill.
Mr. Charles Brown said that they might be able to move both retaining walls too.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if the garage could be moved.
Mr. Charles Brown:
• Responded that they could leave the house and slide the garage /carport five feet up the slope,
which would reduce the retaining wall needed.
• Added that they have met with the property owner of the home below this project site on two
occasions. They have agreed to provide extensive landscaping and that property owner is satisfied.
• Said that there will be five feet between retaining walls, which will be landscaped to provide future
screening of the walls.
Commissioner Garakani asked about the thickness of the walls.
Mr. Charles Brown said that the engineer who ends up designing the wall would determine this.
Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the garage and rear of the home would be what is visible from
the road.
Mr. Charles Brown:
• Said that they have made the best possible use of the site.
• Added that the view of the property is limited due to the trees and the turn in the road.
• Said that they are making every effort to make this home pleasing to the eye.
Saratoga Planning Commissi ✓linutes of October 24, 2001 Page 10
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Said that the placement, size and design on the West Side are of concern.
• Said that this elevation is different from the rest of the house with the maximum number of full
height walls.
• Said that the mass of this elevation is so big that it looks like a condo complex.
Mr. Charles Brown clarified that the plans are shown two dimensionally and that in reality the structure
will not appear as massive. Based on the slope of the property, only the bedroom is visible and not
beyond that.
Commissioner Kurasch said that she still has concerns about the massiveness.
Mr. Charles Brown said that he tries to pay attention to massing and scale.
Commissioner Garakam asked whether moving the house up the slope would adversely impact the front
entry feature.
Mr. Charles Brown replied that the move would only impact the living room and, not the front entry.
Commissioner Garakani suggested moving the house even further than five to ten feet.
Commissioner Roupe suggested that the applicant work with staff and the Geotechnical Engineers to
decide how far the structure can be moved uphill.
Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that the size of the structure is large for a property with a small
buildable area. The use of a home with the maximum floor area ratio is hard to accept and/or justify for
such a constrained lot.
Mr. Charles Brown reminded that the parcel consists of 1.42 acres and that the allowable square footage
has already been dramatically reduced because of the slope of this property. This proposal is actually a
relatively small house for a property consisting of 1.42 acres.
Commissioner Zutshi asked why the garage needs to be 14 -feet high.
Mr. Charles Brown replied that the roof pitch is 6 and 12. Added that City Ordinance allows a
matching pitch for the house and detached garage.
Commissioner Zutshi said that this lot cannot simply be looked at as a 1.42 -acre buildable lot. Due to
the slope it is not considered that way when determining what can be constructed on it.
Mr. Charles Brown reminded that the house they are proposing is something that would fit on a much
smaller lot. Added that the rest of the property will be vegetation and open space.
Commissioner Roupe suggested a dedicated easement to open space.
Director Sullivan provided the term of "scenic easement" and agreed that such a condition could be
included in the motion for approval.
Saratoga Planning Commissi ✓Iinutes of October 24, 2001 Page 11
Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Brown if this is an acceptable proposal.
Mr. Charles Brown replied yes.
Chair Barry asked Director Sullivan if the Commission can require the planting of indigenous trees.
Director Sullivan replied that this would be a separate condition and asked Chair Barry if she was
looking for these trees between the house and the road.
Chair Barry said that she was actually looking for these indigenous trees at the second slide area as a
means of stabilizing that area.
Director Sullivan cautioned that these trees would not serve to remediate a slide condition area but can
be requested as additional landscape screening for the site.
Chair Barry:
• Said that this is a constrained lot on which this house looks big.
• Suggested that the Commission could ask for a reduction in square footage.
• Asked Mr. Brown if he has considered this possibility.
Mr. Charles Brown:
• Replied that they originally wanted a much bigger home but greatly reduced the home based upon
the geotechnical report.
• Said that they are hoping that there will be no further reduction required.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:45 p.m.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Suggested that this project can be approved with conditions, including having the applicant work
further with staff to move the structure eastward on the property for a distance that makes sense to
help mitigate the impact of the retaining walls on the property below.
• Added that a scenic easement should be required and appropriate landscaping installed using native
trees in the non - buildable slide prone area.
• Said that appropriate landscaping should also be included at the front of the property to mitigate the
retaining wall impacts and to protect the view of the property below this site.
Director Sullivan suggested that the condition incorporate a requirement to use native landscaping
based upon review and approval by both the City Geologist and City Arborist.
Commissioner Roupe supported that suggestion.
Director Sullivan advised that since this project was specifically advertised for variances, the proposal
for moving the house uphill requires its own public hearing following appropriate advertising for
obtaining the necessary variance for that aspect of the project.
Commissioner Roupe suggested that the Commission limit the next hearing just to the variance for
moving the house up hill and no further design review should occur.
Saratoga Planning Commissi, ✓Iinutes of October 24, 2001 Page 12
Chair Barry suggested a condition that asks the Project Geologist to provide a written statement that
assures that the second slide area poses no eminent threat.
Director Sullivan cautioned that this is a nexus issue that will require discussion with the City Attorney.
Chair Barry said that the report states that the site will be improved with this development.
Commissioner Roupe said that the property is only improved in the area on which the new house will
be built.
Chair Barry said that the Commission has the right to ask for site mitigations as long as they can
establish proportionality.
Director Sullivan agreed that this can be looked at.
Commissioner Hunter announced that she plans to vote against this proposal based on precedent
because she believes that constructing on this property will be potentially unsafe for the people living
below. Stated that she does not believe this is a buildable lot.
Director Sullivan reminded that following the mitigations prepared by the Geotechnical Engineers, this
lot can be considered buildable and that there are exceptions in the Code to allow approvals for
construction on property with a slope greater than 30 percent. This prevents inverse condemnation.
Commissioner Hunter said that she has a problem with a project needing two variances as well as a
home design where the rear of the home is the elevation that is visible from the road.
Director Sullivan said that the Commission has to be careful when Engineering says a proposal is
viable.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Said that she has concerns about this proposal and that an applicant does not have an automatic
right to a specific project. What must be considered is the appropriateness of the design.
• Reiterated her belief that this structure is too large and massive for this location.
• Said that it is important to approve something that has the least amount of destruction and/or
impact on the area. The Hillside District is an important area for Saratoga and the higher standards
established must be respected. Pure and simple, this project is too big and cannot be justified.
• Added that she cannot support encroaching on a neighbor.
• Suggested the project must be scaled back so that it is more in keeping with the actual physical site
and the intent of the Hillside District requirements.
Commissioner Garakam asked Commissioner Kurasch how much reduction she is proposing.
Commissioner Kurasch replied 10 to 15 percent in order to get away from the absolute maximum. This
property should be developed in a low- density way, honoring the rural /semi -rural area.
Commissioner Garakani pointed out that this reduction would equal about 300 to 400 square feet.
Saratoga Planning Commissi. Qinutes of October 24, 2001 Page 13
Commissioner Kurasch agreed.
Chair Barry asked if this reduction should occur on the first or second floor.
Commissioner Kurasch replied that the ground frame would have to be reduced or she will not support
this proposal.
Chair Barry agreed that she would like to see the reduction occur on the first floor or footprint of the
structure.
Commissioner Roupe reminded that this is a 1.42 -acre lot and the proposed house is not unreasonably
sized for that size property.
Commissioner Kurasch restated her concerns about the nearness to the adjacent neighbor.
Chair Barry:
• Said that a number of suggestions have been made this evening. One is not to approve the project
at all. Another is to scale the house back by 10 to 15 percent.
• Said that the Commission must adopt a Negative Declaration, which is hard to do with the house at
its current size.
• Added that an informal indication of where the Commission stands on the Negative Declaration
shows that four Commissioners are not comfortable approving it as the proposal stands.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Asked his fellow Commissioners for clarification as to what is unsupportable in adopting the
Negative Declaration.
• Reminded that the geotechnical conditions will be mitigated.
Chair Barry replied that the issue is not geology at this point but rather aesthetics.
Commissioner Garakani:
• Pointed out that there are already two large homes already in the immediate area.
• Added that he didn't even see this lot as he was driving to it.
• Said that this house is less intrusive than other large structures already in the area and additionally
the applicant has offered to install more screening trees.
Commissioner Zutshi informed that some houses in this area are not within Saratoga city limits but
rather fall within County jurisdiction.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Director Sullivan if design changes can be considered when the variance
application comes back before the Commission following necessary advertising.
Director Sullivan said yes if that is the concurrence of the Commission.
Commissioner Kurasch said that it would be better to have it back before the Commission to consider
the reduction and relocation of the residence on the site.
Commissioner Garakani agreed that this is a good idea.
Saratoga Planning Commissi .vlinutes of October 24, 2001 Page 14
Commissioner Roupe said it appears the Commission is considering a continuance.
Chair Barry said that the Commission does not have to take a vote tonight.
Commissioner Hunter declared that this application represents the most serious house application since
she joined the Commission and that she would appreciate a continuance.
Commissioner Garakani said that it would be important to provide guidance to staff and the applicant.
Chair Barry said that the Commission has already given clear instruction to reduce the residence by 10
to 15 percent as well as the appearance of mass and bulk.
Director Tom Sullivan:
• Said that it is not necessary to assign a specific square footage reduction but rather to require the
applicant to reduce the appearance and how it fits in the lay of the land.
• Suggested a continuance to the December 12, 2001, meeting as the best option.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the
Planning Commission moved to continue consideration of DR -01 -019, V -01 -011,
UP -01 -016, BSA -01 -001 and ED -01 -001 for a new home on property located at
22551 Mount Eden Road to the Planning Commission meeting of December 12,
2001, with the following direction to staff and the applicant:
• The house should be moved east toward the fence up hill to help mitigate the
impact of the retaining wall, with the ridge line staying constant;
• The unbuilt portion of the property will be dedicated as a Scenic Easement and
delineated as such on the site plan;
• Appropriate landscaping, including indigenous native trees, shall be installed to
the south where land falls away;
• Appropriate landscaping screening shall be added to the west to help screen the
retaining wall from the house below;
• The geologist shall be asked to certify that the second landslide area, in light of
the request for landscape screening.
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Jackman
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Barry asked the Commission for an informal poll on what Commissioners are supportive of the
suggested 10 to 15- percent reduction in square footage.
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Zutshi
NOES: Roupe
ABSENT: Jackman
ABSTAIN: None
Planner Allison Knapp:
Saratoga Planning Commissi, ✓Iinutes of October 24, 2001 Page 15
Informed the Commission that this evening's would be her last appearance before them since the
Department is now fully staffed.
Commended the Commission and staff and thanked them for all they have done to make her time
with Saratoga a positive experience.
Emma
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.3
UP -01 -007 — SPRINT, Saratoga -Los Gatos Road & Farwell Avenue: Request for a Conditional Use
Permit approval to construct a wireless communication facility consisting of antennas and equipment
cabinets in the Caltrans right -of -way. The site is located in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district.
(LIVINGSTONE)
Mr. John Livingstone, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that this application is for a Conditional Use Permit to install a wireless transmission
facility to be located within an existing Caltrans right -of -way on Saratoga -Los Gatos Road.
• Said that this item was continued from an August Planning Commission meeting where concerns
were raised about the pole proposed for behind the bus stop included within a light fixture. The
Commission asked for alterations to the proposal.
• Informed that the revised proposal retains the underground installation of support equipment as well
as the landscaping of the bus stop. The proposed pole has been moved 100 feet closer to Three
Oaks Way and is a total of 35 feet tall. The pole will be nestled within a cluster of trees with new
screening trees to be added. The bus stop area will be landscaped, much like another local bus stop
that was privately landscaped by local residents. The plant material will be drought tolerant and
flowering, which will be a positive addition to the area and help act as a deterrent against dumping
on this property.
• Recommended that the Commission approve this proposal.
Commissioner Roupe asked about the continuation of the bike path.
Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that the applicants will provide a continuation of the bike
path across the site. If the Commission wishes, the path can be positioned either in front of or behind
the berm.
Commissioner Kurasch asked the purpose for the short wall.
Commissioner Garakani suggested that it is to obscure equipment.
Associate Planner John Livingstone clarified that the berm is to allow for landscaping. A cubbyhole
will hold the benches and bus stop. The undergrounding site is behind it.
Commissioner Hunter asked what the wall would be made from.
Associate Planner John Livingstone at first replied cinder block but upon review of the plans clarified
that this wall's material is proposed as Douglas fir.
Mr. Ben Davies, Zoning Consultant, Sprint:
Saratoga Planning Commissi, ✓linutes of October 24, 2001 Page 16
• Pointed out that two antennas will be located and obscured entirely within the 35 -foot pole.
• Clarified the need for the site is to improve currently poor coverage in the area between two existing
Sprint installations.
• Said that the neighbor who had expressed concerns at the previous meeting prefers this proposal.
• Described several alternatives (Locations A through D) and explained why each was less desirable
to Sprint, from being even closer to residences to a lack of interest by property owners to allow this
installation on their properties.
• Said that the only real change from the August proposal is the move of the pole by 100 feet.
Director Tom Sullivan said that in the future, antenna applicants will be required to provide signal
strength tests in order to allow the Commission to evaluate data that is real.
Chair Barry questioned whether this pole is closer to the Highway than the PG &E poles.
Mr. Ben Davies replied approximately 10 to 15 feet closer.
Chair Barry asked if this distance makes any real difference in signal. Added that there are already
Sprint antennas located on PG &E poles.
Mr. Ben Davies said that this distance could make a difference. Added that it is an easier install like
this than atop existing poles.
Commissioner Garakani asked if there is interference when situating antennas on power poles.
Mr. Ben Davies said that an existing power pole is not as preferable as a separate pole. Said that they
reduced one of three original antennas from their proposal for this location.
Commissioner Roupe asked for clarification on the position of this new monopole.
Mr. Ben Davies pointed out the position on the plans.
Commissioner Roupe said that this appears to be 20 feet closer to the road than the existing power poles
in the nearby area.
Chair Barry questioned why this particular installation has to be on an individual monopole when the
other local installations are atop PG &E poles.
Mr. Ben Davies replied that this proposal will be more effective in covering the distance between the
two other antenna sites.
Chair Barry stated that she is unable to make a decision without knowing different effectiveness
numbers for the different locations.
Commissioner Hunter reminded that the bus stop, bike path and berm would disappear with a PG &E
pole installation.
Chair Barry asked Mr. Davies if the monopole could serve as a co- location with another carrier.
Saratoga Planning Commissi. dinutes of October 24, 2001
Mr. Ben Davies said that it would be possible but is not typical.
Page 17
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Davies if there are any antennas currently location on Location A.
Mr. Ben Davies replied no.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if there is any other obstacle other than trees to placing antennas on this
pole.
Mr. Ben Davies said that such antennas would be structural antennas that are visible.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 10:02 p.m.
Ms. Sandy Baker, 15069 Park Drive, Saratoga:
• Stated that she likes the nice country road and does not want to see clutter across from where she
lives.
• Emphasized that she does not want to see a new monopole installed in this location as it would be
intrusive and unattractive.
• Said that she is afraid that something ugly will be installed.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the bus stop already exists at this location without any
improvements.
Commissioner Hunter reminded that currently the stop does not include benches.
Ms. Sandy Baker said that she does not want it to change and is not supportive of this proposal.
Commissioner Garakani said that cell phones are now just as much a part of life as television is part of
daily life.
Chair Barry advised Ms. Baker that the Commission is entertaining design issues because it does not
have the option to simply say no. The only question is where the installation will take place and not if
Said that the proposed monopole will be hidden within a grove of trees. Said that there is no choice that
does not impact someone.
Ms. Sandy Baker said that she felt it was important to speak in opposition this evening as a concerned
area resident.
Commissioner Hunter:
• Stated that she thought it was wonderful that Ms. Baker took time to come this evening to express
her views on this proposal.
• Added that it frustrates people in Saratoga to have poor cell phone service and that Sprint has gone
out of its way to make their installation as pleasing as possible.
Ms. Sandy Baker said that she will trust the Commission's judgement.
Commissioner Roupe:
Saratoga Planning Commissi ✓linutes of October 24, 2001
Page 18
• Suggested that Sprint consider placing its antennas atop an existing power pole instead of installing
this monopole although he would hate to have to lose these proposed site improvements.
• Said that the Commission needs data over supposition.
Chair Barry:
• Declared that it is important that a cellular vendor sends a technical person to answer technical
questions.
• Said that she hopes the failure to do so this evening does not happen again.
• Suggested that Mr. Davies bring along an engineer in the future.
Mr. Rakesh Sethi, 14930 Farwell Avenue, Saratoga:
• Disagreed that trees would degrade coverage.
• Agreed that each site creates problems for somebody and that neighbors need to be respected.
• Asked for more data about coverage.
• Offered his personal checklist of considerations that should be undertaken when evaluating a
potential antenna installation site. Included are not being nearer than 80 feet from any living space,
not sacrificing view aesthetics or line of site, plans for sharing cumulative exposure, prohibiting any
competitive carrier within one mile and requiring the regular provision of data to the City.
• Said that Site A is an exceptional site but more costly to the applicant by 50 percent.
Chair Barry asked Mr. Sethi to provide his checklist to staff and asked if he has a specific question.
Mr. Rakesh Sethi said suggested that Site A be considered.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Said that he does not feel that installation of a new monopole is the best way to go.
• Suggested that power poles are the least intrusive and encouraged Sprint to reconsider their plans.
• Said that he needs to see more specific data on all the proposed placements.
Director Tom Sullivan said that a labeled site plan will be provided.
Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that two members of the community completed speaker
cards but could not stay through this hearing. One is Ms. Donna Paisley, 14870 Three Oaks Court, and
the other is Ms. Patti Workman, 14918 Three Oaks Court. Both of whom support this project.
Commissioner Kurasch asked why Site B is not supported.
Mr. Rakesh Sethi replied that Site B is visible from his living room and he does not want an already
unsightly pole made even more unsightly.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that there are differences between directional and Omni directional
antennas.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 10:32 p.m.
Saratoga Planning Commissi,, Qinutes of October 24, 2001 Page 19
Chair Barry said that no decision can be made tonight without all necessary data. Added that the
Commission needs actual figures from engineers to show the size of the detriment for each potential
placement.
Mr. Ben Davies promised to bring an engineer to the next meeting.
Commissioner Roupe said he questions whether directional antennas are required or if line -of -site
antennas would work well enough.
Commissioner Garakani suggested that data for existing power poles A through D versus the proposed
monopole be provided.
Mr. Ben Davies said that they will make a clear demonstration through their technical people.
Chair Barry asked Mr. Davies to be prepared to discuss co- location potential.
Commissioner Roupe added that cumulative effect should be evaluated.
Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that there are about five cellular vendors serving Saratoga.
Commissioner Roupe reminded that the Commission is interested in seeing a coverage map.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that preparation of that map is underway but not yet completed.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out this consideration of cumulative effect to evaluate health concerns is
something that would have to be discussed with the City Attorney for appropriateness.
Chair Barry said that it is simply a means of establishing compliance with FCC standards.
Commissioner Roupe said it is important to clarify with the City Attorney the scope of what can be
asked of a carrier.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Pointed out that the reason for such data is not only to consider the best advantage for the carrier
but also to evaluate the aesthetic impacts of these installations. The applicant should be able to
prove why a site will or will not work.
• Said that denying an application is more appropriate than putting in something that is not going to
work.
Commissioner Hunter said that there will be objections to installations on power poles too. Added that
she feels Sprint has done a good job here and this installation will be a nice addition to the area.
Commissioner Roupe agreed that the Commission may end up concluding that this is the best of all
alternatives.
Commissioner Kurasch disagreed and said that this creates physical aesthetic clutter.
Saratoga Planning Commissi. ✓linutes of October 24, 2001 Page 20
Chair Barry instructed Mr. Ben Davies to come back to the next meeting with more data on all
alternatives, a better site plan and accompanied by a technical person to answer any technical questions
the Commission might have.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the
Planning Commission continued consideration of UP -01 -007, to allow a antenna
installation on Caltrans right -of -way at Saratoga -Los Gatos Road & Farwell
Avenues, to the Planning Commission meeting of December 12, 2001.
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Jackman
ABSTAIN: None
DIRECTOR ITEMS
Posting of Exhibits /Inclusion of Full Size Plans in Packets
Director Tom Sullivan advised that per the request of the Commission, staff will resume posting copies
of exhibits on the boards located behind the Commissioners beginning with the next meeting. Asked
the Commissioners whether they are finding the inclusion of full size plans within their packets to be
useful.
Commissioner Roupe said that he finds them too bulky in the packets. However, bringing full -size
plans to the site visits would be helpful.
COMMISSION ITEMS
Chair Barry distributed copies of a news article describing a talk to be held by Sir Peter Hill on Livable
Downtown Areas. She added that she will not be at the next meeting and neither would Commissioner
Jackman.
Commissioner Roupe advised that he too would miss the next meeting.
Chair Barry suggested the formation of a Commission Subcommittee on cellular antennas.
Commissioner Garakani:
• Advised that he has attended two Ad Hoc Committee meetings at which options for the Safety
Plaza have been discussed.
• Added that three options have been considered. One is the combination of the three parcels (Post
Office, City property and Fire Station). Another is the creation of a below - ground parking lot
beneath the existing ground -level parking lot at the Federated Church. A third option is the
potential of one of the three existing uses leaving the area with two to remain. The Post Office was
the most viable candidate for relocation. All options depend upon cost.
• Added that 145 parking spaces are needed to support all three uses.
Chair Barry asked if these Ad Hoc meetings are open to the public.
Saratoga Planning Commissi ✓Iinutes of October 24, 2001
Page 21
Commissioner Garakani replied yes. He added that they are held weekly on Mondays at 5:30 p.m.
Added that the Fire Department will be seeking a permit for the temporary use of the Contempo
Building for temporary operation until the completion of the new permanent facility.
COMMUNICATIONS
There were no communication items.
Saratoga Planning Commissi Ainutes of October 24, 2001
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Page 22
Chair Barry adjourned the meeting at 10:58 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday,
November 14, 2001, to begin at 7 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, October 10, 2001
PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Chair Barry called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi
Absent: Commissioner Roupe
Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner John Livingstone, Planner Allison Knapp
and Public Works Director John Cherbone
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Council /Commission Housing Element Study Session - July 18, 2001.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the
Council /Commission Joint Study Session minutes of July 18, 2001, were approved
with one minor correction.
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Roupe
ABSTAIN: None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of August 8, 2001.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the
regular Planning Commission minutes of August 8, 2001, were approved as
submitted.
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Jackman and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Roupe
ABSTAIN; Hunter and Kurasch
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of September 26, 2001.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the
regular Planning Commission minutes of September 26, 2001, were approved as
submitted.
