HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-28-2007 Planning Commission Minutes
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, February 28, 2007
PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Chair Rodgers called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hlava, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao
Absent: Commissioner Kundtz
Staff: Director John Livingstone, Associate Planner Therese Schmidt and Assistant
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of February 14, 2007.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Cappello, seconded by Commissioner
Hlava, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of
February 14, 2007, were adopted with edits to pages 6, 7 and 13. (4-0-1-1;
Commissioner Kundtz was absent and Commissioner Nagpal abstained)
ORAL COMMUNICATION
Ms. Jenny Young-Taylor, Resident of Oak Street, announced the efforts underway by the
School District, Heritage Preservation Commission and Oak Street neighbors to get Oak
Street designated as a Heritage Lane.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the
agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 22, 2007.
REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS
Chair Rodgers announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by
filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of
the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050(b).
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for February 28, 2007 Page 2
CONSENT CALENDAR
Resolution for Application #07-207, 14451 Oak Place.
Director John Livingstone that there is no staff report prepared for a Consent Calendar item.
The Commission can go for a motion immediately or he is available for questions.
Commissioner Hlava asked if this went to Council.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer advised that it could be appealed to Council.
Commissioner Hlava said that she did not say something at the previous meeting that she
would like to get onto the record if appropriate.
Upon advice of the City Attorney, Chair Rodgers pulled this from Consent to allow
Commissioner Hlava to comment on the record.
Commissioner Hlava advised that prior to the meeting at which this item was discussed, she
met with an acquaintance on the City of San Jose’s Historic Preservation Commission. When
she asked that acquaintance about Leslie Dill, she was told that Ms. Dill is extremely well
thought of.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that this commentary is relevant for the vote on the
findings.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if she must abstain from this vote since she was not at the
hearing.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer replied yes.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner
Cappello, the Planning Commission approved the draft resolution for
Application #07-207 for 14451 Oak Place, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Rodgers and Zhao
NOES: None
ABSENT: Kundtz
ABSTAIN: Nagpal
Chair Rodgers asked who is eligible to appeal this action.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer replied the applicant and/or any interested party may appeal
within 15 days of the adoption of this resolution.
Chair Rodgers asked if a Commission as a body could appeal.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for February 28, 2007 Page 3
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that a person could be interpreted broadly to include a
Commission.
***
Director John Livingstone suggested to Chair Rodgers that Item #2 be heard prior to Item #1
since a continuance for Item #2 has been requested.
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2
APPLICATION #06-206 (403-28-069) NGLIEM, 18344 Baylor Avenue; The applicant
requests Design Review Approval to remodel the first floor with an approximately 321 square-
foot addition and construct a second-story addition consisting of approximately 753 square-
feet. The total floor area of the proposed residence will be approximately 2,974 square- feet.
The maximum height of the proposed residence will not be higher than 26-feet. The net lot
size is 7,840 square-feet and the site is zoned R-1-10,000. (Therese Schmidt)
Chair Rodgers asked if the continuance is for the next meeting on March 14, 2007.
Director John Livingstone replied yes. He informed that the applicant had set up a
neighborhood meeting. At that meeting they obtained neighborhood feedback. The applicant
found that they needed additional time to implement the feedback from the neighbors.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer suggested that Chair Rodgers determine if there is anyone
present this evening in the audience wishing to speak on this item.
Chair Rodgers opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2.
Mr. ________:
• Said that he has lived in this neighborhood since 2000.
• Advised that the neighborhood consists of single-family, ranch-style homes that are one to
two-story.
• Stated that this proposal would change the character of the entire neighborhood.
• Said that another family had done a similar request, saying that they just loved the
neighborhood. However, once they obtained their approvals they sold the house.
• Informed that he is in opposition to this request.