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Kurasch and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Roupe
ABSTAIN: Hunter and Jackman
Saratoga Planning Commiss. , Minutes of October 10, 2001 Page 2
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no oral communications.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Director Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting
was properly posted on October 4, 2001.
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET
Director Sullivan advised that any technical corrections would be provided during each respective staff
report.
CONSENT CALENDAR
GP -01 -001, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY
FINDING: The Saratoga Planning Commission will review and determine if the proposed 2001 -02
Capital Improvement Program is consistent with the various goals, policies and programs of the City of
Saratoga General Plan.
Commissioner Jackman asked that a Public Hearing be opened for this Consent Item.
Chair Barry opened a Public Hearing regarding the CIP Program at 7:05 p.m.
Commissioner Jackman asked staff if funding has been identified for the teen center.
Mr. John Cherbone, Public Works Director, replied yes, some of the funding has been obtained
including a grant in the amount of $20,000. Added that the Recreation Department has identified this
teen center as an important CIP project.
Director Sullivan pointed out that there will be some items in a CIP Program that do not yet have
specific tie ins to General Plan goals.
Chair Barry sought clarification that the role of the Commission is to certify that the CIP is consistent
with the General Plan rather than providing input on prioritizing the CIP projects.
Public Works Director John Cherbone admitted that Council is the body that establishes the priorities
for the CIP. However, if the Planning Commission has problems with an CIP project, Council would
want to hear those concerns.
Director Sullivan reiterated that the mission for the Commission this evening is to find the CIP
consistent with the General Plan.
Commissioner Kurasch inquired about the time frame to begin the CIP projects that pertain to the
Circulation Element's goals.
Saratoga Planning Commiss. Minutes of October 10, 2001 Page 3
Public Works Director John Cherbone advised that the implementation of the traffic - calming plan will
begin with the first year of the CIP.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if shade trees would be incorporated into the bus shelters.
Public Works Director John Cherbone replied that there is no funding. Shade trees could be included
if financially feasible.
Chair Barry asked PW Director Cherbone if the City's bus shelter plan includes lighting as a standard
element.
PW Director Cherbone replied no. Added that if a safety issue comes up for a particular bus stop,
lighting could be proposed but it is not part of any plan at this time.
Chair Barry sought clarification that traffic calming would require no further Study Sessions but rather
will begin implementation.
PW Director Cherbone advised that there is funding in the amount of $50,000 per year to implement
traffic calming projects as the areas of need are identified.
Commissioner Garakani pointed out that there is no General Plan goal identified in relation to the
maintenance of medians.
PW Director Cherbone explained that this project simply represents maintenance rather than new
infrastructure.
Commissioner Garakani asked how the City determines which medians deserve repair.
PW Director Cherbone replied that the City has secured a Landscape Contractor. Additionally, a new
lead Parks Supervisor will supervise. Pointed out that all existing medians need some sort of work
including Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road.
Commissioner Hunter stressed the importance for the Herriman traffic signal for the safety of children
going to school in the area.
PW Director Cherbone advised that Council has approved a Study for that signal. Added that
whenever someone calls with a new request, that item is added to his waiting list for consideration
when the next CIP is drafted.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if the Quito Road bridge replacement will take aesthetic considerations
into account in their design.
PW Director Cherbone pointed out that the bridge on the south toward Highway 9 was replaced about
nine years ago. Said that they have instructed the Civil Engineer to include as much aesthetic detail to
the plans as allowed with the available funding. Said that they will make them look more integrated
with the environment and will attempt to save existing trees. The new bridges will be wider than the
existing, which are structurally and functionally insufficient.
Saratoga Planning Commissi Minutes of October 10, 2001 Page 4
Commissioner Kurasch inquired if interested local residents could contact staff to discuss ideas.
PW Director Cherbone replied yes.
Director Sullivan added that aesthetics can be assessed in the environmental documents.
Chair Barry asked what the criteria is for selecting areas for the Sidewalk/Pathway In -fill Rehab
Proj ect.
PW Director Cherbone advised that major arterial streets such as Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga -
Sunnyvale Road, Quito Road, Cox Avenue and others as needed. In many cases they selected areas
are tied to schools for safety. Added that this project is currently not funded.
Chair Barry asked how the Assessment District was set up.
PW Director Cherbone advised that the Assessment District was formed five years ago by a
neighborhood group who wants their private street recognized as a City street.
Commissioner Zutshi asked for a time frame for the Herriman Road Signal.
PW Director Cherbone advised that a warrant study will be prepared either prior to the end of the
current school year (early Summer) or just before the start of school next Fall. The findings of the
warrant study will be provided to Council.
Chair Barry asked if the Commission could forward a recommendation to Council that the Herriman
Road signal warrant study be expedited and /or prioritized.
Director Sullivan advised the Commission to adopt the draft Resolution as it is regarding the CIP and
take separate minute action making its recommendation to Council to expedite the warrant study.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the
Planning Commission made the determination that the proposed 2001 -2002
Capitol Improvement Program (GP -01 -001) is consistent with the various goals,
policies and programs of the City of Saratoga General Plan.
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Roupe
ABSTAIN: None
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the
Planning Commission took minute action to recommend that the Herriman Road
signal warrant study be prioritized as a CIP project.
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Roupe
ABSTAIN: None
Saratoga Planning Commiss, Minutes of October 10, 2001 Page 5
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO.1
UP -01 -006 (397 -09 -035) — MAIR, 19221 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road: Request for Use Permit
approval to construct a 14 foot high, 450 square foot cabana. The maximum height for an accessory
structure permitted in absence of a Use Permit is 8 feet. The 2.59 -acre site is located in the R -1- 40,000
zoning district.
Ms. Allison Knapp, Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that this application is for a Use Permit to allow a cabana to be constructed that is 14 feet
high.
• Added that any accessory structure higher than eight -feet requires issuance of such a Use Permit.
• Said that the proposed height is necessary in order to match the 1910 California Craftsman's Style
architecture of the house on this property.
• Reminded that there are a lot of renovations underway on this property in order to restore it. This
includes the demolition of some structures on site as well as additions that are more compatible.
Except for the height of this cabana, the rest of the work on site can be approved administratively.
• Explained that the Heritage Preservation Commission toured the property on May 8, 2001, and
enthusiastically extended its recommendation of approval.
• Pointed out that this cabana is not visible from the public right -of -way as it is located 96 feet from
the front setback and added that there are 100 trees on this property.
• Concluded with the staff recommendation of approval.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:26 p.m.
Mr. Noel Cross, Project Architect:
• Thanked staff, and particularly Allison Knapp, for all the assistance provided on this project.
• Declared that this is a beautiful home but that some additions had at one time been made that were
unsympathetic to the architecture.
• Advised that he had drawn up the cabana as a shorter structure but found that the cabana needed to
be 14 feet high. Both he and his clients felt that it is important to match this cabana to the home's
Craftsman style architecture. This height is needed in order to maintain architectural compatibility.
• Pointed out that there are times when exceptions are merited such as is the case in this project.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:29 p.m.
Commissioner Hunter advised that at the time the Heritage Preservation Commission toured the site
she was a member of that Commission. Declared that this is truly a beautiful house being restored to
historic relevance. The cabana should be the same height as the home.
Commissioner Kurasch expressed her concurrence and stated that the intent of this exception is to
match the architectural integrity of the residence.
Commissioner Zutshi said that she is glad to see this renovation underway and finds this to be a great
house.
Saratoga Planning Commiss. Minutes of October 10, 2001 Page 6
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the
Planning Commission approved UP -01 -006 to allow the construction of a 14 -foot
high, 450 square foot cabana on property located at 19221 Saratoga -Los Gatos
Road.
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Roupe
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Barry advised that there is a 15 -day appeal period before this action is final.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO. 2
DR -01 -021 & BSE -01 -023 (503 -16 -024) — BAMDAD, 13250 Pierce Road: Request for Design
Review approval to construct a new 4,123 square foot two -story residence. The project would require
the demolition of an existing 1,929 square foot single -story house. The 15,682 new square foot vacant
lot (18,865 gross square feet) is in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. The maximum height would be 26
feet.
Ms. Allison Knapp, Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that a letter was distributed as a table item, which was received yesterday from a neighbor
in support of this application. Additionally, another letter was received this evening, also in
support, which staff was unable to copy and will distribute the original for review by the
Commissioners.
• Distributed a roof tile sampler that shows five gradations of earth tones as well as a color and
materials board.
• Explained that this application is for a Design Review approval to construct a two -story residence,
demolishing an existing single -story rancher. The new home will consist of 4,123 square feet and
will not include a basement. The maximum height is 26 feet. The home will be similar to others in
the neighborhood.
• Informed that this proposal conforms to zoning requirements and that the proposed driveway
configuration is a vast improvement over the existing driveway. The 58 -foot driveway will include
a parking area parallel to Pierce Road, which will also serve as an area for emergency vehicles and
turnaround that allows vehicles to leave the site facing forward rather than backing out.
• Said that a proposed fountain will be incorporated into the front yard as long as it can be placed in
such a way that it is not located within the drip line of the oak tree.
• Concluded by stating that staff is supportive of this request.
Chair Barry asked staff about the copper roof spiral depicted on the plans.
Planner Allison Knapp replied that this spiral, located on sheet A -4, is an architectural feature that is
desired by the applicant on this tower.
Chair Barry said that she is having trouble figuring out the future street line, adding that it appears to
be close to where a proposed walkway will be on site.
Saratoga Planning Commiss_ Minutes of October 10, 2001 Page 7
Planner Allison Knapp advised that the width of the shoulder to the right -of -way is 10 feet.
Director Sullivan further clarified that the distance between the sidewalk and the street line is about six
feet.
Chair Barry said that it appears close.
Director Sullivan explained that this appears closer because of the reduced plan size.
Commissioner Jackman asked if there are any plans to widen Pierce Road.
Director Sullivan pointed out that this is not included on the five -year plan. The plan line was
established but the property does not belong to the City as of yet.
Chair Barry said that she would prefer that Pierce Road not be widened.
Planner Allison Knapp pointed out that it is included in the General Plan not to widen.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:40 p.m.
Mr. Bamdad, Applicant & Property Owner:
• Thanked staff, particularly Allison Knapp, for assistance over the last couple years.
• Said that his designer and engineer are available this evening for questions.
Mr. Gary Moore, Project Architect, GMA:
• Thanked Planner Allison Knapp.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Moore whether the columns attached to the house on either side of
the windows are structural or decorative.
Mr. Gary Moore replied decorative.
Commissioner Kurasch opined that these columns are rather prominent on one side of the house and
appear rather busy.
Mr. Gary Moore explained that they felt these columns help balance the garage and living room
window and did not believe it was necessary to carry them throughout the house, although he did use
one in the back patio area. These columns have no structural value.
Commissioner Kurasch questioned the large size of the pilasters on the rear yard fence. The fence
appears to be wrought iron but the plaster pilasters are 24 by 24 inches. This proposal does not tie in
with the rural area.
Mr. Gary Moore said that this could be reduced with no problem.
Commissioner Kurasch asked what color would be used for the pilasters.
Mr. Gary Moore said that they would match the trim color, which is soft white.
Saratoga Planning Commiss. Minutes of October 10, 2001 Page 8
Commissioner Jackman said that she liked the new roof color samples much better than the previous.
Said that she had concerns about the proposed plant materials, specifically the inclusion of several
palm trees and a yucca tree. Since this is more a mountainous region, evergreens would be more
compatible and appropriate.
Chair Barry stressed that this hearing is the opportunity for the Commission to share its design
concerns with the applicants. Said that she liked the roof tile colors but believes there may be too
many colors and that the yellow may be too bright. Said that she would like to see the yellow be
changed to something browner in color.
Mr. Bamdad pointed out that 90 percent of the roof would consist of two natural colors. The
remaining 10 percent would consist of the other three colors. Agreed that he could soften the yellow to
a lighter shade with no problem.
Chair Barry complimented Mr. Bamdad on his roof tiles, stating that they are a nice material.
Commissioner Zutshi mentioned a home located on Prospect and Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road that is
rather a bright yellow and was concerned that this proposed stucco color may have the same problem.
Mr. Bamdad assured the Commission that his paint color is a natural ochre. This is a natural color that
is traditional to California Mission architecture.
Chair Barry asked Mr. Bamdad if he is willing to change his base color if asked by the Commission to
do so.
Mr. Bamdad replied yes.
Commissioner Kurasch asked for the size of the front entry door and light.
Mr. Bamdad said that the door is 42 inches wide and 8 feet tall.
Chair Barry reiterated that two letters of support have been received from neighbors.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:52 p.m.
Commissioner Zutshi inquired about the nice oak tree on the property.
Planner Allison Knapp assured that this tree will be preserved.
Commissioner Kurasch outlined her areas of concern:
• Restated that the size of the proposed pilasters in the back yard fence are scaled too large and she
would prefer to see them painted to match the body of the house rather than the trim as proposed.
• Suggested that the entry elevation and use of columns be toned down, that softer colors that are
more in keeping with the architecture be used and that the door not be quite as large.
Mr. Bamdad told the Commission he would be willing to eliminate the pilasters altogether if they
would prefer.
Saratoga Planning Commiss. Minutes of October 10, 2001 Page 9
Commissioner Kurasch accepted that offer saying that elimination of that detail would be her
preference.
Chair Barry said that it appears that Commissioner Kurasch is recommending the removal of the rope
columns and that the door be reduced in size.
Commissioner Zutshi stated that she liked the door.
Commissioner Kurasch clarified that she is either seeking the simplification, or elimination of the
columns.
Commissioner Jackman opined that it would look strange if the columns are taken out.
Director Sullivan suggested a tapered smooth column over the proposed rope column.
Commissioner Jackman pointed out that there is no roof over the front door and that is a concern to
her. This could be a problem for guests on rainy days.
Commissioner Hunter said that she is at a bit of a disadvantage having missed the site visit due to a car
accident while en route. Said that she likes an entry door without a roof overhead. Pointed out that
this design is common back east where the weather is more challenging than here. Suggested
simplifying the pilasters.
Commissioner Garakani questioned why the front door is not centered on the wall.
Planner Allison Knapp said she would defer this question to the applicant.
Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that it appears the front door is centered on the upper roofline and
that this does not bother her.
Commissioner Zutshi said that the pillars are not a problem for her.
Commissioner Kurasch said that there seems to be too many on the front elevation.
Commissioner Jackman said that these pillars tie down the lower floor and that she likes them as they
add something to the design and gives a lightness above while anchoring the bottom. Added that she
does not like to second -guess the architect and this feature is a personal preference for the owner.
Commissioner Zutshi advised that she once had a home with pillars on one side and it was fine but that
she does have concerns with the large sized pilasters for the back fence.
Chair Barry:
• Said that she agrees with all the comments against the large pilasters and the applicant has agreed
to eliminate that feature.
• Said that the proposed rope columns could be simplified.
• Added that she is pleased the applicant is willing to tone done the yellow body color to a wheat
color.
Saratoga Planning Commiss. Minutes of October 10, 2001 Page 10
• Reiterated that since this is not Southern California, the use of palms and yuccas should be
replaced with more indigenous plantings.
• Expressed appreciation for the applicant's efforts to work with the neighbors and take their
requests into account.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the
Commission approved DR -01 -021 & BSE -01 -023 to allow the construction of a
new 4,123 square foot two -story residence on property located at 1350 Pierce Road
with the following added Conditions of Approval:
• The removal of the pilasters on the rear yard fence;
• Use of softer colors on the roof tiles;
• Work with staff to select a body paint color that is more of a wheat color than
the proposed yellow;
• Modify the landscape plan to eliminate the use of yucca and palm trees and
replace them with more indigenous evergreen planting material; and
• Work with staff to simplify the proposed columns on the front elevation.
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Roupe
ABSTAIN; None
Chair Barry advised that there is a 15 -day appeal period before this action is final.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO. 3
UP -01 -010 (403 -24 -001) — METRO PCS, 13686 Quito Road: Request for Use Permit approval to
locate a wireless antenna system and equipment on an existing PG &E transmission tower. The system
would be comprised of six new directional antennas mounted on the existing tower and new equipment
cabinets located below the tower. The maximum height of the cabinets will be six feet tall. The
project is located in an R -1- 10,000 zoning district.
Mr. John Livingstone, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Stated that the applicant is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the location of
wireless equipment on existing PG &E tower including six new directional antennas and new
cabinets below within a fenced area.
• Advised that staff is recommending a Condition that requires the applicant to place the equipment
cabinet underground screened with extensive landscaping, including medium sized evergreen trees.
The landscaping would be subject to final approval by the Community Development Director.
Additionally a two -year maintenance agreement would be required to ensure the establishment of
the trees. Staff believes that an underground installation will improve the aesthetics and reduce the
potential for vandalism.
• Informed that staff finds this to be a compatible location for this installation as it will be
unobtrusive.
Saratoga Planning Commiss. Minutes of October 10, 2001 Page 11
• Said that there is already one other carrier with wireless communications equipment using this site.
That carrier has a fully enclosed house type structure on the ground to house its equipment. The
City encourages co- location.
• Stated that staff is recommending approval.
Commissioner Garakani inquired where the water would come from for the maintenance of the
landscaping.
Director Sullivan replied that water service would be established with San Jose Water including a
meter on the property.
Chair Barry asked staff for an overview of the perimeters for the Commissions' jurisdiction.
Associate Planner John Livingstone advised the Commission that the law allows for a Planning
Commission to consider site aesthetics but not health and safety concerns as a result of the installation.
Director Sullivan advised that the FCC Act took that authority away from local jurisdictions.
Commissioner Kurasch inquired where the standards come from to place these facilities underground
and questioned if there is any reason such an installation would not be feasible.
Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that the plans are developed by an engineer and that as far
as he is aware there are no reasons to believe this installation cannot be made underground.
Mr. Tom Swamer, MetroPCS, Applicant:
• Thanked staff for all their assistance.
• Stated that MetroPCS likes to share existing infrastructure rather than developing totally new sites.
PG &E towers are a perfect fit as a compatible use.
• Pointed out that communities such as Saratoga encourage co- location.
• Advised that this installation is intended to cover cell phone usage from nearby Highway 85 and
that there are no sufficiently tall buildings in the area to meet their requirements.
• Expressed concern about the requirement for placement the supporting equipment cabinet
underground due to safety for maintenance crews.
• Cautioned that additional mechanical equipment is required for an underground vault as well as an
economic concern in that such installations are between $60,000 and $70,000 more expensive.
• Said that they are willing to work with staff at developing a landscape plan to meet all screening
requirements for an aboveground cabinet.
Commissioner Garakani asked what additional mechanical equipment is required should the equipment
cabinet be required to be located below ground.
Mr. Tom Swamer replied ventilation and air - conditioning equipment.
Commissioner Zutshi asked if air - conditioning is required for aboveground equipment cabinets.
Mr. Tom Swamer replied no. He added that these are small cabinets that are self - ventilated. There are
small fans installed in the event that the temperature in the cabinet exceeds 90 degrees.
Saratoga Planning Commiss. Minutes of October 10, 2001 Page 12
Commissioner Garakani asked if there are concerns for the safety of the equipment as the result of rain.
Mr. Tom Swarner advised that two of the required equipment cabinets are the size of a refrigerator and
the others are smaller.
Associate Planner John Livingstone added that the cabinet is 15 by 10 with a height of 5 feet, six
inches.
Commissioner Jackman asked if the antennas can be repaired while in operation.
Director Sullivan advised that if repairmen are working on the directional antennas, those antennas
must be turned off.
Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that two warning signs are required on site.
Commissioner Garakani asked what the cost is to place the equipment underground.
Director Sullivan said that the applicant has estimated the cost at between $60,000 and $70,000.
Cautioned that there are about five providers in town at this point. Without requiring equipment to be
placed in below ground cabinets, there will end up being numerous small aboveground buildings
located below these PG &E towers.
Mr. Tom Swamer pointed out that a larger area will need to be excavated for underground cabinets.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Swarner of MetroPCS has had problems with underground facilities
before.
Mr. Tom Swamer replied not really. Elaborated by saying that there were some leakage problems
early on but the vaults are now better designed.
Commissioner Zutshi expressed doubt that there are any real safety issues relating to maintenance of
the below ground equipment, equating them to basements. Added that there is more risk to climb a
PG &E tower than it would be work in the underground vault. Cautioned that it will look like a village
of small buildings around these utility towers
Mr. Tom Swarner agreed and said that he was not trying to say that underground vaults do not work.
He added that this particular site could probably only accommodate three carriers overall. Theirs is the
second installation.
Chair Barry cautioned that the economics of a proposal are not the purview of the Commission but
rather the visual impacts on the community. Said that while the Commission has no ability to suggest
that the applicant approach other carriers sharing a site, it might be a good idea to consider working out
some sort of voluntary agreement to jointly underground equipment.
Mr. Tom Swamer agreed that if more than one carrier are ready to install on a site at the same time, it
is done. However, most carriers prefer their own compound. Added that they are willing to work with
others in the future.
Saratoga Planning Commiss. Minutes of October 10, 2001 Page 13
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:38 p.m.
Mr. David Anderson, 18491 Montpere Way, Saratoga:
• Thanked the Commission for conducting a hearing on this application.
• Said that he moved to Saratoga about six months ago to enjoy a semi -rural environment.
• Said that this is a big installation and would represent blight.
• Added that these antennas look like Christmas trees after a while.
• Declared that this installation will be like installing microwaves in their neighborhood, which is a
serious concern.
• Asked the Commission to look at the aesthetics and to find that six antennas are excessive and the
supporting but will be a blight.
• Pointed out that there is a residence just 200 yards away.
• Said that he does not want this request approved and implored the Commission not to approve this
and to stop the growth of such installations now.
Commissioner Garakani reminded Mr. Anderson that the Commission does not have the authority to
simply say no to wireless installations.
Commissioner Kurasch added that the Commission's hands are tied and there must be a valid reason
for denying the installation.
Chair Barry said that one option used in some jurisdictions is a fake tree installation. Asked Mr.
Anderson if he would prefer such an installation.
Mr. David Anderson replied that he would prefer that these wireless antenna installations be placed in
places such as the Pruneyard Towers, DeAnza College or at Westgate.
Chair Barry said that the Commission can ask the applicant if they have looked at other sites.
Mr. David Anderson said that the Commission can simply deny this request based on aesthetic
grounds.
Ms. Cheriel Jensen, 13737 Quito Road, Saratoga:
• Asked the Commission to "just say no."
• Suggested that such an installation is an industrial /commercial use that is not compatible with this
residential area.
• Expressed concerns for microwave exposure.
• Declared that the Quito Area has been trashed and that nothing is being done and pointed out that a
house has been sitting on stilts for quite some time now. Additionally, another home burned down
and nothing has been done to date to repair it.
• Advised that she opposed the first antenna installation on this property.
• Pointed out that use of cell phones causes drivers to be inattentive.
• Displayed a diagram of a microwave spectrum and said that if it will cook meat she does not want
it in her neighborhood.
Mr. Tom Swarner advised that they have considered other sites. Each site serves from one quarter to
one half -mile radius. Smaller sites hand off to each other. Agreed that they often use multi -story
Saratoga Planning Commiss� Minutes of October 10, 2001 Page 14
structures to locate their antennas and do located within commercial /industrial areas when possible and
available.
Chair Barry asked Mr. Swamer if it is possible to take Mr. Anderson's suggestion to place equipment
at Westgate or DeAnza.
Mr. Tom Swamer replied no and advised that the latest technology utilizes smaller sites dedicated to a
certain network. While previously antennas were located on hilltops, with one antenna serving a large
area, such installations were impacted with lots of interference.
Director Sullivan said that an exhibit has been distributed to the Commissioners that demonstrates the
signal coverage.
Commissioner Garakani asked why antennas could not be placed on Highway 85 to serve users on that
freeway since this would result is less impact to the residential neighborhood. Asked if cost is the only
reason not to do such an installation.
Mr. Tom Swarner answered that there is a larger full radius to be served with this installation including
residential users in the vicinity. Cost is not the issue but rather coverage and service area are the
issues.
Commissioner Kurasch asked how long the first carrier has been on site as she does not believe it has
been there for long.
Associate Planner John Livingstone said that he could not recall.
Chair Barry asked if smaller and fewer antennas could be installed.
Mr. Tom Swamer replied that they could limit the installation to three antennas on the PG &E tower, if
necessary. This will reduce the coverage and capacity. Added that PG &E will not allow a vault to be
located directly beneath their tower. It would have to be moved outside the footprint of the tower by at
least 10 feet or more.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 9 p.m.
Commissioner Hunter:
• Stated that it is the 21s' Century and there does not appear to be a lot of choice. This installation is
as good as it gets. PG &E towers are unsightly to begin with and it is just as well to place these
antennas on them.
• Declared that cell phone reception is terrible in Saratoga.
• Said that she does not want to see antennas installed along the Highway.
• Said that she was concerned for safety with the underground placement of the equipment cabinet as
well as the requirement to be at least 10 feet away from the tower footprint and said that she has no
objection to an aboveground cabinet with screening landscaping.
Commissioner Jackman said that she would like to see the equipment structure underground as well as
landscaped. Said that all of the City has to share in the placement of these necessary antennas.
N
Saratoga Planning Commiss_ Minutes of October 10, 2001 Page 15
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Said that having six antennas, each five feet long, is a very intense use of the area.
• Added that since the applicant has said they could reduce the installation to three antennas, they
should be asked to do so.
• Said that she has no objection to the requirement to underground the equipment cabinet.
• Said that cell phones may not be in as much demand if cell phone use while driving is prohibited.
• Opined that this is an intense project.
Chair Barry:
• Said that every time such an application comes before the Commission the same set of issues crops
up.
• Said that the last time an antenna installation was approved, that decision was appealed. Council
subsequently upheld the Commission decision.
• Reiterated that the Commission cannot simply say no to this request.
• Added that the Commission has been convinced by experts that they are not in a position to ask
these applicants to simply go somewhere else.
• Agreed that this is an uncomfortable issue of all of the Commissioners.
• Said that she lives near West Valley College and that lots of concern was raised when so many
antennas were installed at West Valley College.
• Said that since the applicant has agreed that they can decrease the number and size of antennas, the
Commission should take them up on that offer.
• Said that the best the Commission can do is to require underground placement of the equipment
cabinet and sufficient landscape screening of the site.
Commissioner Garakam asked who determines if reduction of antennas size is possible.
Director Sullivan said that the applicant can provide a graphic of their coverage based on size and
number of antennas.
Chair Barry added that co- locating these cellular antennas on PG &E towers has been determined to be
the best option for antenna installation.
Commissioner Hunter said that she has to speak up for people who cannot get decent cell phone
reception in Saratoga. Pointed out that television antennas are ugly but still located on every house.
Said that the Commission has to allow it to happen and this request is as good as it gets.
Chair Barry said that this PG &E tower will have a lot on it but it is the same issue everywhere.
Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that if the installation is reduced here, more installation sites will be
needed nearby to meet the coverage shortfall. Stated that everyone uses cell phones.
Commissioner Jackman stated that these antennas have to go somewhere and it is best to use this
existing PG &E tower as opposed to creating a whole new structure.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the
Planning Commission approved a Use Permit (UP -01 -010) to allow the location of
a wireless antenna system and equipment on existing PG &E transmission tower on
Saratoga Planning Commiss Minutes of October 10, 2001 Page 16
property located at 13686 Quito Road, with the following added Conditions of
Approval:
1. Reduce the size and number of antennas;
2. Locate the equipment cabinets below ground; and
3. Provide extensive landscaping to the satisfaction of staff.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Chair Barry, the
Commission proposed to amend the motion to clarify the requirement to reduce
the number of antennas to three antennas with the size of each antenna to be
reduced, if possible. This proposed amendment was not accepted by
Commissioner Jackman.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the
Planning Commission approved a Use Permit (UP -01 -010) to allow the location of
a wireless antenna system and equipment on existing PG &E transmission tower on
property located at 13686 Quito Road, with the following added Conditions of
Approval:
1. Reduce the size and number of antennas;
2. Locate the equipment cabinets below ground; and
3. Provide extensive landscaping to the satisfaction of staff.
AYES:Garakani, Hunter, Jackman and Zutshi
NOES: Kurasch, Berry
ABSENT: Roupe
ABSTAIN; None
Chair Barry advised that there is a 15 -day appeal period before this action is final.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.4
UP -01 -009 (393 -21 -013) — METRO PCS, 12383 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road: Request for Use Permit
approval to locate a wireless antenna system and equipment on an existing PG &E transmission tower.
The system would be comprised of six new directional antennas mounted on the existing tower and
new equipment cabinets located below the tower. The maximum height of the cabinets will be six feet
tall. The project is located in an R -1- 12,500 zoning district.
Mr. John Livingstone, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Informed the Commission that the only difference between this request and the previous one is that
this site has two existing providers on site.
• Added that staff is proposing the same Conditions to underground the supporting equipment and
provide screening landscaping.
Mr. Tom Swarner, MetroPCS, Applicant, asked the Commission to allow them to place the equipment
aboveground with screening landscaping.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Swarner what the limit is on this site for the number of providers.
N
Saratoga Planning Commiss. Minutes of October 10, 2001 Page 17
Mr. Tom Swarner said that he did not know.
Commissioner Hunter asked if the other carriers have aboveground cabinets.
Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that their equipment is located in fenced boxed facilities.
Chair Barry said that the existing structures for the other providers do not look nice.
Commissioner Garakam suggested that the other providers be contacted.
Director Sullivan cautioned that the City cannot go back to the other providers with new conditions
and/or site requirements but this applicant can approach them to see if there is any interest in
cooperating on this site.
Chair Barry asked Mr. Swamer how they propose to screen their equipment above ground.
Mr. Tom Swamer replied that they are proposing to make their structure adjacent to the existing
structure so that they appear to be one.
Chair Barry proposed a concrete structure to encompass all three providers' equipment cabinets.
Mr. Tom Swarner replied that this would have to be a cooperative effort for all three providers.
Chair Barry asked if Mr. Swamer is willing to approach the other two.
Mr. Tom Swarner replied he was willing to make an attempt.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:35 p.m.
Mr. David Anderson, 18491 Montpere Way, Saratoga:
• Stated his disappointment with the previous decision, saying the Commission has gone above and
beyond its duties and was very narrow in its focus.
Chair Barry encouraged Mr. Anderson to substantiate his viewpoint to Council, particularly if he is
able to clearly document his position.
Mr. David Anderson said that he finds this to be staff's responsibility.
Chair Barry said that according to staff, the City cannot say no to these requests based on safety but
only on aesthetic considerations.
Commissioner Hunter asked the Commission to move forward at this point. All necessary testimony
has been heard and appeals are possible for anyone disagreeing with the actions take by the
Commission this evening. Restated that people want the option to use cell phones.
Commissioner Garakani said that this site is already too ugly and it is good to require this added
installation to place its equipment underground.
Commissioner Jackman agreed.
N
Saratoga Planning Commiss. Minutes of October 10, 2001 Page 18
Commissioner Kurasch said that she supports a more coordinated approach to placement of cellular
antennas and would like to see a Citizen's Committee formed to develop criteria.
Director Sullivan advised that at a previous city at which he worked, cellular antenna applicants were
required to provide an analysis for two to three alternate sites and provide reasons why their first
choice is the best one.
Chair Barry suggested that this become a part of the application protocol for future applications.
Commissioner Garakam reminded that Mr. Anderson had made three alternate site recommendations.
Commissioner Zutshi stated that he was just haphazardly recommending locations with no evaluation
as to their viability.
Commissioner Garakani asked Director Sullivan if the City could hire a consultant to decide the best
locations for antenna installations within the City.
Director Sullivan said that staff is working on mapping existing coverage for all carriers. The City
needs the cooperation of all vendors to get all the necessary data. The data will be compiled using the
City's GIS system.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:45 p.m.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the
Planning Commission approved a Use Permit (UP -01 -009) to allow the location of
a wireless antenna system and equipment on existing PG &E transmission tower on
property located at 12383 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road.
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Roupe
ABSTAIN; None
Chair Barry asked staff to require future applicants to provide three alternative sites and to require
equipment cabinets be placed underground unless compelling reasons can be made for why that cannot
be accomplished.
Chair Barry advised that there is a 15 -day appeal period before this action is final.
DIRECTOR ITEMS
Director Sullivan gave the following updates:
• Distributed a memorandum with the staff liaison assignments for the Commission Committees.
Added that the Chair of the Heritage Preservation Commission has indicated that he would like to
participate on some of these Committees.
• Asked any Commissioner who has not already done so to RSVP to Anne Sullivan for the
Commissioners' Dinner.
I�
Saratoga Planning Commiss Minutes of October 10, 2001 Page 19
COMMISSION ITEMS
Solar Home Tour
Commissioner Kurasch advised the Commission of a Solar Home Tour scheduled for Saturday,
October 13, 2001, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Participants begin at Starbird Park, located at Williams Road
and San Tomas Expressway, to see exhibits and obtain a map to tour sites. Additional information can
be obtained through a web site or by phone at (408) 746 -0327.
Planners Institute
Director Sullivan advised the Commission that he was recently in Sacramento helping to finalize the
program for the next Planners Institute. The dates are March 20 — 22, 2002.
Action on House on Stilts on Quito Road
Chair Barry expressed concern that the public is unaware that the City is following up to correct the
situation of the house on stilts on Quito Road and suggested that the staff put out some information
into the community on what is underway.
Director Sullivan said that authorization for any distribution of information on this situation is at the
discretion of the City Attorney.
Chair Barry said that she would contact Richard Taylor to discuss this matter further.
COMMUNICATIONS
City Council Minutes from Regular Meeting of August 15, 2001.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Chair Barry adjourned the meeting at 10:05 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday,
October 24, 2001, to begin at 7 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, September 26, 2001
PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Chair Barry called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi
Absent: Commissioners Hunter and Jackman
Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner John Livingstone, Planner Allison Knapp and
Planner Christy Oosterhous
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of September 12, 2001.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the
regular Planning Commission minutes of September 12, 2001, were approved as
submitted.
AYES:Garakani, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Hunter and Jackman
ABSTAIN; Barry
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no oral communications.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Director Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting
was properly posted on September 20, 2001.
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET
Director Sullivan advised that technical corrections to Items 3 and 5 would be provided during the
respective staff reports.
CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no consent calendar items.
Saratoga Planning Commiss. Minutes of September 26, 2001 Page 2
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1
DR -01 -013, V -01 -013 & AS -01 -001 (397 -43 -001 & 003) — JAIN, 18630 Allendale: Request for
Design Review approval to construct a new single -story 6,850 square foot residence and sport court.
The Variance is to construct the sport court within the side yard setback. Maximum height of the
residence would be 26 feet. The 93,175 (net) square foot lot is located in the R -1- 40,000 zoning
district. (KNAPP) (CONTINUED FROM 9112101)
At this time, Commissioner Kurasch recused herself from consideration of this item as she received a
copy of the public hearing notice for this project. She left the dais to sit in the audience.
Ms. Allison Knapp, Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Began her report by changing a number on page four of the staff report depicting the first floor
square footage within a table as being 5,842 square feet and striking the incorrect figure of 5,689.
The grand total of 6,850 is in fact correct.
• Explained that this home is considered a single -story structure per the rules of the UBC despite the
proposed roof deck space and the 26 -foot height. In order for the roof deck to count as a second
story, there would have to be a roof overhead. However, staff is indeed recommending denial of
the proposed roof deck.
Pointed out that Code prevents more than one woodburning fireplace. This home will not have
more than one.
Commissioner Roupe asked staff how it would interpret issues such as limitations on woodburning
fireplaces in the future.
Director Sullivan advised that if a project is compliant as proposed, issues such as allowable
woodburning versus gas fireplaces will not be addressed nor will specific Municipal Codes be stated
within the Conditions of Approval. If, however, there is a problem with the proposal, those issues will
be clarified through appropriate Conditions.
Ms. Allison Knapp, Planner, continued with her presentation:
• Advised that there is a question about the proposal for a six -foot masonry wall as outlined on page
11 of the staff report.
• Said that the applicants have met with two neighbors who had concerns about noise impacts from
the tennis court. As a result, an agreement was reached to install the six -foot masonry wall.
• Said that staff is recommending approval of this residence without the deck feature. Staff finds
that there is not enough privacy and that the deck is not architecturally compatible. Staff suggests
that the applicant be instructed to bring revised plans back to the Community Development
Director, eliminating the stairs to the deck area and reducing the height of the structure by a couple
of feet.
• Reminded that this parcel was split in 1998 with a separate parcel situated right in front of this
subject parcel. A lot line adjustment is currently underway to remerge the lots.
• Pointed out that the Variance to allow the tennis court is needed in order to protect trees and the
creek. Staff is in support of this Variance to allow the sport court.
Commissioner Zutshi inquired if the deck area is counted in the total FAR.
Ms. Allison Knapp replied yes.
Saratoga Planning Commissi _✓Iinutes of September 26, 2001 Page 3
Commissioner Roupe expressed concern that within the staff report (page 5) an evergreen vine is
proposed along the tennis court wall while on page 17 the more vague term of evergreen landscaping is
mentioned. Suggested that if the vine is what is desired, that fact should be clearly stated in the
Resolution.
Ms. Allison Knapp advised that she was deliberately vague so as not to exclude better options, such as
a shrub, should all parties find some other type of evergreen vegetation preferable to a vine.
Chair Barry asked if this needs to be part of the approval.
Ms. Allison Knapp replied yes.
Chair Barry extended her appreciation to staff, the applicant and neighbors for meeting together to
work out issues. Advised that the Planning Commission advocates such meetings and is looking to
institute a policy requiring such interactions early into a development application.
Mr. Jim Morelan, Project Architect:
• Advised that the property owners are present, as are the general contractor and neighbors.
• Pointed out an error on Page 13, reading 15 feet east of the property line when it should read 10
feet.
• Stated that they accept all Conditions of Approval and that he is available for any questions from
the Commission.
• Provided an alternative plan for the deck feature, which would reduce the deck to 10 feet by 11
feet, six inches, tucked into the roof on three sides with the fourth side bounded by a patio door.
• Advised that the purpose of this deck space is to look out at views of the mountains or the
moonlight. There is no living spaces or views sheds impacted by this deck. It is well concealed
and this alternative proposal is a good compromise to any concerns,
• Asked the Commission to reconsider this alternative and allow them to retain a roof deck space.
Chair Barry asked for the color board.
Mr. Jim Morelan advised that the color board was submitted to the Planning Department. Added that
they propose a basic clay tile roof with a white stucco exterior.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:15 p.m.
Ms. Martha J. Costa, 18603 Ravenwood Drive, Saratoga:
• Expressed concern over potential noise from the tennis court.
• Said that she believes the proposed masonry fence will help alleviate noise from the tennis court.
Commissioner Roupe disagreed, stating that the wall is an inviting backboard for hitting tennis balls
and could actually increase noise impacts. However, putting screening vegetation in front of the wall
would prevent those impacts.
Commissioner Garakani agreed that vegetation would be the best solution and stated that the tennis
court would most likely be used occasionally rather than daily.
Saratoga Planning Commissi. _Minutes of September 26, 2001 Page 4
Commissioner Zutshi said that while on the site visit she could hear the traffic from Allendale and
added that any noise from tennis would be less intrusive than the existing noise from traffic.
Chair Barry agreed that there is experience with sound walls actually making things worse rather than
better. Said that tree screening seems to be much more effective at muffling noise.
Ms. Martha J. Costa agreed that she would be happy to consider landscape screening.
Commissioner Roupe suggested that this detail be worked out further with staff, the applicant and
neighbors.
Mr. James Laflin, left side neighbor:
• Said that his only concern has been the proposed tennis court and that seems to be okay at this
point.
• Said that it is important to he and his wife that nothing is done to screen the sun onto their property
as they cultivate irises and roses and they need the sun.
• Asked that dust control be provided during construction as his wife suffers from allergies that
would be impacted from excessive dust.
Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Laflin if he is in support of the 10 -foot high tennis court fence.
Mr. James Laflin said yes.
Commissioner Roupe said that the fence could be reduced to six feet instead and that a condition can
be added that prohibits screening vines on the shared property line.
Mr. James Laflin said that he has no problem with the fence height as long as the sun gets through to
his yard.
Mr. Jim Morelan:
• Agreed that it might be best not to utilize a masonry wall and said that they are open to planting
additional landscaping as necessary.
• Added that plans are already in place to install four redwood trees immediately behind the tennis
court.
• Said that while the owner prefers a 10 -foot fence for the tennis court, they are willing to eliminate
any vines on the fence adjacent to the Laflins'property. This is a good compromise.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:35 p.m.
Commissioner Zutshi said that it appears that there is no opposition to the roof deck from the
neighbors and that she can support the compromise design.
Commissioner Roupe agreed that the modified deck design is sensitive to the neighbors and that he
will support it as long as it is not obtrusive.
Commissioner Garakani:
• Asked that the applicant plant trees in the line of site to assure the neighbor's privacy.
Saratoga Planning Commissi _✓linutes of September 26, 2001 Page 5
• Suggested that for the tennis court a six -foot fence with netting above to catch tennis balls could be
installed.
• Added that the masonry wall could be placed in front of the existing wall at the property line.
Commissioner Roupe said that the applicant should work these details out with staff. Added that a
Condition of Approval should be incorporated that states that efforts should be made to mitigate noise
impacts from the tennis court.
Chair Barry said that an administrative approval can be required to finalize the details of the fencing .
for the tennis court.
Director Sullivan pointed out that the issue of deck and privacy issues are included in the staff review.
Chair Barry declared that she is not crazy about cement tile roof material, finding it to be monotone
and monochromatic as well as pretty bright in color.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the color copy of the roofing sample is not an accurate color
representation.
Chair Barry said that she would still rather see a Condition requiring a more subdued roof tile color or
one with more variation in color.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the
Planning Commission approved V -01 -013 with the added condition that the
applicant, staff and neighbors work together on the issue of deadening sound to the
rear and that screening not have evergreen vines that block sun on the adjacent
property.
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Hunter and Jackman
ABSTAIN; Kurasch
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the
Planning Commission approved DR -01 -013 and AS -01 -001 to allow the
construction of a new single - family residence on property located at 18630
Allendale with the added conditions:
• The terrace structure be modified as presented by the Architect;
• That landscaping along the line of site be considered and installed;
• That water trucks be used to control dust during construction; and
• That the roof tiles be change to a more subdued color and /or a material with
more variation in color. T
• That the applicant, staff and neighbors work together on the issue of
deadening sound to the rear and that screening not have evergreen vines that
block sun on the adjacent (Laflin) property.
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Hunter and Jackman
ABSTAIN; Kurasch
Saratoga Planning Commissi _Minutes of September 26, 2001 Page 6
Chair Barry advised that there is a 15 -day appeal period before this action is final.
Commissioner Kurasch returned to the dais following the completion of Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:47
p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO. 2
SD- 99- 003(A) & GPA- 00- 001(A) (APN's 517 -13 -018, 517- 13 -19, 517 -12 -001) SOBRATO
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 14800 Bohlman Road (site of the former Sisters of Notre Dame
de Namur): Request to amend Condition No 24 (fence enclosure and grading issues) of Resolution
SD -99 -003, to adopt Resolution GPA- 00 -00(A) formalizing the previous recommendation that the City
Council amend the General Plan Land Use Map designation from Quasi - Public Facilities to Very Low
Density Residential and to replace the Conditions of Approval (No. 39a j, 40 and 41) in the City
Geologist Section of Resolution No. SD -99 -003 with updated language from the City Geologist.
(SULLIVAN)
Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows:
• Pointed out that the language in the adopted Resolutions for this project tied hands, requiring a 10-
foot pedestrian easement for a total of 25 feet. It is requested that the pedestrian portion of this
easement be removed from the required easement. Said that this pedestrian easement is from a
public street to a private courtyard and is therefore not appropriate. There is no place to go other
than onto private property. In this case, it makes sense not to require that pedestrian access.
• Said that the City Geologist's Conditions are now ready to be added.
• Said that staff is proposing language for Condition 24 (Grading and Fence Enclosure) that lets the
applicant know the target for grading.
• Informed that Council would consider the Final Map and General Plan Amendments soon and that
the Sobrato house is pending future Planning Commission review.
Commissioner Kurasch stated that tightening up the requirements was the intent of the Planning
Commission actions. Said that the functional area can be fenced while the rest of the area is to be left
unfenced.
Director Sullivan agreed and pointed out that the fenced area is just the pool area. However, this area
is larger that the allowable 4,000 square feet. Added that the grounds immediately around the house
are not fenced in. While this area is not subject to scenic easement, a vast majority of the property is in
the scenic easement.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:54 p.m.
Mr. John Sobrato, Applicant, said that he is available for any questions.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:55 p.m.
Saratoga Planning Commissi _dinutes of September 26, 2001 Page 7
Commissioner Kurasch said that a pedestrian easement provides a way to connect but that she is
willing to accept the elimination of that requirement. Added that she is pleased and thankful that the
intent of the Commission is being met.
Chair Barry concurred with Commissioner Kurasch and stated that the protection of the scenic
easement is vital.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the
Commission approved SD- 00- 003(A) and GPA- 00- 001(A) in relation to property
located at 14800 Bohlman Road.
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi.