Chair Rodgers closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal,
the Planning Commission continued to the next meeting on March 14,
2007, the consideration of a Design Review Approval to remodel the first
floor with an approximately 321 square-foot addition and construct a
second-story addition consisting of approximately 753 square-feet on
property located at 18344 Baylor Avenue, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao
NOES: None
ABSENT: Kundtz
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for February 28, 2007 Page 4
ABSTAIN: None
***
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1
APPLICATION/ADDRESS: #05-035 (517-08-026) 20626 Komina Avenue: The applicant
requests Design Review Approval to construct a two-story, single-family residence, including a
basement and detached garage. The existing house was damaged by fire and will be
demolished. The total floor area of the proposed residence and garage is 2,868 square feet.
The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. The lot size is approximately
7,817.6 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-10,000. (Heather Bradley/Deborah Ungo-
McCormick)
Director John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval for the construction of a new
two-story residence with basement and detached garage.
• Described the proposed house as consisting of approximately 2,800 square feet on an
approximately 7,800 square foot lot.
• Explained that this home was first before the Planning Commission in April 2006. At that
time the Planning Commission provided feedback, comments and requested changes to
the design to make the house more complimentary to others in the neighborhood.
• Reported that the applicant is back tonight with a Craftsman-style design that incorporates
wood shingles throughout, a wraparound porch, wood brackets, large wood trim and
natural colors and materials.
• Said that this home now blends in with the neighborhood and offers more of a historic
character than did the prior proposed stucco style home.
• Informed that there have been no negative neighbor comments received.
• Said that the project meets all Design Review finings and is consistent with the General
Plan.
• Recommended approval.
Chair Rodgers opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1.
Ms. Cindy Brozovich, Interhouse Designs:
• Reminded that there were two main issues raised at last year’s meeting, compatibility and
bulk.
• Explained that to address compatibility, they have come back with a true Craftsman-style
design that compliments others in the neighborhood.
• Said that to reduce the appearance of bulk, they have removed the attached garage and
made it into a detached garage. This serves to reduce the bulk and helps to create a
home with a more historic nature.
• Stated that they have reduced the height and pitch of the roof, using mainly hips when
gables were used on the original design.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for February 28, 2007 Page 5
• Informed that it was the sense of the neighborhood that the idea of not having a
wraparound porch in that corner was a feature that would be missed. That porch was put
back into the design.
• Assured that this design gives the long elevation along Komina Avenue an interesting but
not distracting appearance.
Commissioner Hlava asked if the wall between the garage and house would be covered.
Ms. Cindy Brozovich said that it was open but gives the house some private outside space.
Commissioner Nagpal asked how tall the wall would be.
Ms. Cindy Brozovich replied that it meets Code.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if landscaping would be incorporated with the wall.
Ms. Cindy Brozovich replied that there would be landscaping on the street side. She added
that this is a shingled wall that matches the architecture.
Commissioner Cappello asked if the footprint of this revised design changes from the original
design. Is the position of the home roughly the same?
Ms. Cindy Brozovich replied slightly but not too much. However, the garage is now detached.
That is a change in the footprint. The orientation of the house is the same but the second
floor now sits further back.
Commissioner Nagpal asked how far back the wall would be from the property line.
Ms. Cindy Brozovich said that it would be 15 feet from the property line and 10 feet from the
street.
Chair Rodgers asked if the front yard is on Oak Street.
Ms. Cindy Brozovich said that the front setback is on Oak Street but the front door and
address is on Komina.
Mr. Jeff_________:
• Said that he saw the design a month ago and is pleased with the changes.
• Expressed thanks to the City for taking action to lead to this design as well as to Bob and
Cindy.
• Said that he is personally pleased with this design as it is consistent and compatible with
Oak Street.
• Stated that he did not know what “authentic” Craftsman is. Is this authentic?
• Said that this is a very attractive design that fits into this neighborhood.
• Pointed out that this is a very difficult parcel on which to build a home. It is going to be a
logistical nightmare to build on this difficult corner.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for February 28, 2007 Page 6
• Recommended that the City work with Bob and the school