NOES: None
ABSENT: Hunter and Jackman
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.3
DR -01 -026 & BSE -01 -027 (397 -24 -017) — Sparacino, 14320 Lutheria Way: Request for Design
Review approval to construct a new single -story 3,442 square foot residence, 936 square foot attached
four -car garage and 1,568 square foot basement. The maximum height of the residence would be 20
feet. The 20,690 square foot lot is located in the R -1- 20,000 zone district. (OOSTERHOUS)
Ms. Christy Oosterhous, Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Provided clarification to the staff report in that the setbacks both meet and exceed required
setbacks.
• Advised that the Design Review application is for the construction of a 4,378 square foot, one -
story residence with a four -car garage, basement and a maximum height of 20 feet. The project
site is 21,000 square feet and located within the R -1- 20,000 zone.
• Described the building materials as gray plaster finish, carriage style garage door, white windows,
black accents for the front door.
• Informed that the project meets all Design Review findings and staff is recommending approval.
Commissioner Zutshi expressed concern regarding the FAR.
Ms. Christy Oosterhous pointed out that the FAR totals 3,442 plus the garage. Added that the building
footprint is different from FAR.
Chair Barry asked for clarification that the 4,378 square foot total is accurate.
Ms. Christy Oosterhous replied yes.
Commissioner Garakani asked about the bay window.
Director Sullivan advised that if there is no foundation below a bay window, that area is not counted
within the square footage.
Saratoga Planning Commissi Minutes of September 26, 2001 Page 8
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that light wells are counted in square footage and asked staff about
the fireplaces included on the plans, pointing out that it is not noted whether they are wood or gas.
Ms. Christy Oosterhous advised that there will be one wood and two gas fireplaces.
Commissioner Roupe asked staff to condition only one woodburing fireplace.
Ms. Christy Oosterhous reminded that Ordinance will only permit one woodburning fireplace and
assured that the plans will clearly label the one woodburning and two gas fireplaces.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:05 p.m.
Mr. Chris Spaulding, Architect:
• Clarified that there will be but one woodburning fireplace and two gas.
Commissioner Garakani pointed out that there appears to be but one chimney.
Mr. Chris Spaulding said that there will be one decorative chimney for the gas fireplace in the living
room. The gas fireplace in the master bedroom will have a direct vent. Admitted that he had left the
chimney for the woodburning fireplace in the family room off of his plans in error.
Commissioner Kurasch asked to see the materials board.
Mr. Chris Spaulding said that the plaster would be a medium -dark but warm gray, with white trim and
black accents on the front door. The roofing will be composition shingle in charcoal gray.
Commissioner Garakani asked if any discussions have been held with the neighbors.
Mr. Chris Spaulding replied no.
Chair Barry asked Mr. Spaulding if there is any particularly reason why efforts were not made to
interact with the neighbors.
Mr. Spaulding replied that with single -story residences there are usually no privacy or shadow issues
and that they do not expect that this home will bother anyone.
Director Sullivan pointed out that this project is just a couple of feet too tall to be approved through an
Administrative Review.
Commissioner Roupe asked why it could not be approved through an Administrative Review.
Director Sullivan replied that the 20 -foot height was 2 -foot higher than the 18 -foot height that can be
approved through an Administrative Review.
Mr. Chris Spaulding:
• Said that he had shown drawings of the home at both 18 and 20 -foot heights. His client preferred
the appearance of the residence at a 20 -foot height and was willing to go through the necessary
Planning Commission review process in order to obtain approvals for that design.
Saratoga Planning Commissi _ylinutes of September 26, 2001 Page 9
• Questioned Condition 3.
• Pointed out that typically only the site survey needs to be stamped by a civil engineer and not the
house plans.
Director Sullivan agreed that this Condition could be adjusted appropriately.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:14 p.m.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Said that he expects the one woodburning fireplace to be designated on the plans.
• Declared that in no way is any fencing beyond that allowed under Ordinance approved for this site.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
Planning Commission granted a Design Review approval to allow the construction
of a new 3,442 square residence, 936 square foot attached four -car garage and
1,568 square foot basement on property located at 14320 Lutheria Way, with the
clarification that only one woodburning fireplace is permitted and that fact should
be depicted on the plans.
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi.
NOES: None
ABSENT: Hunter and Jackman
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Barry advised that there is a 15 -day appeal period before this action is final.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.4
UP -01 -011 (398 -12 -019) PROLIFIC OVEN BAKERY & COFFEE HOUSE, 18832 Cox Avenue:
Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to allow interior and exterior seating to allow the onsite
consumption of food at the existing establishment. The site is located in the Neighborhood
Commercial zoning district. (LIVINGSTONE)
Mr. John Livingstone, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Informed that the applicant seeks approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the on -site
consumption of food at an existing bakery with the installation of 26 seats inside and 26 seats
outside to accommodate the on -site consumption of food.
• Advised that this change creates a restaurant use (in -house consumption) versus a retail use (sold
for off -site consumption).
• Said that the proposed furnishings will be wrought iron.
• Stated that the parking provided at the Quito Village Shopping Center is more than required for
straight retail and that plenty of parking is available to accommodate this proposal.
• Pointed out that this change will create a greater presence and increase foot traffic and will serve as
a compliment to the center's appearance.
• Stated that staff is recommending approval.
Saratoga Planning Commiss. _Minutes of September 26, 2001 Page 10
Commissioner Kurasch asked what arrangements will be made to bus tables and whether trash
receptacles will be provided.
Mr. John Livingstone advised that there is a Condition to keep trash and spills off of the concrete.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Stressed the need to ensure the maintenance of the outdoor area, including regular power washing
of the concrete.
• Said that it is important to have a strong Condition of Approval requiring this maintenance and to
monitor carefully.
Director Sullivan agreed and pointed out that Code Enforcement is now fully staffed and one of their
tasks is to monitor and enforce these types of Conditions of Approval.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if staff had received any objections to this proposal.
Mr. John Livingstone replied no.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 8:24 p.m.
Mr. Rick Anderson, 390 La Questa Drive, Santa Cruz:
• Identified himself as a representative for the business owner and made himself available for any
questions.
Commissioner Zutshi stated her concern that the number of tables outdoors seems excessive and that
they might not fit in the space available. Asked Mr. Anderson how much area per table is required to
allow adequate circulation.
Mr. Rick Anderson said that the drawing is out of scale but that if the proposed number of tables do
not function and appears too congested, they can take one out.
Commissioner Kurasch asked about pedestrian access.
Mr. Rick Anderson assured that there is sufficient pedestrian access around the exterior seating area.
Chair Barry sought clarification that the Commission is to approve the specific number of tables
allowed.
Director Sullivan suggested that the Commission approve a "not to exceed" number of tables. If
necessary, the applicants can install fewer.
Commissioner Zutshi asked if the doors open outwards and if so whether the tables proposed for near
the doors might be in the way of the doors' operation.
Mr. Rick Anderson said that the doors do open outward. Pointed out that the table near the door is a
smaller two person table.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if the existing planter would need to be relocated.
Saratoga Planning Commissi, _✓Iinutes of September 26, 2001 Page 11
Mr. Rick Anderson replied yes.
Commissioner Garakani said that it would be possible to move the planter elsewhere on site.
Commissioner Zutshi said that she liked the furniture and that it looks nice, especially the smaller
tables that seat two.
Chair Barry wondered if the Commission should suggest no tables by the door.
Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that the owner will have the liability and if they feel it is safe to
place a table by the door they should be allowed to do so.
Mr. Rick Anderson said that they believe placing a table near the door will be safe.
Commissioner Roupe asked if there is already a Use Permit for this restaurant use already under way.
Mr. Rick Anderson replied that they hope to obtain the necessary approval this evening.
Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Anderson how long they have operated without the necessary permit.
Mr. Rick Anderson replied a few moths, adding that they had not believed the change in use would be
a problem. Once the owner was contacted and told of the need for a Use Permit, he applied
immediately.
Director Sullivan advised that the business was undergoing Code Enforcement for sandwich board
signs when it was detennined that the use had changed in such a way as to necessitate a Use Permit.
Commissioner Roupe stressed the importance of enforcing Codes.
Mr. Rick Anderson agreed and stated that there was a bakery in this location prior to Mr. Chan and
they had erroneously assumed that it would be no problem. Assured that they did not deliberately
break City rules.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 8:30 p.m.
Commissioner Roupe said that he supports a "not to exceed" limitation on tables but that he does not
want to specify the specific location of the tables. Asked staff for direction on how to structure the
approval.
Director Sullivan said that the Commission should simply pick the number of tables, which will serve
as the basis for enforcement.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Stated that she is comfortable with 26 seats indoors but that she is more comfortable with 22 seats
outdoors with no more than 7 tables, 4 large and 3 small.
• Declared that assumptions are dangerous in business and that she hopes others heed the rules.
• Added that the rules are important for owners and for the safety of the public.
Saratoga Planning Commissi,_ _Minutes of September 26, 2001 Page 12
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
Planning Commission granted a Conditional Use Permit to allow interior and
exterior seating for onsite consumption of food at the Prolific Oven Bakery &
Coffee House on property located at 18832 Cox Avenue with indoor seating not to
exceed 26 and outdoor seating not to exceed 22.
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi.
NOES: None
ABSENT: Hunter and Jackman
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Barry advised that there is a 15 -day appeal period before this action is final.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO. 5
DR -01 -029 (503 -26 -040) — COUCH, 14440 Esterlee Avenue: Request for Design Review approval
to construct a new two -story 2,691 square foot residence, 600 square foot attached two -car garage and
a 1,377 square foot basement. The maximum height of the residence would be 24 feet. The 12,448
square foot lot is located in the R -1- 10,000 zone district. (OOSTERHOUS)
Ms. Christy Oosterhous, Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the application is for a Design Review approval to allow construction of a 3,290
square foot, two -story residence including a two -story garage, basement and 24 -foot maximum
height.
• Stated that proposed materials include sage horizontal wood siding with light green fish scale
shingles and white trim. The architectural style is Prairie style.
• Informed that staff had two concerns view sheds and privacy. However, staff has determined that
view sheds are not adversely impacted. In fact, the adjacent property owner is in support of this
application and finds that the proposal will not adversely impact his property. Therefore, staff is
recommending approval with the added Condition of Approval that existing playground equipment
and hot tub are brought into compliance with Ordinance prior to obtaining Building permits.
Commissioner Kurasch said that the staff report states that there are privacy issue concerns and that
staff did not find that the project complies with all policies. Questioned staff's recommendation for
approval this evening.
Ms. Christy Oosterhous advised that the site visit clarified some issues as did hearing from the
neighbor who is satisfied that there are no privacy impacts. Advised that the applicant's installation of
balloons helped assess the lack of impact. All unanswered questions were laid to rest at the site visit,
allowing staff to recommend approval.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if the driveway wrapping around is a requirement of Fire for turnaround
purposes.
Ms. Christy Oosterhous said she would defer to the architect on that matter.
Saratoga Planning Commissi, Minutes of September 26, 2001 Page 13
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the fireplaces are not identified as wood versus gas.
Ms. Christy Oosterhous said that she is happy to require that the fireplaces be properly labeled on the
plans.
Chair Barry asked about the neighbor to the rear of this site.
Ms. Christy Oosterhous advised that Mr. Jacklyn is the property owner that the balcony would face and
he provided no comments in opposition.
Commissioner Kurasch asked when daylighted living space is counted within the basement area.
Ms. Christy Oosterhous replied that the garage itself is not basement space. By Code definition, the
basement cannot exceed two feet vertical distance above grade.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5 at 8:45 p.m.
Mr. Lou Dorcich, Project Architect:
• Stated that the applicants live on site in a home that is less than 1,000 square feet with garage.
• Added that they now plan to replace this smaller home with a new home. Added that they chose a
two -story, with garage out of public view, to maximize the yard area.
• Advised that the architectural style is a Cottage Design period style. They have broken up the two -
story elements into small mass with lots of details. The home will be homey and less massive, a
counterpart to the typical Mediterranean style.
• Said that the second story is set well back from the first floor. There are no vertical walls in the
design.
• Advised that they have worked to protect the privacy of the neighbors to the east and north. On the
East Side, the second story begins where the front door is right now on the existing home.
• Declared that they believe this home will provide a positive asset to the community and meet the
needs of the owners.
• Clarified that the driveway is not an access for the Fire Department.
• Agreed that each city has a different definition of what counts as a basement. In this proposal, no
basement space is over two feet over the existing grade and therefore conforms to the City's
guidelines. The basement is accessed from the interior from a main stairwell with stairs on the
West Side for egress from the basement as required for safety.
Commissioner Kurasch said that the master bath juts out over the garage in a bump out with nothing
below it. Asked why this feature is necessary and why it is not supported.
Mr. Lou Dorcich replied that supporting that area below would be in excess of allowable FAR.
Commissioner Kurasch said that this area looks as if it is floating.
Mr. Lou Dorcich said that the drawing is not clear. Added that he intends to change the gable roof and
provide a clipped hip over that area which will improve the shadow line and soften the appearance of
that bump out.
Saratoga Planning Commissi. _✓linutes of September 26, 2001 Page 14
Commissioner Kurasch said that she is not concerned about the roof line but rather with the fact that
there is nothing underneath.
Mr. Lou Dorcich advised that the bump out space ranges for 30- inches to five feet.
Chair Barry asked Mr. Dorcich if anyone had climbed up to see the views onto other properties.
Mr. Lou Dorcich:
• Admitted that no on had but that they had walked around the site.
• Pointed out that these owners have lived on site for four years.
• Added that the site was created with no legal access. The City had to be petitioned for vacation of
some right -of -way.
• Assured that this home will not impact the neighbors and that the property owners need a two -story
structure to get the necessary square footage and still leave adequate open space.
Commissioner Roupe said that the uses for the bump out could actually be included within the
structure.
Mr. Lou Dorcich disagreed and said that the space used for the master bath has some symmetry with
the rest of the house. The bump out space is about 150 square feet. If space was developed below this
bump out space, the garage would be increased by 150 square feet, space that is not necessary for the
garage and exceeding allowable FAR.
Commissioner Roupe said that it appears that the master bedroom and bath are both rather large and
the space in the bump out can be absorbed within those spaces and incorporated within the footprint.
Mr. Lou Dorcich said that he can reduce the bump out.
Commissioner Kurasch suggested no more than 65 square feet or 15 feet by 4 feet.
Mr. Lou Dorcich asked if the Commission is proposing a flat wall or simple dormer.
Commissioner Roupe replied simple dormer.
Commissioner Kurasch said that the bump out seems overblown and contrived.
Mr. Lou Dorcich said that he could work on that detail.
Director Sullivan agreed that staff would work with the applicant and architect to solve this issue.
Mr. Lou Dorcich said that he would like to ask the owner, Mr. Couch, to speak to the issue of due
diligence for the neighbors.
Mr. Mike Couch, 14440 Esterlee Avenue, Saratoga:
• Reminded that he distributed a memo earlier in the evening.
• Assured that there are no issues pending with his neighbor Mr. Jacklyn.
• Advised that there are no perspectives from the east window to the adjacent property. Only the
roofline is visible. The south side looks out to the green belt area.
Saratoga Planning Commissi, Ainutes of September 26, 2001 Page 15
• Said that there are no issues from the second floor.
• Added that he has spent a year designing a house to meet Code.
• Pointed out that the bump out feature has been used effectively on other Dorcich designed projects.
• Asked that the Commissioners look at those other projects before asking them to change the
proposal.
• Said that this feature allows an additional 60 square feet. This pie- shaped lot has been difficult to
design a home to fit.
Commissioner Roupe stated that the balloons gave a good sense of this project's visual impact and
commended Mr. Couch for his innovative method. Said that this process might be useful in future
applications to avoid the high cost of installing story poles. In fact, this may set a precedent.
Commissioner Garakani inquired where Mr. Couch obtained these balloons that lasted so long.
Mr. Mike Couch replied that there is a special spray used to retain the life of balloons. Advised that he
worked with a Campbell -based company, Balloon -a -tics.
Chair Barry asked Mr. Couch if he would be willing to provide something in writing to staff regarding
how he implemented his balloon display.
Mr. Mike Couch said that he would do so.
Mr. Ken Schulz, 15001 Esterlee, Saratoga:
• Stated that this home will be beautiful and that he supports its construction.
• Said that he hoped to see additional evergreen landscaping.
• Said that he wants to be sure that water runoff is directed to the creek.
• Suggested that lowering the grade by one or two feet might be good if it does not prove too costly
to do this.
Mr. Lou Dorcich:
• Stated that grading is carefully orchestrated issue and hauling away fill is considered a public
nuisance. Additionally, lowering the grade would also lower the house in front, which is
something they do not want to do.
• Suggested that additional landscaping would be a preferable solution to Mr. Schulz's concerns.
Commissioner Garakani asked where water runoff would drain.
Mr. Lou Dorcich replied the creek.
Commissioner Garakani asked what materials would be used for the driveway.
Mr. Lou Dorcich replied concrete or asphalt.
Commissioner Roupe said that the standard for runoff water is that it be retained on site.
Mr. Lou Dorcich replied that water would be retained on site but directed out toward the creek. An
energy dissipater will be installed. Water will be spread out into the soil.
Saratoga Planning Commissi. , _Minutes of September 26, 2001 Page 16
Commissioner Roupe said that he would defer oversight of water drainage to staff.
Director Sullivan:
• Said that a project is more difficult with topography.
• Added that projects are designed to hold water on site and that pipes will be installed to protect
neighbors from any overflow.
Chair Barry asked if pervious materials could be used for the driveway.
Mr. Lou Dorcich said that turf block is the only potential pervious material and that it has a mixed
history of success.
Director Sullivan informed that there are new materials now available including flat blocks with
pavers.
Commissioner Roupe said that since this project is being developed at maximum square footage for the
site, it would be nice to ask the applicant to work with staff in considering any viable pervious material
for the driveway.
Director Sullivan cautioned that using such materials in the sloping areas would be difficult but in
flatter areas such as the turnaround it might be possible.
Commissioner Roupe stressed his encouragement that the applicants work this matter out with staff.
Mr. Lou Dorcich said that he would do so.
Commissioner Garakani said that he had no issue on the pop out.
Chair Barry said that the house on La Paloma had one and she liked the way it looked.
Commissioner Kurasch said that she could not recall the depth of the pop out in that house but said the
proposed one for this house looks like it is perched.
Commissioner Zutshi said that she likes the concept of the pop out, that it gives the house character.
Said that she was sure that the architect would ensure that there is structural integrity to support this
feature.
Director Sullivan suggested that corbels and beams can be incorporated.
Chair Barry asked if this pop out is larger than the one on La Paloma.
Mr. Lou Dorcich replied that this is a double pop out while the one on the La Paloma house was a
single pop out. Agreed that he could incorporate corbels if necessary in order to soften this pop out but
added that he would like to keep it cantilevered as some point to break up the wall element.
Commissioner Kurasch said that the house is quite large and at maximum square footage. Suggested
the use of a single dormer instead of the proposed double.
Saratoga Planning Commissi. ✓Iinutes of September 26, 2001 Page 17
Chair Barry asked how much square footage this could reduce.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Replied about 70 square feet and it would be more aesthetic.
• Added that it would not be hard to absorb that reduced space within the house.
• Said that it is not unusual for the Commission to require a project to be scaled back and that the
Commission has done so before.
• Said that there are already lots of detail.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5 at 9:25 p.m.
Commissioner Zutshi said she could support the compromise with the single dormer pop out.
Chair Barry asked if the square footage is an issue.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that it is at the maximum allowable.
Chair Barry agreed that this is a big house for this site and is a big structure.
Commissioner Roupe agreed but said that the architect and applicant have worked hard and come up
with a reasonable proposal that is sensitive to the guidelines. They have done a good job with a
difficult site. Said that he likes the idea of a single dormer pop out, which will provide good
articulation to a blank wall. Said he could live with that modification to the proposal.
Commissioner Kurasch stated that she still finds it to be big.
Commissioner Roupe said that it is also important that the applicant be sensitive to the request for
evergreen landscaping, particularly to the east in Mr. Schultz's direction. This should be included as a
Condition of Approval.
Chair Barry pointed out that this project is in better shape to be approved tonight than it was at the site
visit yesterday. Advised that she wasn't going to approve the project without neighbor input and that
she is okay with the compromise reached. Restated the two added conditions being the reduction of
the pop out and the addition of evergreen landscaping to the satisfaction of staff. Additionally, the hot
tub and playground equipment must be brought into compliance with Ordinance regulations.
Commissioner Roupe said that the fireplace designation must be marked on the plans.
Commissioner Kurasch said that she is in favor of the parking area and turnaround being permeable as
possible.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the
Planning Commission granted a Design Review approval (DR- 01- 09 /BSE -01 -029)
to allow the construction of a new residence on property located at 14440 Esterlee
Avenue with the additions to the Conditions as follows:
• Change the east elevation to a single dormer pop out (working with staff);
Saratoga Planning Commissi�- ,_Minutes of September 26, 2001 Page 18
• Install evergreen landscaping to the east elevation to screen the full height of
the new structure; and
• Utilize permeable materials on the parking area and turnaround as possible.
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi.
NOES: None
ABSENT: Hunter and Jackman
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Barry advised that there is a 15 -day appeal period before this action is final.
DIRECTOR ITEMS
Director Sullivan gave the following updates:
• Advised that last week Council gave a brief review of the Housing Element and authorized its
submittal for preliminary review by the HCD without changes.
• Identified a student in the audience, Peter, who is attending this meeting to meet the requirements
of his Government Class.
• Commended the Commission on its completion of a five item agenda this evening by 9:30 p.m.
COMMISSION ITEMS
Appointment to Public Safety Committee
Chair Barry asked Commissioner Garakani to serve on a newly - formed Public Safety Committee,
which includes representatives from the community and is chaired by Council member Nick Street.
Commissioner Garakani accepted this appointment as long as meetings did not occur on Monday
mornings when he has a conflict.
Recognition Dinner
Chair Barry reminded the Commission of the pending Recognition Dinner set for Tuesday, October 23,
2001, at 6:30 p.m. at the Country Club.
Barbecue Weekend with Council
Chair Barry reminded the Commissioners to review their calendars for available Saturdays in October
and November in order to schedule a Barbecue with Council. The information should be forwarded to
the Mayor (and/or through staff).
Information from City Attorney re Commissioner Endorsements of Candidates
Chair Barry advised that she had asked the City Attorney for guidance on whether members of the
Commission can support candidates. A memo is pending from the City Attorney with the reply.
Advised that she has learned that it does not represent a conflict of interest to support a candidate. It
would be a conflict of interest to contribute to an entity that might come before the Planning
Commission. Said that Commissioners can endorse candidates but not on behalf of the Commission
but rather just as individuals.
Saratoga Planning Commissi, ✓Iinutes of September 26, 2001 Page 19
Brookview Homeowners Association Newsletter
Chair Barry advised that she had received a copy of the Brookview Homeowners Association
newsletter and that the HOA has moved forward to investigate the issue of a single -story overlay
district. Pointed out that Los Altos has recently adopted such a district. What was required was a
petition signed by half the impacted property owners. If that is achieved, the matter is put to a vote
(sometimes requiring a Special Election) that must obtain a 70 percent vote to be successful.
Director Sullivan cautioned that the rules are different from city to city. Advised that he has met with
the Brookview HOA. They will attempt to secure a petition that will be submitted to the Planning
Commission. The Commission can consider adoption of a Resolution of Intent.
Commissioner Kurasch asked for a copy of the HOA newsletter.
Chair Barry promised to distribute the copies.
Definition of Rear Setbacks as They Apply to Single Story versus Two -Story Buildings
Commissioner Roupe asked staff to investigate and provide clarification on Ordinance requirements
for setbacks on single -story versus two -story buildings. Said that there appears to be a strict
interpretation, past interpretation and future interpretation which should be clarified.
Director Sullivan agreed that the language of the Design Ordinance doesn't address second story
setbacks being less than single story. Said that there are different ways to go forward. Said that it is
not recommended to have a loose interpretation of the Ordinance. It would be better to change the
language of the Ordinance to be clearer. The Commission will need to adopt a Resolution of Intent.
Chair Barry suggested that this item be scheduled on a future agenda when all seven Commissioners
are present.
Director Sullivan said that the Commission has discussed this matter as far as Brown Act requirements
will allow this evening. The matter will need to be scheduled in order to discuss the possibility of
adopting a Resolution of Intent at a future meeting.
Commissioner Kurasch said that she disagrees with the idea of an automatic setback requirement for a
second story.
Neighborhood Involvement in Development Review
Commissioner Garakani asked for a status report on the draft memo outlining how to implement
neighbor involvement in development review.
Director Sullivan assured Commissioner Garakani that this item is on the work plan and pending.
Study Groups Staff Assignments
0
Saratoga Planning Commissi Qinutes of September 26, 2001
Page 20
Commissioner Roupe asked if the staff assignments are pending for the miscellaneous Planning
Commission Study Groups.
Director Sullivan said that these assignments would be made shortly.
COMMUNICATIONS
City Council Minutes from Regular Meeting of July 18, 2001.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Chair Barry adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday,
October 10, 2001, to begin at 7 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, September 12, 2001
PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Acting Chair Jackman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1,Z9TWMr0T--VW1
Present: Commissioners Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi
Absent: Chair Barry
Staff: Associate Planner John Livingstone and Planner Allison Knapp
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of August 22, 2001.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
regular Planning Commission minutes of August 22, 2001, were approved as
submitted.
AYES:Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barry
ABSTAIN; Kurasch
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of August 8, 2001.
As there again was not a quorum available this evening of those Commissioners that were also in
attendance at the August 8, 2001, meeting, approval of the minutes of that meeting was continued to
the Planning Commission meeting of October 10, 2001.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no oral communications.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Associate Planner John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the
agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 6, 2001.
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET
Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that there were no technical corrections.
Saratoga Planning Commissi. ✓Iinutes of September 12, 2001 Page 2
CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no consent calendar items.
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1
DR -01 -013, V -01 -013 & AS -01 -001 (397 -43 -001 & 003) — JAIN, 18630 Allendale: Request for
Design Review approval to construct a new single -story 6,850 square foot residence and sport court.
The Variance is to construct the sport court within the side yard setback. Maximum height of the
residence would be 26 feet. The 93,175 (net) square foot lot is located in the R -1- 40,000 zoning
district. (KNAPP) (TO BE CONTINUED TO 9126101)
Acting Chair Jackman advised that as this item was not properly noticed, it will be considered at the
next Commission meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO. 2
DR -01 -017 & UP -01 -012 (397 -24 -086) — PETERSCHMIDT, 18870 Hayfield Court: Request for
Design Review approval to construct a new single -story 2,427 square foot residence with a 720 square
foot detached garage for a total of 3,147 square feet. Maximum height of the residence would be 18
feet. The garage would be 15 feet in height. The 60,396 (net) square foot lot (62,746 gross sq. ft.) is
located in the R -1- 20,000 zoning district. (KNAPP)
Ms. Allison Knapp, Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Said that the applicant seeks approval for a 2,427 square foot residence with a 720 square foot
detached garage on a vacant lot.
• Added that a Use Permit for the detached garage is also sought.
• Advised that the garage will be 15 feet high and located within the required rear setback.
• Informed that the rationalization for the detached garage is to retain the historic architectural style
of the Julia Morgan main house on the adjacent property, also owned by the Peterschmidts. The
roof pitch for the garage is proposed for the same reason.
• Pointed out that the property was subdivided in 1998.
• Advised that the Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed this proposal on May 8, 2001, and
were in support, finding it to be compatible.
• Added that the need to construct the detached garage within the required rear yard setback is due to
the triangular shape of the lot. The proposal is for a 28 foot, 8 inch rear property setback where 64
feet is required by Ordinance.
• Said that staff believes that the necessary findings can be made to support the reduced rear yard
setback and is supporting approval of this application.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Pointed out the proposed kiosk depicted on the plans, which has not been discussed.
• Asked what the function is for this kiosk.
Saratoga Planning Commissi., dinutes of September 12, 2001 Page 3
• Added that he would also like fencing to be discussed.
Ms. Allison Knapp advised that the fencing will be pulled back from the corner. The new fencing will
match existing fences. Said that the kiosk is open in nature and has not been included in the square
footage.
Commissioner Roupe declared that this square footage indeed should be counted.
Ms. Allison Knapp advised that she had felt it was up to interpretation but agreed with Commissioner
Roupe that this square footage should have been counted.
Commissioner Roupe asked if the proposed fencing would meet Code requirements regarding height
and placement.
Ms. Allison Knapp replied yes.
Commissioner Kurasch inquired whether these lots could be further subdivided since this specific lot is
currently three times larger than the minimum required 20,000 square feet.
Ms. Allison Knapp responded that subdividing is possible but that findings would have to be made.
Added that it is unlikely that any further subdivision will occur since this lot provides a connection to
the property on which the Julia Morgan house is situated.
Acting Chair Jackman questioned whether once this subdivision map was recorded it was set.
Ms. Allison Knapp responded that should the owners wish to consider further subdividing their
property, they can apply to do so.
Commissioner Kurasch inquired whether the total impervious coverage includes the access through the
cul de sac.
Ms. Allison Knapp replied yes.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if the outside parking area is impervious.
Ms. Allison Knapp advised that everything is impervious.
Acting Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:20 p.m.
Mr. Gary Kohlsaat, Project Architect, 501 N. Santa Cruz Avenue, Los Gatos:
• Thanked the Commission for convening this evening in light of the tragedy in the Nation.
• Advised that the Peterschmidts were aware that this property would not meet their needs when they
purchased it, including the need for a large garage to house Mr. Peterschmidt's car collection.
• Advised that by combining the lot on which the Julia Morgan home is located together with this
parcel allows them to enlarge the property and construct a caretaker's unit as a little sister house to
the main house, taking its design cues from the main structure. To do this they have copied details.
They plan to downplay the caretaker's home so that the main house remains the focus. A driveway
will be located in front of this lot to enhance the visibility of the main house.
Saratoga Planning Commissi _ylinutes of September 12, 2001 Page 4
• Stated that they are carefully working around the trees on the site. They will have to take some out
but they will be replaced.
• Said that they worked with previous Planning staff extensively in preparing this proposal.
• Advised that the caretaker's unit will be constructed in a 1920's style.
• Added that a garage for the main house is currently under construction and that the garage for the
caretaker's unit will resemble the main house garage but on a smaller scale.
• Pointed out that at first they believed that a fencing variance might be required although they are
aware that the new Director is anti - Variance. However, now with the 7 to 10 foot setback, the
fencing would not require a Variance per Director Sullivan.
• Stated that the kiosk is a whimsical thing that could shelter a gatekeeper for larger events at the
main house. It has been designed to fit within the landscaping, appearing as a sort of ruin. In fact,
they had considered installing rustic broken down gates nearby to enhance that effect.
• Agreed that they could add the square footage of the kiosk and still be within the allowable.
Acting Chair Jackman asked where the kiosk is situated on the site.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that it is 30 feet from the roadway.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Stated that she likes detached garages as they decrease the face of the garage door from the front
elevation.
• Questioned why only a two -car garage is proposed when the owner has a car collection to house.
• Added that she would prefer a larger garage with less exterior pavement for parking.
Mr. Gary Kohlsaat advised that the garage on this property is to serve the caretaker's unit, which is a
three- bedroom unit. The garage for the car collection is on the property with the main house. Added
that there is no viable parking on Douglas Drive to serve the caretaker's unit.
Ms. Allison Knapp pointed out that the drive and paving area is required by Fire for emergency access.
Commissioner Kurasch questioned the paving depicted beyond the property line on page C -1 that
appears to blend into Lot 9.
Mr. Gary Kohlsaat advised that this particular paving is to allow golf cart type maintenance vehicles
and gardening type equipment.
Commissioner Roupe asked if all these properties are owned by the Peterschmidts.
Mr. Gary Kohlsaat replied yet.
Acting Chair Jackman advised that the Commission is to limit tonight's discussion to Lot 7.
Mr. Gary Kohlsaat said that they had considered having a separate drive off Douglas to the garage of
this new caretaker's unit but that there was strong opposition from the across - the - street neighbors due
to feng shui concerns.
Commissioner Roupe asked for clarification that the applicant wants approval for the kiosk this
evening.
Saratoga Planning Commissi, Qinutes of September 12, 2001 Page 5
Mr. Gary Kohlsaat replied yes.
Commissioner Roupe opined that the kiosk looks like an oriental teahouse more than like a Julia
Morgan style structure. Asked how Mr. Kohlsaat can rationalize that fact.
Mr. Gary Kohlsaat replied that including such a structure is typical of English Country architecture.
Commissioner Roupe sought clarification that it is typical to introduce a whole new and unrelated
architectural style.
Mr. Gary Kohlsaat replied yes.
Commissioner Kurasch said that the kiosk helps give the appearance of a gated community with a
guardhouse.
Mr. Gary Kohlsaat agreed that this is a valid concern but assured that there is no plan to hire a
gatekeeper. There will be electric callboxes and cameras for property security. The kiosk will be
staffed if there should be a charity event with a few hundred guests.
Commissioner Hunter reminded that the Heritage Preservation Commission found the kiosk to be in
keeping with an English Country Manor and is a rather old - fashioned type idea.
Acting Chair Jackman pointed out that having something with Chinese influence together with an
English Country Home design was considered a way for the English to show their wealth.
Commissioner Hunter declared that the proposed gardens for this property will be phenomenal and
fascinating and will likely become a part of garden tours in years to come.
Commissioner Roupe asked how the fencing at the back of the property would be continued from the
primary property.
Mr. Gary Kohlsaat replied that the existing solid redwood fencing installed by Pinn Brothers to
appease the neighbors would be retained. No fences are proposed between the three lots owned by the
Peterschmidts at this time, either between Lots 7 and 8 or Lots 8 and 9.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out a six -foot fence with gate on Lot 8.
Mr. Gary Kohlsaat said that this would allow some privacy for the caretaker's unit from the main
property.
Commissioner Kurasch stated her surprise at the proposed height of the kiosk, with 12 feet being more
like a garage height.
Mr. Gary Kohlsaat replied that the pitch of the roof is steep.
Commissioner Roupe said that the pitch neither matches the main house roof pitch or the caretaker's
unit roof pitch.
Saratoga Planning Commissi _Minutes of September 12, 2001 Page 6
Commissioner Hunter asked about comments in Barrie Coates' report.
Mr. Gary Kohlsaat said that they have met with Mr. Coates. A stockpile of trees had been stored under
the oaks to provide some shade. Mr. Coates asked that they be moved away and they were. This was
an error that has been mitigated.
Acting Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:50 p.m.
Commissioner Hunter:
• Advised that she has made three visits to the site. Two as a member of the Heritage Preservation
Commission and most recently as a Planning Commissioner.
• Opined that this property will be a showplace in Saratoga.
• Said that she is thrilled that such a beautiful job is being done to restore this Julia Morgan house.
• Added that the Heritage Preservation Commission is in awe.
• Congratulated the applicants on the job they are doing.
Acting Chair Jackman agreed that this is no small undertaking.
Commissioner Zutshi said that she is impressed with the roof and added that she has never seen
anything like it before.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Said that she is in favor of this project but has reservations about the amount of paving area.
• Added that she favors a larger garage and less paved parking area.
• Said that the kiosk is out of scale and quite large of which she is not in favor. The design is rather
distracting and it is important to keep the integrity of the Julia Morgan residence.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Declared that he shares Commissioner Kurasch's concerns that the kiosk is not an integral part of
the architectural style.
• Suggested that an architectural style more compatible with the Julia Morgan architecture be used
for the kiosk.
Commissioner Hunter disagreed saying that the Heritage Preservation Commission found the kiosk to
be just fine.
Commissioner Kurasch said that the scale and size are in question.
Commissioner Zutshi said that she agreed that the kiosk is taller than most guardhouses.
Commissioner Roupe suggested that a Condition be added to limit the height of the kiosk and require
that the roof pitch be compatible with the Julia Morgan style.
Commissioner Kurasch agreed that these requirements will still allow the kiosk to be compatible with
the desired English Country Manor style sought by the applicants.
Commissioner Garakani inquired about bond requirements to ensure the safety of the existing trees on
site.
Saratoga Planning Commissi ,Minutes of September 12, 2001 Page 7
Ms. Allison Knapp assured that such a bond requirement is a standard part of the Resolution. Added
that all the recommendations of the Arborist's report must be met.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the
Commission approved DR -01 -017 and UP -01 -012 to allow the construction of a
new 2,427 square foot residence with a 720 square foot detached garage on
property located at 18870 Hayfield Court, with the added Conditions:
• That the proposed kiosk be limited in height so as not to exceed the pitch of the
Julia Morgan house;
• That the architectural style of the kiosk is to be worked out with staff; and
• That this approval pertains only to Lot 7.
AYES:Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi.
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barry
ABSTAIN: None
Acting Chair Jackman advised the applicants that this decision is final after the 15 -day appeal period
has passed.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.3
DR -01 -033 (397 -18 -071) — HULME, 14900 Baranga Lane: Request for Design Review approval to
construct a new 6,000 square foot two -story residence with a 2,700 square foot basement and demolish
an existing 4,336 square foot residence. Maximum height of the structure will be 26 feet. The 55,757
square foot parcel is located in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. (LIVINGSTONE)
Mr. John Livingstone, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that this application is for a 6,000 square foot two -story residence with a 2,700 square foot
basement and the demolition of an existing 4,300 square foot two -story residence.
• Said that the proposed new home will have a maximum height of 26 feet and the property is a
55,000 square foot property within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district.
• Advised that the existing second story consists of 1,400 square feet while the new second story will
be only 627 square feet. The second story occurs only due to the undergrounding of the garage
below living space. If not for that fact, this home will be considered entirely a single -story
residence.
• Advised that the proposal meets all five policies of the Design Policy including minimum
perception of bulk, articulation, integration with the environment due to existing mature
landscaping and use of natural materials such as natural stone and earthtone colors as well as
maintenance of the privacy of adjacent properties.
• Added that the driveway entrance will be to Three Oaks Way.
• Said that the new home will not be in any view corridors and will not block any existing views.
• Concluded by stating staff's recommendation of approval.
Commissioner Roupe asked for details about fencing type and location and where the front of the
property was oriented.
Saratoga Planning Commissi, dinutes of September 12, 2001 Page 8
Mr. John Livingstone replied that the front is oriented toward Three Oaks. Said that a Condition exists
that states that fencing can be no more than three feet tall in front and that additional corner lot setback
will need to be met. Acknowledged that the existing fencing is not compliant.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the Preliminary Landscape Plan calls out for a four -foot high
front yard fencing. Asked if this is overridden by the Conditions of Approval.
Mr. John Livingstone replied that the Preliminary Landscape Plan would be overridden by the
Conditions of Approval. Said that this project is already in the Building Permit process and that staff
is trying to work with the applicant to expedite this application.
Acting Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:12 p.m.
Mr. Paul Hulme, Applicant and Property Owner:
• Advised that he is a 27 year resident of Saratoga.
• Added that with his two brothers and their extended families, their family owns 14 single - family
residences within the City of Saratoga.
Mr. Fred Luminoso, Applicant's Representative:
• Advised that the new home will face onto Three Oaks Way and that they plan to apply for an
address change to reflect that change.
• Said that this new home will be well setback from the street.
• Said that they will be excavating in order to place the garage under the home.
• Added that new redwood trees would be installed on both sides of the necks of the driveway and
additionally they are prepared to plant four redwood trees on the neighbor's property.
• Said that materials include dark roofing, natural earthtone stucco and faux stone surround.
• Advised that perhaps some berming would be used for the front lawn and some birch trees installed
to help hide the existing phone pole from view from this property.
Mr. Jun Sillano, Project Designer:
• Said that they plan to integrate the existing mature landscaping and property topography for this
new home. The new structure will be sited on the existing pad.
• Said that the neighbors' privacy and views have been preserved.
• Added that undulating walls, hip and gable roofs as well as other design features help break up
mass.
• Advised that they have considered energy efficiency and solar access. Walls, ceilings and floors
will be insulated per State guidelines and energy efficient appliances incorporated.
Mr. Fred Luminoso introduced project builder Mark Thomas.
Mr. Mark Thomas:
• Said that he has been building homes in Saratoga over the past nine years, that he lives in Saratoga
and is familiar with the community.
• Assured that he sets up a safe building environment, including the installation of construction
fencing with gates that are locked by the job site superintendent each evening.
• Promised that the construction parking would be contained on site as would material storage.
Saratoga Planning Commissi. ✓Iinutes of September 12, 2001 Page 9
• Advised that prior to commencing demolition, it is his practice to distribute his business card to
surrounding neighbors so that he can be contacted should any problems arise as a result of his
proj ect.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Thomas what he can and would do to recycle demolished materials.
Mr. Mark Thomas:
• Replied that he always strives to be efficient and that recycling is mandatory.
• Advised that their recycling efforts include separating concrete from steel as well as the recycling
of roofing material and stucco.
• Said that materials leave the site on separate trucks as sorted for various recycling methods. Said
that some materials, such as sheet rock and tile are difficult to recycle.
• Identified his demolition contractor as Randazzo.
• Assured that he likes to recycle as much as possible and does so. Recycling is a good idea
economically as well as more desirable for the environment.
• Said that when cut occurs, it is generally not difficult to find another site requiring fill.
Commissioner Kurasch suggested Whole House Building Supply to Mr. Mark Thomas as a company
who recycles and sells off demolition site materials.
Mr. Mark Thomas thanked Commissioner Kurasch and said that he would add that company to his list
of potential resources.
Commissioner Hunter inquired about a letter submitted by a concerned neighbor.
Mr. Fred Luminoso said that Mr. Bowler's concerns have been satisfied by narrowing the neck of the
driveway and planting additional trees on this site as well as on Mr. Bowler's property for screening
purposes. Additionally, some of the windows facing his home have been eliminated.
Commissioner Hunter asked about concerns raised by a Mr. Ferrari.
Mr. Fred Luminoso replied that there is a 40 -foot point of access drive located 10 feet from the
property line. Mr. Ferrari wants the drive to be moved further west. Said that they do not see a reason
to do so but will if the Commission asks them to do so.
Commissioner Kurasch asked for the width of the driveway to Baranga Lane into the motor court.
Mr. Fred Luminoso replied 24 feet. Said that this drive will allow access to the garage and to drive to
Baranga Lane. Said that the neighbor supports this drive. The drive meets the turning needs and
privacy. It was moved further to the south and narrowed.
Mr. Mark Thomas said that they will be working with the neighbor to shape the driveway in such a
way that everyone is happy.
Acting Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:35 p.m.
Commissioner Roupe:
Saratoga Planning Commissi, Ainutes of September 12, 2001 Page 10
• Said that this is an appropriate project that is actually less intrusive on the neighborhood than the
existing house.
• Commended the plan to recycle as much of the demolished materials as is possible.
• Suggested that with the inclusion of fencing conditions included, this is a great project that he will
support.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Agreed that this is the type of project she likes to see that creates an improvement. This project
offers nice grounding and is beautiful overall. The whole property has been considered and not
just the house.
• Suggested that the applicants might want to consider incorporating a dry streambed into the
landscape plan.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the
Planning Commission granted a Design Review approval to allow the construction
of a new 6,000 square foot two -story residence with a 2,700 square foot basement
and the demolition of an existing 4,336 square foot residence on property located
at 14900 Baranga Lane.
AYES:Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi.
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barry
ABSTAIN: None
Acting Chair Jackman advised that there is a 15 -day appeal period before this action is final.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO. 4
UP -01 -007 — SPRINT, Saratoga -Los Gatos Road and Farwell Avenue: Request for a Conditional
use Permit approval to construct a wireless communication facility consisting of antennas and
equipment cabinets in the Caltrans right -of -way. The site is located in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district.
(LIVINGSTONE) (CONTINUED FROM 8122101)
Acting Chair Jackman advised that this item has been continued to a future meeting.
DIRECTOR ITEMS
There were no Director Items.
COMMISSION ITEMS
There were no Commission Items.
COMMUNICATIONS
There were no Communication Items.
Saratoga Planning Commissi. ✓Iinutes of September 12, 2001
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Page 11
Acting Chair Jackman adjourned the meeting at 8:38 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for
Wednesday, September 26, 2001, to begin at 7 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, August 22, 2001
PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Chair Barry called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Barry, Hunter, Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi
Absent: Commissioners Garakani and Kurasch
Staff: Director Tom Sullivan and Associate Planner John Livingstone
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of August 8, 2001.
As there was not a quorum available this evening of those Commissioners that were also in attendance
at the August 8, 2001, meeting, approval of the minutes of that meeting was continued to the Planning
Commission meeting of September 12, 2001.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no oral communications.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this
meeting was properly posted on August 16, 2001.
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET
Director Sullivan advised that there were two copies of page 8 in the Draft Housing Element.
CONSENT CALENDAR
• RESOLUTION FOR V -01 -007 (386 -18 -003) — NGUYEN, 1821 Kosich Drive: Request for
Variance approval to construct a new 439 square foot garage in the rear yard setback
approximately five feet from the rear property line. The proposed garage will be attached to the
existing single -story house. Maximum height of the structure will be 12 feet 11 inches. The
10,788 square foot parcel is located in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district. Staff has prepared a
resolution with findings approving this variance.
Saratoga Planning Commiss� Minutes of August 22, 2001
Page 2
• Request for Variance approval to construct an addition into the required exterior side yard setback.
The proposed side yard setback addition would intrude 13 feet into the required 25 -foot exterior
side yard setback facing Kosich Drive. The 10,788 square foot parcel is located in the R -1- 10,000
zoning district. (LIVINGSTONE) Staff has prepared a resolution with findings denying this
variance
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the
Consent Calendar was approved.
AYES:Barry, Hunter, Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi.
NOES: None
ABSENT: Garakani and Kurasch
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1
UP -01 -007 — SPRINT, Saratoga -Los Gatos road and Farwell Avenue: Request for a Conditional
Use Permit approval to construct a wireless communications facility consisting of antennas and
equipment cabinets in the Caltrans right -of -way. The site is located in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district.
(LIVINGSTONE)
Mr. John Livingstone, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Said that the applicant is seeking a Use Permit approval to allow the installation of four antennas.
Three of the antennas would become a part of a newly installed light pole and the fourth a small
GPS on the exterior. The new antennas would be inside the top of this pole at 23 feet in height and
will look like an extension of the light pole and be painted to match. An equipment cabinet will be
placed underground.
• Stated that as a part of this installation, the applicant will install a new bus stop with two benches.
The light fixture will serve two functions, providing a place to install the antennas as well as
providing security lighting for the bus stop.
• Added that the applicants will landscape the bus stop area in a manner similar to other bus stops
located along Saratoga -Los Gatos Road. A built up mound area will be planted with materials
including rosemary, California fuscia and other drought tolerant and flowering plants.
• Said that this project will help contribute to the aesthetics of the area and will create a deterrent for
the illegal dumping that current occurs on this site.
• Advised that staff is recommending approval.
Chair Barry asked why previous applications have not incorporated underground placement of the
equipment cabinets.
Mr. John Livingstone answered that the applicant is proposing such an installation because of
aesthetics and the fact that it looks better.
Chair Barry stated that the Commission was not aware that it was possible and again asked why such a
proposal has not been brought forward in the past.
Saratoga Planning Commiss, Minutes of August 22, 2001 Page 3
Director Tom Sullivan advised that the current new staff couldn't answer that question.
Commissioner Hunter questioned whether the proposed landscaping mound might be too small.
Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the landscaping mound would actually be 60 feet wide.
Commissioner Jackman asked if there would be a pedestrian walkway.
Associate Planner Livingstone replied that the existing path would be retained.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Stated that this proposal would establish a precedent.
• Added that while he is strongly in favor of beautifying the area, this proposal will be the first to
include benches and lighting at a bus stop.
• Continued to state that street lighting may not necessarily be a positive thing and may actually be
counter to what the City has done in the past.
• Cautioned that the Commission must consider long -term ramifications.
• Said that the Commission has traditionally encouraged placement of antennas on existing facilities
such as power poles.
• Inquired why this applicant is not following the previous practice requiring innocuous installation
of these antennas.
Chair Barry expressed her agreement with Commission Roupe's comments.
Director Sullivan suggested that the proposed findings could be amended to narrow the action, stating
that the installation is approved in this manner only because the area is in need of beautification and
not to establish a precedent City wide.
Commissioner Jackman asked whether there are buses at night on this route.
Director Sullivan replied that he was not certain of the specific bus schedule.
Commissioner Jackman said that if the bus runs at night, she would support having a light there.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that there are 15 other bus stops along this road, none of which is
lighted. Added that he would hate to make lighting of bus stops a determining factor.
Associate Planner Livingstone suggested that the light itself could be removed.
Commissioner Hunter said that the light could serve as a safety feature.
Mr. Ivan T. Young, Sprint Representative:
• Clarified that the proposal to underground the equipment cabinet is for the aesthetics since this site
is on a scenic corridor.
Responded that he cannot say why other providers do not incorporate underground equipment
cabinets but said that such installations are more expensive.
Said that they would be landscaping an area 22 by 60 feet.
Saratoga Planning Commiss. Minutes of August 22, 2001 Page 4
• Agreed that there are no lights at the other bus stops but that having one would serve a functional
benefit in providing safety at night.
Commissioner Roupe asked for verification that there is no radiation impact with a traditional
installation.
Mr. Ivan T. Young replied that Commissioner Roupe is correct. Added that the main objective of this
installation is to provide reliable coverage along this route.
Commissioner Roupe expressed doubt that coverage would be adversely impacted if the antenna were
placed about 30 feet or higher.
Mr. Mark Neuman, Sprint's Consulting Engineer, stated that there are functional benefits to lower the
antenna placement and locating them closer to the road.
Mr. Rakesh Sethi, 14930 Farville Avenue, Saratoga:
• Pointed out that he just learned of this proposed antenna installation near his home two weeks ago.
• Declared his concern over the safety of his family, including two children, as they live within 50 to
75 feet of this project site. Specifically he is concerned with cancer risks from both farfield and
nearfield effects.
• Identified himself as an engineer and said that he has begun researching the hazards.
• Advised that there is data in the scientific community that evaluates the impacts of powerful
antennas.
• Added that the need for placement of the equipment underground is simply because the equipment
generates 96 decibels of sound.
• Asked what happens if there is equipment failure or about the potentials of property value impacts
since this structure will be an eyesore.
• Added his concerns over the impacts on groundwater.
• Questioned the placement of the antennas at 23 feet instead of 100.
• Asked for the time to build a case against this proposal and declared that he needs access to
documents.
• Said that he himself sells high technology.
• Opined that the only reason so few of his neighbors are present is because they probably just threw
the meeting notification letter into the trash.
Chair Barry:
• Stated that she is serving her second year on the Commission and that on a number of occasions
Commissioners have been concerned about the unknowns over antennas.
• Advised that per the counsel of the City Attorney the City has no jurisdiction to prevent the
installation of antennas solely on concerns for potential health hazards. Such concerns cannot be a
basis for denial.
• Suggested that Mr. Sethi provide his research information to the City Attorney.
• Pointed out that data will be taken from this site each month after installation.
• Opined that this is the wrong location and the antennas are too close.
Saratoga Planning Commissi ylinutes of August 22, 2001 Page 5
Commissioner Roupe reiterated that Federal law precludes the Commission from denying an antenna
application based solely on health concerns as long as the application meets the standards set for
electromagnetic safety.
Mr. Sethi countered that the lowered height is an aesthetic issue.
Commissioner Jackman told Mr. Sethi that she would be interested in reviewing the studies he finds.
Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Sethi what his recommendation might be for an alternate placement.
Mr. Sethi replied that he had ideas. Pointed out that the danger zone is a 8.5 radius. Added that there
is 50 feet more space available further from residences.
Commissioner Roupe restated that the antenna placements have typically been made on power poles
and are not intrusive.
Mr. Sethi concurred that above 50 to 60 foot level is better but that the proposed 23 -foot height is not
safe.
Commissioner Roupe countered by saying that the existing power poles are not that high but that this
height generally suffices.
Chair Barry asked the applicant why the 23 foot height was chosen.
Mr. Ivan T. Young replied that the placement was made to provide optimal coverage in the Farwell,
Fruitvale and Glen Una area. Added that they looked carefully for a good location that offers some
setback from the nearest home.
Chair Barry again asked for explanation for the 23 foot height.
Mr. Ivan T. Young replied that the height was selected to best cover Saratoga -Los Gatos Road and
besides they thought that a higher placement would be found to be less aesthetically pleasing.
Disagreed with Mr. Sethi's comment that the sound level of the equipment will be 98 decibels.
Pointed out that per the report, the sound will be 61 decibels and the equipment is being placed 12 feet
below grade within a concrete enclosure so that no sound will be heard.
Commissioner Zutshi asked if this is an ideal location or would another location further from
residences work just as well.
Mr. Ivan T. Young replied that this location is the furthest from any residences.
Commissioner Roupe again stated that the City typically opposes lighting on streets except for major
intersection areas. This proposal is a precedent setting in installing this streetlight. Pointed out that the
City guidelines support retention of a rural atmosphere.
Director Sullivan reminded that this streetlight would be situated on a State highway where passengers
are getting on and off buses on Highway 9.
Saratoga Planning Commissi _Minutes of August 22, 2001 Page 6
Commissioner Roupe pointed out that this is not an excessively used bus stop.
Chair Barry pointed out that the General Plan calls out for rural areas without sidewalks and
streetlights. Said that there are contradictory reasons why lights are not wanted.
Director Sullivan said that without a light, this installation would simply become a monopole.
Chair Barry suggested that the applicant be asked to come back with an installation that does not
include a light feature.
Commissioner Roupe suggested that the applicants find a way to place their antennas on an existing
utility pole instead as there are lots of them in the area.
Director Sullivan suggested a continuance to September 12`h with the request that the applicant look at
existing poles in the area for an alternative installation to that proposed.
Commissioner Roupe agreed that this is his general inclination although he hates to lose the
beautification of the proposed added landscaping. However, he said it was not necessary to solve both
issues at one time. The need for the beautification of this area can be brought to the City in another
forum.
Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that local residents beautifully landscaped another local area.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the
Commission continued consideration of UP -01 -007 for a Use Permit to construct a
wireless communication facility consisting of antennas and equipment cabinets in
the Caltrans right -of -way on Saratoga -Los Gatos Road near Farwell Avenue to its
meeting on September 12, 2001, with the instructions that the applicant:
1. Look at alternate sites using an existing structure for the placement of its
antennas,
2. Explain alternatives to the lowered height and /or
3. Offer creative solutions to a pole without a light.
AYES:Barry, Hunter, Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi.
NOES: None
ABSENT: Garakani and Kurasch
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner Hunter expressed her appreciation for the leadership of the more experienced
Commissioners in leading this complicated discussion.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO. 2
V -01 -010 (517 -20 -034) — TIMMONS, 20200 Mendolsohn Lane: Request for a Variance approval to
construct an approximate eight foot tall sound wall in the front yard setback across the front of the
property, where three feet in height is normally required. The site is located in the R -1- 20,000 zoning
district. (LIVINGSTONE)
Saratoga Planning Commiss, Minutes of August 22, 2001 Page 7
Mr. John Livingstone, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicant is seeking a variance to allow a 6 to 8 -foot high fence within the
required 30 -foot front yard setback area.
• Said that the Commissioners are required to make three findings in order to approve this variance.
• Pointed out that staff could not make these findings. There are no special circumstances since the
applicant has the option to locate a fence elsewhere on this property without need of a variance.
Added that should this variance be approved, it would be difficult not to approve the same variance
for the neighbors. Approval would set a precedent. Staff finds that approval would be the granting
of a special privilege.
• Advised that staff is recommending denial.
Mr. John Lien, Applicant:
• Said that he has processed several variance applications and believes that the three required
findings can be made in this case.
• Pointed out that he searched for a similar road configuration situation and didn't find one and that
this property faces onto a highway, which has negative impacts so that sound walls are warranted.
• Said that the sound wall they propose is unobtrusive and that existing four -foot high landscaping
will obscure most of it with only about two feet being visible behind the landscaping. The wall
will go from eight feet to six feet in height and all existing landscaping will be retained.
• Advised that there is already a seven -foot high sound wall directly across Highway 9 from this
property.
• Said that the issue of street geometry exists that is specific to this property and occurs nowhere else
in the City of Saratoga.
• Said that this wall will actually improve the safety of the area and that an off - street area will be
provided so that cars are off the street when in the drive before the gate.
Commissioner Roupe sought assurance that proper pier and beam foundations will be used to protect
mature trees that might be impacted by the construction of this wall.
Mr. John Lien said that such protection would occur.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:05 p.m.
Ms. Azar Lohrasbpour, 20160 Mendelsohn, Saratoga:
• Identified herself as a neighbor two doors down.
• Said that she sympathizes with the neighbor and that the other properties on this street are smaller
and closer to Highway 9.
• Expressed concern with drainage and the fact that this wall will separate the owners from this
problem and therefore reduce their willingness to address it.
• Added that such a wall will change the look of this neighborhood, where a number of owners have
lately been spending $100,000's to improve their homes.
• Said that this home is further from Highway 9 than is the home across Highway 9.
• Expressed opposition for this variance and requested denial, suggesting that the applicants install
more landscaping to buffer against noise.
Saratoga Planning Commissi Minutes of August 22, 2001 Page 8
Mr. John Lien said that the basis of the variance is orientation toward Highway 9 and reminded that
2/3 of the wall would be hidden by existing landscaping. Pointed out that the ditch and drainage
problem is a City problem not this property owners.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:13 p.m.
Commissioner Zutshi expressed concern that allowing this variance will require a similar variance to
be granted to everyone on this street.
Commissioner Roupe said that he agreed with Mr. Lien that a special circumstance in geometry exists
and therefore this approval would not represent a precedent. Pointed out that the property has frontage
onto a major thoroughfare that qualifies as a special circumstance.
Commissioner Hunter said that she visited the site yesterday and found that no special circumstance
exists. Pointed out that the house on Montalvo with an eight -foot wall is right on the road while this
home is on a hill with a large front area. Said that she supports staff recommendation for denial.
Commissioner Roupe disagreed and said that about one -third of the frontage is along Saratoga -Los
Gatos Road so the required finding can be made. Reminded that only about 1/3 of the wall will be
visible from the street due to existing mature landscaping.
Chair Barry asked what the impact is if there are other options available to the applicant.
Director Sullivan replied that this is the crux of the matter. There are other options available.
Chair Barry said that it seems that there are real and good alternatives and that staff has identified the
issues pretty strongly.
Commissioner Roupe asked what staff means by alternatives.
Director Sullivan said that consideration must be made if there is some other option available that
would not require issuance of a variance. The stated need from the applicant is to buffer noise from
Highway 9. Other solutions are possible including the placement of the wall further into the property
beyond the required setback.
Commissioner Roupe said that this would result in an obstruction in the middle of the lawn and loss of
enjoyment of a larger portion of the property.
Commissioner Jackman cautioned that there is potential for quite a few more such variance
applications in the future in nearby areas such as Pepper Lane. Expressed her concern about hiding
houses behind eight -foot sound walls.
Chair Barry said that it appears that there are varied opinions amongst the Commission and asked for a
motion.
Saratoga Planning Commissi dinutes of August 22, 2001 Page 9
Motion: Commissioner Roupe motioned for approval of a Variance to allow the installation
of a six to eight -foot high sound wall on property located at 20200 Mendelsohn
Lane.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the
Planning Commission denied a Variance request (V -01 -010) to allow construction
of an approximately eight -foot tall sound wall in the front yard setback on
property located at 20200 Mendelsohn Lane.
AYES:Barry, Hunter, Jackman and Zutshi
NOES: Roupe
ABSENT: Garakani and Kurasch
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Barry advised that there is a 15 -day appeal period before this action is final.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO. 3
GPA -01 -001 (CITYWIDE) — GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT: The 2000 Housing
Element update is a comprehensive statement by the City of Saratoga of its current and future housing
needs and proposed actions to facilitate the provision of housing to meet those needs at all income
levels. The purpose of the Housing Element is to identify current and projected housing needs and set
forth goals, policies and programs that address those needs. The Housing Element has been prepared
to meet the requirements of State law and local housing objectives. (SULLIVAN)
Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows:
• Directed the Commissioners attention to the memo provided by Commissioner Kurasch, which
highlights her suggestions. Commissioner Kurasch specifically addresses two programs. For
Program 1.2, regarding Mixed Uses, she suggests that particular zones or locations be identified.
For Program 2.1, regarding Density Bonuses, a State mandated program, she suggests that
Inclusionary Housing be incorporated whereby a certain percentage of BMR units are required.
• Added that other cities within the West Valley Area do have such Inclusionary Zoning. Typically
used is an In -Lieu Fee.
• Said that it is the real desire of the Council not to point at a particular property for low- income
housing but rather to spread such housing stock through all parts of the community.
• Added that development standards will have to be created.
• Said that one possibility is the creation of mixed -use projects with a ratio between commercial and
residential that keeps a commercial look.
• Advised that it is proposed that Quasi /Public Facilities zoning also be available for mixed -use
projects and it is suggested that an additional table similar to Table A be developed for the Housing
Element as well as an additional map that shows potential housing areas.
Mr. Jeff Goldman, Consultant, Parsons:
• Said that upon review, they have found that there is a decreasing level of affordability since the last
Housing Element was prepared. Included in that group that cannot afford housing are seniors. The
Saratoga Planning Commiss. _4inutes of August 22, 2001 Page 10
goals in the current Housing Element were examined and found to be still valid although the
magnitude of the problems has increased.
• The five areas of concentration include sharing in the region's future housing needs (ABAG);
construction of affordable housing; assisting low income households with housing availability;
preservation of existing affordable housing; and promoting Fair Housing opportunities.
• Pointed out that key programs to achieve those goals include:
• Creating a Mixed -Use Overlay zone as a key strategy;
• Adopting several changes to the Zoning Ordinance to permit more second units;
• Implementing a Density Bonus program;
• Working with the Saratoga Retirement Community (formerly Oddfellows);
• Implementing stronger First Time Homebuyers Program;
• Continuing the Rehab Assistance Program; and
• Amending the Zoning Code to designate for emergency shelter and transitional housing (also a
State requirement) to identify where such services are permitted. Staff is recommending that
the Mixed -Use Overlay Zones be so identified.
Chair Barry said that increased property assessments for second units may be a roadblock to
constructing those units.
Director Sullivan said that this issue has been raised at a recent West Valley Mayors and Managers
Meeting. It was suggested that perhaps this is something the State can help with. Additionally, it was
suggested that cities contact the County Assessor to discuss this detail.
Commissioner Roupe advised that he had a number of typographical and editorial corrections and
comments but nothing substantive.
Chair Barry:
• Said that the preservation of existing housing is an important goal.
• Pointed out that there have been a large number of requests to demolish adequate to lovely homes
to allow for the construction of newer and larger ones.
• Asked if there is a precedent to set conditions for such action such as requiring the owner to live
for some period of time within a house before permitting its demolition.
• Added that this could help to preserve some of the moderate housing stock.
Director Sullivan said that a number of cities have sound Housing Preservation Programs. While the
City cannot prohibit demolition, it can establish findings necessary to allow demolition.
Commissioner Zutshi asked for criteria for the First Time Homebuyers Assistance Programs.
Mr. Jeff Goldman:
• Said that the criteria are income.
• Identified the Income Level categories:
• Low to Very Low Income equals no more than 80 percent of the Median County income.
• Moderate Income allows up to 120 percent of Median County income.
• Mid - Income allows up to 150 percent of the Median County income.
• Added that there are limits on the prices and types of homes based on the median housing price in
the County.
Saratoga Planning Commissi _ylinutes of August 22, 2001 Page 11
• Suggested that ways of providing such assistance includes:
• Silent Second Loans that help bolster the down payment. No repayment is required until the
home is sold.
• Below Market Rate interest rates.
Commissioner Zutshi asked if there is a limit to the percentage of house cost.
Mr. Jeff Goldman cautioned that details on such criteria are not included in the Housing Element and
that the City would probably work within existing programs.
Director Sullivan agreed that the City's best means of providing such assistance is to help support
existing programs.
Commissioner Zutshi asked how one qualifies for Rehab funds.
Mr. Jeff Goldman replied that the criteria is much the same as for the First Time Homebuyers Program
he previously outlined. The applicants are typically of low income. The types of repairs eligible are
for health and safety rather than aesthetic remodeling. There is a cap on the amount available per unit.
Commissioner Zutshi asked how residents learn about the availability of Rehab funds.
Director Sullivan replied through advertising. Cautioned that there is more demand than money
available. Gave the example that current Block Grant Funds are being used to hook homes up to
sewer.
Mr. Jeff Goldman informed that there is no one specific area or concentration within Saratoga
requiring rehab. The need is interspersed within the community.
Commissioner Jackman expressed concern about the high cost of assisting with moderate - income
housing. Questioned how such assistance can be handled.
Director Sullivan pointed out that this is why the Mixed -Use Zoning is proposed so that smaller lot
projects can be developed providing more housing units. Said that the Housing Element is as broad
and all encompassing as possible.
Mr. Jeff Goldman said that with a Mixed -Use designation, it would be possible to find a for - profit or
non - profit developer to construct these projects.
Director Sullivan said that neighboring communities have some mixed -use projects that could become
a model.
Chair Barry asked Director Sullivan if it would be possible to obtain sketches of the Cupertino mixed -
use project.
Mr. Jeff Goldman said that there are a number of good examples of mixed -use developments and it
would not be difficult to obtain information.
Director Sullivan pointed out that the City of Campbell has some mixed -use projects too.
Saratoga Planning Commissi _Minutes of August 22, 2001 Page 12
Chair Barry said that there is lots of interest within the community and it would be helpful to see what
such projects can look like.
Mr. Jeff Goldman suggested that the Commissioners look at a web site (bridgehousing.com) to see
some positive examples of mixed -use projects.
Commissioner Jackman said that a good sales job would have to be done to obtain support for
affordable housing. Residents will have to be convinced that such housing stock will not turn their
neighborhood into a slum. Pointed out that she could not afford to buy her own house in today's
market.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3.
Ms. Muriel Marr:
• Said that she herself obtained some CDBG money a number of years ago.
• Advised that she has resided in Saratoga since 1955, living in her third Saratoga home today.
• Asked if existing second units will be counted as new housing although they are already occupied
• Added that this housing is not new stock.
• Suggested that only new second units be counted toward the State goal.
• Questioned the definition of remodel versus new construction. It appears that oftentimes only a
small wall is retained and that project is still considered a remodel versus a new home.
• Supported the retention and preservation of existing housing.
• Encouraged the placement of housing above and behind retail.
Director Sullivan:
• Informed that there will be amnesty for existing second units. Of the 539 units assigned by ABAG,
20 units will come from amnesty for existing second units that will be legalized.
• Said that a streamlined permit process, perhaps using an Administrative Hearing will govern new
secondary living units.
Mr. Jeff Goldman clarified that of the existing second units, the only ones that can be counted against
the 539 ABAG allotment are those that were illegal that were legalized.
Ms. Muriel Marr cautioned that some of these units are awfully substandard.
Director Sullivan clarified that the standard for a remodel versus new construction is that if over 50
percent of the home is demolished, the project is considered to be new construction.
Ms. Marge Bunyard:
• Declared that the League of Women Voters has urged mixed -use housing for years.
• Suggested that the Planning Commission should try to educate the public about low- income
housing.
• Expressed appreciation for the hard work done by the Planning Commission.
Mr. John Marjory, 12258 Kirkwood Drive, Saratoga:
• Advised that he has resided in Saratoga since 1967.
Saratoga Planning Commissi _✓Iinutes of August 22, 2001 Page 13
• Said that while he likes some of the ideas, he is opposed to the Housing Element.
• Said that the Housing Element is a series of requirements rather than guidelines. The goals are
unreasonable and unrealistic.
• Said that the real issue is density and not low -cost housing.
• Cautioned that jobs and overpopulation are creating problems and must be controlled as they add to
congestion and pollution.
• Said that many areas of concentration in the Housing Element do not apply including use of
Housing Fairs and the issue of the homeless.
• Questioned what represents "fair share."
Director Sullivan replied that fair share is determined by two State agencies, the Department of
Finance and the Department of Housing and Community Development. These agencies project
growth. ABAG has the State mandate to take the regions and divide the future housing needs into
regional shares or allotments. The income groups include very low, low, moderate and above
moderate.
Commissioner Jackman advised that the methodology is outlined in page 53.
Mr. Jeff Goldman pointed out that State Law considers a number of criteria including market demand,
employment trends, etc. There is a mathematical formula that is intended over time to adjust the
differences between income groups in each community so that they are more even dispersed.
Chair Barry advised Mr. Marjory that he is, not the only one who is unhappy with the ABAG allotment.
Added that the City fought the assigned number but lost that fight with the State.
Mr. John Marjory:
• Suggested that social engineering is the least democratic thing he has heard, calling it "screwy."
• Expressed concern that additional housing will create a need for City services.
Director Sullivan advised that Commission that he and Mr. Marjory had met on two occasions to
discuss the Housing Element Update.
Ms. Marge Bunyard said that she did not find the density to be so high.
Director Sullivan pointed out that the units constructed since January 1, 1999, are being counted
against this 539 allotment. Therefore, 177 units have already been built. There are 10 permits for
artist housing and one caretaker's unit at Villa Montalvo.
Chair Barry expressed strong support for senior housing, most of it low -cost.
Ms. Marge Ottenberg:
• Advised that in 1961, her family constructed her 1,750 square foot house at a cost of $28,000.
Today that same house could sell for $2 million.
• Added that today she is living on Social Security.
• Questioned whether her home is counted as low- income or moderate.
Saratoga Planning Commissi dlinutes of August 22, 2001 Page 14
Director Sullivan clarified that Ms. Ottenberg's home is considered existing housing. The focus is on
new housing stock not existing.
Commissioner Roupe asked if an existing home that is demolished and rebuilt is counted as new.
Director Sullivan replied yes. Added that there is a formula that takes into consideration the
replacement of existing stock as well as vacancies.
Commissioner Roupe expressed concern that four of five applications do not result in net housing
additions but rather are teardowns and rebuilds.
Director Sullivan said that there might be exceptions available.
Commissioner Roupe asked if a house remodeling less than 50 percent is counted as new housing
stock.
Director Sullivan replied no.
Commissioner Roupe asked if just one stub was left and the house rebuilt would this house count.
Director Sullivan replied yes. Added that the City has no problem meeting the above - moderate income
units.
Mr. Jeff Goldman said that the distinction is how the City can accommodate ABAG's allotment. That
means availability of sites. It is not the City's responsibility to guarantee these units get built but just
that the possibility exists that the units can be accommodated through zoning.
Director Sullivan added that the City prepares an annual report to the State outlining how each
Housing Element goal is being implemented.
Ms. Sharon Kelkenberg:
• Supported the ABAG allotment.
• Added that the provision of affordable housing within a community enhances the quality of
everyone's life.
• Said that creative planning will be needed and that mixed use is the way to achieve this goal.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 9:30 p.m.
Commissioner Roupe reminded that he has redlined typographical and format errors on his draft. Said
that he would have no problem providing this information to staff following the meeting. Asked for
more information about Inclusionary Housing, specifically page five, item 29, last paragraph, whereas
projects with more than five units are required to provide affordable housing units.
Director Sullivan pointed out that this is a density bonus program. If the developer wants 25 percent
density, they must provide some percentage of low cost housing.
Mr. Jeff Goldman suggested that this section have some clarifying language added that defines the
density bonus provisions.
Saratoga Planning Commissi. ✓Iinutes of August 22, 2001 Page 15
Commissioner Jackman:
• Said that she will accept the Housing Element as it is although it bothers her to have ABAG telling
the City what to do and finds the goals not to be realistic.
• Said that the artists' units do not represent real housing and that these units will not improve the
low - income housing stock.
Director Sullivan pointed out that the artists' units and caretaker's unit are indeed counted as low -
income units.
Chair Barry reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3.
Ms. Muriel Marr suggested that a percentage of new construction costs be charged and allocated to an
affordable housing fund.
Chair Barry reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3.
Director Sullivan said that this provision is part of the Inclusionary Housing Program in that in -lieu
fees can be charged.
Mr. Jeff Goldman added that the Inclusionary Housing Program specifies that a percentage of units
must be affordable to very low or low - income. An in -lieu fee can be paid instead as an escape clause
to support such housing elsewhere. The actual provisions will depend upon the specific Ordinance
adopted.
Chair Barry asked how such in -lieu fees would be used.
Director Sullivan said that the Inclusionary Housing Program will simply be a statement in the
Housing Element. The City will have until July 1, 2001, to develop a specific Ordinance. This
Ordinance will be developed between January and July using public hearing process prior to the July
deadline.
Chair Barry asked why the Inclusionary Housing Program is not in the document.
Commissioner Roupe asked staff if there is any reason the City might not want to include it.
Mr. Jeff Goldman said that it is not specifically included because no direction, nor specific need, was
provided to do so. It was not thought to be a direct necessity to meet the established goals.
Commissioner Roupe asked if it is put into the Housing Element, would the City be obligated to pass
an Ordinance.
Director Sullivan replied no. Said that in the Annual Report to the State, the City would simply
provide a reason why it was not accomplished.
Mr. Jeff Goldman said that he would further study an Inclusionary Housing Program.
Saratoga Planning Commissi ✓Iinutes of August 22, 2001 Page 16
Commissioner Hunter said that she could not support an Inclusionary Housing Program. Suggested
that this is a big step and the City should move more slowly on this issue.
Chair Barry said that Commissioner Hunter has made a reasonable point. Added that there will be
concern in the community.
Commissioner Hunter stated that the Housing Element seems to be thorough and spelled out and the
City should proceed with it as it is.
Director Sullivan clarified that the additions of a map and Quasi - Public Facility zoning for mixed -use
projects had already been agreed upon earlier in the hearing.
Chair Barry asked if the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance will be sound if not included in the Housing
Element.
Director Sullivan said that it would not have to be in the Housing Element at the present time but
should be added in the future.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the
Planning Commission recommended Council approval of GPA -01 -001 to support
the General Plan Housing Element Update with the addition of mixed -use projects
within Quasi Public zoning districts and a supporting map depicting such zoning
areas in the City of Saratoga.
AYES:Barry, Hunter, Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Garakani and Kurasch
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Barry thanked staff, the consultant and the audience and advised that this item will be considered
by Council.
DIRECTOR ITEMS
Director Sullivan:
• Advised that the City has ordered new microphones for the Commissioners.
• Informed that SB910 is now a two -year bill.
• Said that he will be absent for the next meeting on September 12th and that John Livingstone and
Allison Knapp will be assisting the Commission.
Chair Barry advised that she too will miss the meeting on September 12th as her son is getting married.
She asked Commissioner Jackman to chair that meeting in her place.
COMMISSION ITEMS
Commissioner Roupe asked staff to conduct some investigation on setbacks for second story additions.
Asked that staff return with a recommendation on what is appropriate and objective and whether an
Ordinance amendment or policy might be required.
J .-
Saratoga Planning Commissi, Qinutes of August 22, 2001 Page 17
Chair Barry advised that Committee assignments will be made as soon as all Planning staff hiring is
done.
Director Sullivan advised the Commission that with tonight's action on the Housing Element, the
Commission has made a big step toward easing the Department's workload.
COMMUNICATIONS
There were no communication items.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Chair Barry adjourned the meeting at 10:02 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday,
September 12, 2001, to begin at 7 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, August 8, 2001
PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Chair Barry called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Jackman and Zutshi
Absent: Hunter, Kurasch and Roupe
Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner John Livingstone and Planner Allison Knapp
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of July 25, 2001.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the
Regular Planning Commission minutes of July 25, 2001, were approved as
presented.
AYES:Barry, Garakani and Zutshi.
NOES: None
ABSENT: Hunter, Kurasch and Roupe
ABSTAIN: Jackman
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no oral communications.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this
meeting was properly posted on August 2, 2001.
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET
Director Sullivan proposed that the Commission change the order of the agenda and consider Item No.
5 first as it is being continued to a date uncertain. Agenda Item No. 1 has been continued to the
September 12, 2001, meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no consent calendar items.
Saratoga Planning Commissi _dinutes of August 8, 2001
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 5
Page 2
DR -01 -016 & BSE -01 -022 (517 -14 -027) — NIJOR, 15330 Kittridge Road: Request for Design
Review approval to construct a 2,301 square foot second -story addition to an existing 2,308 square
foot single -story residence. The proposed addition includes 60 square feet on the first floor and a new
2,241 square foot second story. The maximum height of the residence would be 25.5 feet. The site is
466.086 square feet and is located in the HR (Hillside Residential) zoning district. (SULLIVAN)
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing No. 5 at 7:04 p.m.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the
Commission continued consideration of DR -01 -016 and BSE -01 -022 to allow a
second story addition to an existing home at 15330 Kittridge Road to a date
uncertain.
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Jackman and Zutshi.
NOES: None
ABSENT: Hunter, Kurasch and Roupe
ABSTAIN: None
Director Sullivan advised that this item would be renoticed for public hearing once the project is ready
for Commission review and approval.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO. 2
DR -01 -007 & BSE -01 -011 (397 -17 -034) — CHEN, 19752 Versailles Way: Request for Design
Review approval to construct a new 5,917 square foot single -story home and demolish an existing
3,822 square foot home. The proposed height is 26 feet. The lot is 40,000 square feet in area and is
located within the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. (KNAPP)
Ms. Allison Knapp, Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that this application is for a Design Review approval to allow the construction of a 5,917
square foot, single -story residence with basement and the demolition of an existing 3,822 square
foot residence.
• Said that the neighborhood consists of a mixture of older ranch -style homes as well as newer
designer -style homes with approximately 50 percent of each type.
• Added that this proposal is for more of a designer style architecture.
• Pointed out that the project has articulation and nice fenestration.
• Said that a letter of concern was received about the proposed height of the project.
• Added that the architect has prepared a packet of information.
• Recommended approval of this project.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:10 p.m.
Mr. Greg Kawahara, Project Architect, 5466 Molly Circle, Livermore:
• Stated that the proposed architecture is of a Mediterranean style, somewhat Italianate.
Saratoga Planning Commiss: Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 3
• Added that the project will include cast stone moldings and that the massing and elevation steps
down.
• Explained that the tallest portion of the home is a 10 -foot length at 26 feet in height.
• Pointed out that there is one chimney for the single woodbuming fireplace. Two additional gas
fireplaces will also be included in the home but will not incorporate any chimneys.
• Acknowledged the comments from the neighbor regarding view concerns.
• Said that the proposed structure will be further setback from the street, which will decrease the
perceived bulk of the home.
• Advised that the 26 -foot height will exist in just one point and that this highest ridge is just 6 feet, 9
inches higher than the existing ridge on the current home.
• Added that the existing mature vegetation in the area will help obscure any impacts and that views
will not be impacted.
Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Kawahara whether story poles have been requested.
Mr. Greg Kawahara replied no and restated the fact that only a 10 -foot ridge will run at 26 feet in
height, running from front to back in order to have minimal impact.
Chair Barry asked if there is any functional use of the 26 foot height.
Mr. Greg Kawahara replied no.
Chair Barry asked why that height should not be reduced.
Mr. Greg Kawahara said that the design concept is for an elegant architectural porch entry feature that
is more unique and traditional. Added that there is a low pitch to the roof and that the massing steps
down so that the project feels vertical being horizontally stretched out.
Chair Barry asked Mr. Kawahara if he would honor a Commission request to lower the height if doing
so is possible.
Mr. Greg Kawahara said that he prefers to have the design approved as presented.
Mr. Paul Doble, Project Builder, 3083 East River Hills Drive, Saratoga:
• Cautioned that lowering the ridge risks impacting building drainage and use of materials.
• Reminded that while this is a small section, it is an important element in order to tie in the roof
design.
• Suggested the possibility of moving the house back another five feet.
Chair Barry mentioned that this Architect and Builder will be working on another similar home on this
street and asked what similarities and differences are proposed.
Mr. Greg Kawahara advised that the second home will utilize wood corbels. Both homes will have
stucco siding and tile roofs. The next home will not include as wide a front porch.
Commissioner Jackman asked Mr. Kawahara if the next home would utilize the same arch features as
does this one.
Saratoga Planning Commissi _✓Iinutes of August 8, 2001 Page 4
Mr. Greg Kawahara replied no, adding that there will be just a single arch and that gable roof elements
will be included on the next project. Asked the Commission members if they were comfortable with
the proposed materials.
Chair Barry replied no. She stated that the Commission looks to see as much as wood and stone as
possible as opposed to use of stucco. Added that they do not want to see two homes directly across the
street from one another that are basically the same.
Commissioner Zutshi asked whether the elimination of arches on the sides could result in a lower roof
height.
Mr. Kawahara replied yes but that the appeal is the provision of the wider porch element.
Commissioner Jackman stated that she likes the way the home steps back and asked how far it steps
back.
Mr. Greg Kawahara replied that there is a significant step back of between 13 and 14 feet.
Chair Barry asked if Mr. Greg Kawahara has any further comments about proposed materials for this
house and the next one he will propose on the same street.
Director Sullivan advised the Commission that he has invited the architect to bring material samples
for the next house into the Planning Department Offices tomorrow.
Mr. Greg Kawahara said that they would welcome as much input on the next project as possible from
staff and the Commission.
Mr. Hari Pillai, Neighboring Property Owner:
• Advised that he is the neighbor to the right corner.
• Declared that past wrongs do not justify new wrongs.
• Said that he had a number of issues, including the fact that this home is out of tune with the
neighborhood of mostly ranch style homes over stucco palaces.
• Said that the roof height is an issue and that the 26 -foot height achieves nothing but is purely
cosmetic.
• Pointed out that the proposed materials are out of line with the neighborhood.
• Opined that this is a loud, cookie - cutter design that represents a "house on steroids" and that this
home is a Trojan horse that sets a bad precedent for the neighborhood.
• Stated his opposition to the outdoor shower.
• Said that there has been zero consultations with the neighbors.
• Asked the Commission to instruct staff not to accept similar designs in the future and to encourage
more community involvement.
• Added that they don't want to see their neighborhood become another Cupertino or Las Vegas but
rather would like to retain the rural atmosphere and preserve the taste of the neighborhood.
• Expressed strong opposition to the design.
Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Pillai whether additional trees might obscure this home from view
from his rear yard.
Saratoga Planning Commissi _✓linutes of August 8, 2001 Page 5
Mr. Hari Pillai replied that trees would not screen this home from view from their home's rear yard.
The existing screening trees will obscure from the front of the house and not from the back.
Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Pillai if extra screening at the rear would help him accept this
project.
Mr. Hari Pillai pointed out that it would take a long time for this new screening material to mature.
Reiterated his belief that the home can be lowered without adversely impacting the owners' use of their
new home.
Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Pillai how he would change this project.
Mr. Hari Pillai said that the project should change to a ranch -style architecture and change its
materials.
Commissioner Garakani pointed out that the ranch style is no longer prevalent in this area.
Mr. Hari Pillai said that the fact that wrong decisions were made 10 years ago does not mean that other
wrongs should be propagated on top of that. Added that he went to a lot of trouble to add to his
property and to the area.
Mr. Raj Kumar, 19805 Versailles Way, Saratoga:
• Stated that he likes this proposal, finding it quite elegant and believes that it will be well built.
• Pointed out that there is a variety of architectural styles in the area and that not a lot of brick is
used.
• Stated that "an argument of consistency due to existing inconsistency is not consistent."
Chair Barry asked to see the project material board.
Mr. Paul Doble, Project Builder:
• Reminded that there is but a small area at the 26 -foot height and that this height is permitted under
Code.
• Suggested that full -grown trees (as large as 110 -inch box, 25 -foot high) could be brought in
without a problem.
• Assured that they are willing to plant trees necessary to help make the neighbor happy.
• Stated that this will be a very beautiful house and that communities want variation in architecture.
• Said that the materials proposed are very expensive and elegant. The stone is glass reinforced
concrete. Additionally they can utilize a custom stucco texture.
• Said that in his business they build homes to compliment communities, for different clients that
need to be made happy as well as for different City Planning Departments, who must also be made
happy.
Commissioner Garakam asked if it would be possible to utilize stone on the arches.
Mr. Greg Kawahara said that core or natural stone would be appropriate for use on the arches.
Commissioner Zutshi asked for the width of the arched area.
Saratoga Planning Commissi ✓Iinutes of August 8, 2001 Page 6
Mr. Greg Kawahara replied approximately 40 feet.
Chair Barry said that she does not oppose the roofing material but wants to be sure that the colors
blend as much as possible.
Mr. Greg Kawahara said that he was willing to work with staff to select a brown -toned roof tile.
Chair Barry pointed out that using a Spanish tile roof suggests that this is not strictly a Mediterranean -
style house.
Mr. Greg Kawahara said that they can get a blended roof.
Chair Barry suggested something that blends with the color of the stone.
Mr. Paul Doble, Project Builder, assured that the roof color can be custom blended to be a more earth
tone.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:45 p.m.
Commissioner Jackman:
• Said that while she could sympathize with the Pillais about the changing neighborhood, it is
already a 50 percent mixture of ranch and designer homes.
• Added that it is possible to have a tasteful architectural mix since these are large one -acre lots and
as long as the architecture is well done.
• Stated that she liked the style of this home and believes it can fit in well.
Commissioner Zutshi expressed doubts about the size of the architectural porch feature, saying that the
40 -foot width is rather large and will appear massive.
Commissioner Garakam:
• Agreed with the comments of Commissioner Jackman regarding the existing changes in the
neighborhood, saying that this is not a neighborhood just beginning to change. Rather it is a
neighborhood that has changed so much that it can't be stopped at this point.
• Suggested that the arches should be proportionate to the overall length of the house and upon
learning that the home is 122 feet long, declared that the proposed 40 foot wide porch would be
proportionate.
• Supported the further setback from the front property line by another five feet as proposed by the
builder.
• Suggested that good screening landscaping be installed to meet any concerns of the neighbors.
• With the added use of stone around the arches, stated that he has no objections to this project being
approved.
Chair Barry reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:50 p.m.
Mr. Hari Pillai declared that the entire lot is but 164 feet wide (having misheard the size of the home's
width of 162 feet instead of the actual 122 feet).
Saratoga Planning Commissi .✓Iinutes of August 8, 2001 Page 7
Chair Barry reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:50 p.m.
Chair Barry:
• Stated that it is clear this is a changing neighborhood.
• Agreed that previous Planning Commissions and Councils have had different approaches.
• Pointed out that the current view of the Planning Commission is to preserve as much as possible of
an areas architectural style.
• Expressed a problem with the proposed fagade.
• Supported the increased front setback.
• Said that she liked the added stone to the pillars and suggested that it be added to the base as well.
• Said that she supports the roof color that will blend with the stone color.
• Suggested additional changes to the front landscaping so that the front entry will not appear as
prominent.
• Said that the first floor footprint is huge.
• Asked if there is any City policy concerning installation of outdoor showers.
Planner Alison Knapp replied no. Added that this outside shower is located off of a cabana and will be
for use with the spa.
Chair Barry wondered if perhaps it could be eliminated if not particularly needed.
Commissioner Garakani asked for a overview of the pending added Conditions for this project.
Director Sullivan stated:
• Addition of mature redwood trees to serve as screening between this project site and neighboring
properties.
• Use of a tile roof material in a color that closely matches the stone.
• Increase the use of stone around the arches and walls and wrapped around the windows.
• Move the house back by approximately five feet.
• Reduce the porch entry in size and mass.
Commissioner Garakani said that it would be nice to reduce the porch width to 20 feet.
Chair Barry reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:58 p.m.
Mr. Paul Doble, Project Builder:
• Agreed that the front setback could be moved to 55 feet.
• Suggested the inclusion of 48 -inch box olive trees at the front so that the porch feature would not
be as visible.
Chair Barry reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:59 p.m.
Commissioner Jackman said that she is comfortable with less formal landscaping.
Commissioner Zutshi said that this would be good.
Saratoga Planning Commissi ✓linutes of August 8, 2001 Page 8
Chair Barry expressed support for added mature olive trees to the front yard landscaping and asked if
the Commissioners had any disagreement with the proposed added Conditions as overviewed by
Director Sullivan.
Commissioner Jackman asked how far the outdoor shower is located from the neighboring property.
Planner Alison Knapp replied 26 feet.
Chair Barry suggested that the shower could be screened with landscaping.
Commissioner Garakani said that this should not be an issue but that perhaps the applicant can screen
as a neighborly gesture.
Chair Barry pointed out that there is potential for noise with the use of this outdoor shower.
Commissioner Garakani disagreed and pointed out that people could get the same effect of having an
outdoor shower simply by using garden hoses.
Chair Barry said that it appears the Commission is prepared to leave the outside shower in this
approval.
Commissioner Garakani said that he has no problem accepting this outdoor shower.
Chair Barry reiterated that the Commission is prepared to accept this application with the addition of
mature olive trees at the front of the house as well as the added Conditions overviewed by Director
Sullivan.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Jackman,
the Planning Commission approved DR -01 -007 & BSE -01 -011 to allow the
construction of a new single -story 5,917 square foot home on property located at
19752 Versailles Way with the added Conditions outlined by Director Sullivan and
Chair Barry.
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Jackman and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Hunter, Kurasch and Roupe
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Barry advised that there is a 15 day appeal period before this action is final.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.3
DR -01 -015 & BSE- 01 -o21 (503 -29 -038) — CHENAULT, 21345 Saratoga Hills Road: Request for
Design Review approval to construct a new 5,837 square foot two -story residence and demolish an
existing 3,153 square foot residence. Maximum height will be 26 feet. The 53,403 new square foot
parcel is located in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. (KNAPP)
Saratoga Planning Commission. Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 9
Ms. Alison Knapp, Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicant is seeking approval to construct a 5,837 square foot, two -story residence
with basement and demolish an existing 3,153 square foot home.
• Said that this is a mixed one and two -story area and many homes are obscured from view from the
street.
• Said that a geotechnical review was done for this project and it received clearance from the City.
• Informed that one rear neighbor has expressed concern regarding potential loss of privacy and
views.
• Advised that to mitigate those concerns, the applicant has offered to add up to eight redwood trees
and eliminate a second story balcony off a child's bedroom to help alleviate any privacy impacts.
• Said that staff is recommending approval.
Chair Barry asked if the neighbor in questions is on the flag lot.
Ms. Alison Knapp replied yes.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:10 p.m.
Mr. John Chenault, Property Owner /Applicant:
• Informed that he is a 10 -year resident of Saratoga and has taken the last year to design a residence
for his family that will fit within the lot and topography.
Mr. Fred Luminoso, 12772 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga:
• Identified himself as an advisor to the Chenaults.
• Advised that they have met with five neighbors and received written support from four.
• Informed that the fifth neighbor had privacy impact concerns, which they believe have been met
through the relocation of two second story windows, the use of opaque glass in the bathroom and
the elimination of a second story balcony off one of the bedrooms. Additionally, they propose to
provide screening and hedging to benefit the neighbor to the north.
• Said that the builders will be Mark Thomas Builders and it is the practice of this builder to fence
off a construction site and comply with construction hours and City guidelines. Materials will be
staged on site.
Mr. John Matthams, International Design Group:
• Said that the proposed alignment of the house on this site is similar to the existing house.
• Said that in addition to the mature tree formation on site, they propose to add trees.
• Pointed out that the garage will be located under the house and that the home is a linear house with
only short sides to help minimize impacts on the side neighbors.
• Said that this design will blend well into the hillside and materials include a gray slate roof and
muted stucco siding with a stone base to anchor the home.
• Assured that water runoff will be retained on site and advised that permeable driveway materials
are proposed.
Commissioner Garakani stated that this is a beautiful design but questioned how water from a 4,500
square foot driveway will be retained on site.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 10
Mr. John Matthams, International Design Group, advised that through the use of sloping and dry wells.
Said that the driveway will consist of interlocking block pavers.
Mr. Jun Siliano, International Design Group:
• Said that in addition, catch basins will be situated on the low end of the property and that captured
water will be used to water the landscaping.
Chair Barry asked Mr. Siliano to point out the proposed balcony site, which is being removed.
Mr. Jun Siliano directed the Commission to page 6 of the plans and said that the balcony was to be
included in a child's bedroom.
Mr. John Matthams, International Design Group, added that one reason to incorporate that balcony was
to allow for air circulation. While they want to keep this balcony, they are willing to eliminate it to
meet the neighbor's concern.
Ms. Laurie Duran, 21421 Saratoga Hills Road, Saratoga:
• Said that this is a neighborhood in the best sense of the word.
• Opined that there are no homes like this proposed residence on the street.
• Advised that her family home was rebuilt in the neighborhood in 1995 and represented the first
new home in the neighborhood over the past 20 years.
• Pointed out that the adjacent property to this site is currently on the market.
• Suggested that this project should be designed to step down the hill, be tiled and painted in neutral
colors, that efforts should be made to work out issues with neighbors, that screening be done using
oak trees rather than redwoods, that no deer fencing be installed and that an appropriate street
fagade be incorporated.
Chair Barry pointed out that the applicants have obtained letters of support from four of five adjacent
neighbors. Asked why Ms. Duran objected to the use of redwoods and was insisting on oaks.
Ms. Laurie Duran replied that in her estimation redwood trees are used to screen ugly houses simply
because they grow rapidly. Rather than using redwood trees, a more attractive home design should be
reached. She added that she hoped to see that the posts on the front walkway not exceed four feet in
height.
Commissioner Garakani asked Ms. Duran if she has installed oaks on her property.
Ms. Laurie Duran replied yes and added that she also plans to replace some ailing oaks along the street.
Chair Barry asked Ms. Duran if her concern is basically the development of a ridgeline property.
Ms. Laurie Duran replied yes.
Chair Barry asked Ms. Duran what the applicant could do to make it fit better.
Ms. Laurie Duran suggested that the second story would need to be reduced and that the two -story
architectural portico features be eliminated.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 11
Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that the second story has half the square footage of the first floor
footprint.
Mr. Bill Paceman, 21363 Saratoga Hills Road, Saratoga:
• Said that he has resided in Saratoga for 20 years and moved into this neighborhood last year.
• Expressed main issues (several of which have been satisfied by the applicant), including moving
two second story windows overlooking his patio, the planting of two to three trees to screen this
site from his property, removal of a second floor balcony, inclusion of opaque glass in the upstairs
bathroom and maintenance of a hedge at the property line.
• Explained that in the past, the hedge had been inadequately trimmed so as to create a visual barrier
to a treasured bay view from his property. Wanted to ensure that the hedges were kept trimmed in
such a way that this view is available. Said he has offered to maintain these hedges himself.
• Acknowledged that his preference would be for a single -story home.
• Said that he wants to see the careful placement of screening trees in order to maintain a view
corridor to the bay.
• Said that the applicant needs to be sure that the property line is accurately located prior to
construction.
Chair Barry asked Mr. Paceman if he can guarantee the accurate placement of his own home.
Mr. Bill Paceman said no and added that he just measured using a measuring tape.
Director Sullivan pointed out that a standard Condition of Approval requirement is that a licensed
surveyor certifies setbacks.
Mrs. Marguerite Paceman reiterated her husband's plea to carefully locate trees so as not to obscure
their view of the bay.
Mr. John Matthams, International Design Group:
• Said that the house has been set down considerably, that the second story is half the size of the first
story and the house stretches along the front elevation so as to reduce impact on side neighbors.
• Added that they placed the house in a way to give the smallest facades on the sides.
• Pointed out that orange bunting is included on site and it is almost impossible to see this bunting
from the road, saying that he himself tried to see it in order to take photos.
• Reminded that the new home will be only 10 feet higher than the existing home.
• Restated that 52- percent of houses in the area are two -story homes and that there is no single -story
precedent for the vicinity.
• Said that they are utilizing redwoods to provide screening as asked by neighbors.
Mr. Fred Luminoso, Applicant's Representative:
• Said that the Chenaults want to enjoy privacy on their property just as much as the Pacemans.
• Assured that everyone will be very happy once this project is constructed.
Chair Barry asked Mr. Luminoso if he knows the height of the Paceman home.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 12
Mr. Fred Luminoso said that the placement of a window on the Pacemans' master bedroom would be
seriously discussed by today's design standards and that it appears that the home is taller than 26 feet
maximum allowed. Said this home design would not meet today's standards.
Chair Barry sought clarification that the General Plan Land Use designation for the site is Residential
rather than Hillside or Ridgeline.
Ms. Alison Knapp stated that the General Plan Land Use designation is Low - Density Residential and
the Zoning is simply Residential and not Hillside Residential.
Chair Barry asked Ms. Knapp what height differences might be allowed on a Hillside property.
Ms. Alison Knapp responded that this is a difficult question to answer. Said that were the site not
already developed, a flat pad would have to be developed. This proposal is not being constructed
outside of the existing pad. If Hillside zoning applied, the project would require grading and stepping.
Chair Barry asked if restrictions on architectural style and building materials apply for Hillside zoning.
Ms. Alison Knapp replied no. Said that neighborhood compatibility is considered as are shielding of
the home and retention of mature landscaping where possible.
Chair Barry said that while this property is not zoned Hillside, it appears to be a Hillside property.
Mr. Fred Luminoso pointed out that they met with former Director Walgren early in the development
process for this site and at that time a two -story structure was supported.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:55 p.m.
Commissioner Zutshi said that existing neighbors can also screen their properties with additional
landscaping if necessary. The burden of screening should not completely fall upon this applicant.
Commissioner Jackman stated that the yellow color on the colored elevation gives a wrong impression
and asked if a color board is available.
Chair Barry reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:56 p.m.
Mr. Jun Siliano advised that the paint color is such that it will blend with the stone color.
Mr. Bill Paceman advised that he had offered to care for the hedge separating the properties but Mr.
Chenault declined his offer. Clarified that the hedge is on the project site and not on his own property.
Mr. John Chenault said that the hedge in question is an existing hedge that he is more than willing to
eliminate entirely should that be the preference of the Pacemans. Suggested that perhaps they may
want to plant an alternative hedge on their side of the property line that they can maintain at a height as
they desire. Said that he simply was not comfortable having a neighbor access his property to maintain
this hedge.
Commissioner Garakam asked about the roofing colors.
Saratoga Planning Commissio,L lylinutes of August 8, 2001 Page 13
Mr. Jun Siliano reminded that the roofing material is full slate.
Commissioner Jackman said that the Chenaults have gone to the trouble to relocate two upstairs
windows and that they should be allowed to retain their proposed second floor balcony.
Chair Barry reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 9 p.m.
Commissioner Garakani:
• Thanked the Pacemans for access and the opportunity to view the project site from their home.
• Stated that based upon that vantage, he does not see any issues with windows on the new home.
• Suggested that the front entry feature be minimized and lowered.
Commissioner Zutshi agreed that there does not appear to be any privacy impacts to the Paceman
property based on this new home construction.
Chair Barry set that the wall is set back so far that height limitations do not apply for the pillars for that
wall.
Ms. Alison Knapp agreed that the proposed wall is 180 feet away from the front setback and that there
is no height regulation at that distance.
Chair Barry:
• Pointed out that the applicants voluntarily agreed to move the two upstairs windows as a good
faith gesture.
• Expressed agreement with the comments on retaining the balcony, saying that if it were larger she
would not support it but since it is but three -feet deep, this balcony will only allow access for
looking at views and would in no way interfere with existing views and /or privacy of neighbors.
• Reminded that Mr. Chenault has offered to remove the hedges should the Pacemans wish him to
do so.
• Agreed that this proposed home does not look like a Hillside home but neither do many other
homes in the area.
• Said that it is important to use natural colors and materials.
• Suggested that the entryway feature be cut down and said that a redesign to a one -story element
may be in order.
• Said that use of oak trees is reasonable.
• Stated that the architects have sited this home sensitively.
Commissioner Jackman inquired how the architect felt about changing the entry feature.
Chair Barry:
• Suggested directing the architect to work with staff to lower this entry element, leaving the details
on how to accomplish that task to him and staff.
• Said that the only deer fencing used on site should be to protect specific trees and garden areas.
• Supported the use of oak trees.
Saratoga Planning Commissio.. Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 14
Commissioner Jackman asked if high fencing on a nearby property is legal as it appears to be more
than six -feet in height.
Director Sullivan said that it does not appear that this fencing is legal as it is located within the
required front yard setback area.
Chair Barry sought clarification that the landscaping plan would be approved prior to issuance of final.
Director Sullivan agreed that this would occur and that the plan will include fencing proposals that are
consistent with ordinance requirements.
Chair Barry once again clarified the amended Conditions as follows:
• That oaks can be used in the landscaping plan and that the landscaping plan be approved prior to
issuance of building permits and should include landscaping on the east side;
• That the front entry feature should be redesigned to the satisfaction of Planning staff so it is not
prominent;
• That the windows in an upstairs bedroom be moved from the left to right side and
• That the small balcony be retained.
Director Sullivan suggested that the Public Works Condition of Approval regarding the Grading and
Drainage Plan be amended to include runoff coefficient and volume in a 100 -year storm.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the
Planning Commission approved DR -01 -015 & BSE -01 -021 to allow the
construction of a new 5,837 square foot, two -story residence with basement on
property located at 21345 Saratoga Hills Road, with the following modifications
and /or additions to the Conditions of Approval:
• That oaks can be used in the landscaping plan and that the landscaping plan be
approved prior to issuance of building permits, including landscaping on the
east side of the property;
• That the front entry feature be redesigned to the satisfaction of Planning staff
so it is not as prominent a design element;
• That the windows in an upstairs bedroom be moved from the left to right side;
• That the small balcony be retained off the upstairs child's bedroom; and
• That the Grading and Drainage Plan be required to include data regarding
runoff coefficient and volume in a 100 year storm.
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Jackman and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Hunter, Kurasch and Roupe
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Barry advised that there is a 15 day appeal period before this action is final.
PUBLIC HEARING — ITEM NO.4
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 15
V -01 -007 (386 -18 -003) — NGUYEN, 18621 Kosich Drive: Request for Variance approval to construct
a new 439 square foot garage in the rear yard setback approximately five feet from the rear property
line. The proposed garage will be attached to the existing single -story house. Maximum height of the
structure will be 12 feet, 11 inches. The 10,788 square foot parcel is located in the R -1- 10,000 zoning
district. (LIVINGSTONE)
Mr. John Livingstone, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicants seek two Variance approvals to accommodate a residential
remodel /addition.
• Said that one Variance is sought to place an addition to an existing bedroom 13 feet into the
required 25 -foot required sideyard setback for a corner lot.
• Added that the second Variance is to allow the construction of a new garage five feet into the
required 10 -foot rear yard setback.
• Informed that the existing garage would be converted into a new master bedroom with a new
garage to be constructed to replace it.
• Said that the site is 10,788 square feet within an R -1- 10,000 zoning district. The existing home is a
three- bedroom, 2,200 square foot structure and the applicants wish to add 866 square feet for a
total of approximately 3,000 square feet.
• Cautioned the Commission that it must make all three mandatory findings required under State
Law in order to approve these Variance requests. Staff does not believe that the findings can be
made. No specific circumstances exist that prevent the applicants from fully enjoying the use of
their property. There is an existing functional home on the site with three bedrooms and a two -car
garage, typical for the neighborhood.
• Recommended denial of this request.
Commissioner Garakani asked for more information on the mandatory findings.
Associate Planner John Livingstone pointed out page 5 in the staff report, where the findings are
outlined.
Chair Barry asked staff how it made the determination that there are no special circumstances since
there is clearly a problem backing from this property driveway onto busy Saratoga Avenue.
Associate Planner John Livingstone said that when comparing this home to the others along Saratoga,
there is no specific circumstance that impacts just this property. In fact, the property has the advantage
of being a corner lot with potential access from two sides, an advantage not available to similar but
interior lots.
Chair Barry questioned whether the existence of the five -foot wide bike lane, narrower than anywhere
else on Saratoga, doesn't constitute a special circumstance.
Associate Planner John Livingstone said that this is not sufficient to warrant a Variance.
Commissioner Garakam agreed that other options are available to the applicants.
Chair Barry questioned why Variances were more easily granted in the past.
Director Sullivan said that the three required findings have been a part of State Law for many years.
Saratoga Planning Commissio.. Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 16
Commissioner Jackman asked Director Sullivan if the Variances previously granted by the
Commission were inappropriate.
Director Sullivan replied that in his opinion they were if they did not satisfy these required findings.
Added that staff applies the findings and denies applications if they cannot be substantiated. The
applicants subsequently can appeal to the Planning Commission.
Chair Barry asked Director Sullivan what occurs if the Commission agrees with the applicant's
position.
Director Sullivan replied that the Commission would need substantiate how the findings can be made
and direct staff to create a Resolution approving the Variance for return to the Commission under
Consent at the next meeting.
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:30 p.m.
Mr. David Zamora, Zamora Associates:
• Advised that this is his home and that his family, including four children, loves it. They just want
to make it a little larger.
• Pointed out that when they purchased this home plans had been approved by the City for a new
garage. However, this proposed garage encroached into an existing utility easement and could not
be built per those plans after all.
• Said that they simply want a 20 by 20 -foot garage, adjacent to their home and to utilize an existing
Kosich Drive driveway for access.
• Stated that this is a life safety issue for his family and the community.
• Said that the traffic on Saratoga makes backing from his driveway a challenge.
• Said they simply want to be able to enjoy the use of their home for their family.
Mr. Bob Desparza, Project Designer:
• Said that they seek rear and side yard Variances and they are trying to show that the findings can
be made in support of these Variances.
• Said that the reason for the change is to allow better use of the home.
• Stated that this property is somewhat unique since it is possible to enter the property from two
sides.
• Said that this project will eliminate a hazard on Saratoga Avenue and the existing garage space
would be used for a kitchen. The existing driveway on Saratoga will be walled off to provide
outdoor space for use by the family.
• Pointed out that Kosich Drive has much lower and slower traffic.
• Informed that they have neighborhood support and six letters have been obtained from the
contiguous neighbors.
• Said that the front Variance will allow an interior wall to be pushed out.
• Advised that a letter from City Planner Phil Bloch dated May 8, 2001, suggested that the Variance
request would be supported. Based upon that letter, the applicants had plans done, demolished
some portions and began some construction in a phased project.
Saratoga Planning Commissio,. Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 17
• Suggested that they meet all three required findings and will be improving public safety by
abandoning the Saratoga Avenue driveway. Added that they are willing to lower and clean up
existing hedges along Saratoga.
Chair Barry:
• Asked Mr. Desparza if they had considered bring the garage forward by five feet so the rear
setback is not required.
• Added that actually, the rear setback Variance is not the problem but rather the side yard setback
Variance is a problem.
• Questioned if the front and side yards can be redesignated.
Associate Planner John Livingstone replied no.
Director Sullivan added that doing so would simply redistribute the current setback problems along
alternate street frontages.
Mr. David Zamora advised that there is no other place for the garage due to existing power poles,
mature trees, etc.
Chair Barry asked staff how they felt the site could be utilized to meet the applicant's desired new
space and garage.
Associate Planner John Livingstone clarified that there exists a functioning three- bedroom home with a
two -car garage on this property. The owners want to do an addition. There are other places for the
bedroom addition but a more extensive remodel would be required. Additionally, if necessary, a
portion of the existing home could be redistributed into garage space and required setbacks satisfied.
These options are more costly and require a more extensive remodel of the home.
Mr. Bob Desparza said that denying these Variances deny the applicants the privilege of full
enjoyment of their home.
Associate Planner John Livingstone disagreed, restating that there exists a viable house on this lot.
Staff is not saying the applicants cannot remodel their home but simply that the required setbacks must
be satisfied.
Mr. David Zamora presented a brief video demonstration of the traffic he faces along Saratoga Avenue
as he attempts to back from his driveway.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 10 p.m.
Commissioner Garakam:
• Thanked Mr. Zamora for his video footage.
• Agreed that a safety issue exists and that the Saratoga Avenue garage needs to be moved.
• Added that requiring a complete redesign would represent a financial hardship and requiring the
cutting into the house by five feet along the length to accommodate a new garage would result in
the loss of too much existing living space.
• Said that if the adjacent neighbor agrees to the reduced rear yard setback, he would be comfortable
supporting the rear yard Variance.
Saratoga Planning Commissio.. ,Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 18
Commissioner Zutshi agreed that this location seems to be the only reasonable place to place the new
garage.
Commissioner Jackman:
• Agreed that there is a big problem backing into the heavy traffic on Saratoga Avenue.
• Pointed out that there are existing tall shrubs on both sides of the driveway that need to be removed
to improve visibility.
• Said that she is not willing to go along with the five -foot rear yard Variance because while the
current neighbor may not mind, future homeowners of that property may not like that proximity.
• Cautioned that she has a five -foot setback at her own home, a legal non - conforming situation, and
that it is too close.
• Stated that she cannot support this Variance.
Chair Barry:
• Said that required Finding No. 1 can be made on the basis of the narrowness of the bike lane along
Saratoga Avenue in front of this property that widens at the next property.
• Added that refusing this Variance would deprive the applicant of the privilege by strictly enforcing
the setback requirement.
• Said that approving the garage Variance would not be a special privilege nor a detriment to the
public health and /or safety.
• Said that while logic may suggest that the owners should be allowed to square off their home to
accommodate the bedroom addition, the Variance for the front of the home cannot be justified.
• Suggested an increase of the existing cement pad.
Director Sullivan cautioned that the fact that this is an existing legal but non - conforming house is
clear. The issue is that increasing the area that is non - conforming is making that non - conforming
situation worse.
Commissioner Zutshi agreed and stated that once a Variance at the front is allowed, the applicants may
seek to extend that further in the future.
Chair Barry said that she can support the garage Variance but not the Variance required for the
remainder of the addition.
Commissioner Jackman said again that she is not comfortable with the five -foot rear setback for the
garage.
Chair Barry said that nothing can be done regarding the traffic along Saratoga Avenue, which is no
doubt much worse than it was when the house was constructed. Stated that the Commission
respectfully disagrees with staff and asks them to come back to the Commission with an affirmative
finding for the garage Variance. However, the Commission cannot find a basis to support the second
Variance request for this site.
Chair Barry reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 10:17 p.m.
Saratoga Planning Commission. _,iinutes of August 8, 2001 Page 19
Ms. Hoa Thi Nguyen, Applicant, asked the Commission to help support their request for a Variance to
accommodate a second bathroom in their home to serve the needs of their large family, which includes
four young children.
Chair Barry reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 10:20 p.m.
Director Sullivan asked the Commission to provide the language for the findings to support within its
motion.
Motion: Upon motion of Chair Barry, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning
Commission directed staff to bring an affirmative Resolution to the next
Commission meeting as a Consent Calendar Item granting a Variance to allow a
five -foot rear setback to accommodate construction of a new garage on property
located at 18621 Kosich Drive with the necessary Finding of support for this
reduced rear yard setback due to the reduced five-foot width of the bicycle lane in
front of this property that other neighbors do not have and due to the proximity of this
property's driveway to Lawrence Expressway. The Commission was unable to make
the required Findings to support the second Variance request for this site.
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Jackman and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Hunter, Kurasch and Roupe
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Barry advised that there is a 15 -day appeal period before this action is final and the applicants
have the option to appeal this action to Council within that time frame.
DIRECTOR ITEMS
Director Sullivan advised that the Joint Meeting of Council and the Planning Commission set for
Saturday, August I I'h, has been cancelled. Asked the Commission to provide staff with available
Saturday dates through the next three months so a new date can be set.
COMMISSION ITEMS
Neighbor /Commission Involvement in Development Review
Commissioner Garakani reiterated his request for earlier participation by the Commission and
neighbors in the development review process. Asked staff when the draft memo outlining a proposed
format would be provided to the Commission for consideration.
Director Sullivan assured the Commission that this policy memo is in the works. Cautioned that there
are a number of timely priorities and reminded that the department is still not fully staffed. Promised
to get this information to the Commission as soon as the draft memo could be accomplished in the
work program.
Library Groundbreaking Ceremony
Saratoga Planning Commission_ _✓Iinutes of August 8, 2001
Page 20
Commissioner Zutshi encouraged the Commissioners to participate in the groundbreaking ceremony
on September 8t" at 1 p.m. Added that the new library furniture has been selected by the Library
Committee.
Inclusionary Housing
Chair Barry asked Director Sullivan if the requirement for inclusionary housing is being publicly
disseminated to all affected parties.
Director Sullivan replied yes.
Absences from Next Meeting
Commissioners Jackman and Garakani advised that they will be unavailable for the August 22nd
meeting.
COMMUNICATIONS
There were no communication items.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Chair Barry adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday,
August 22, 2001, to begin at 7 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk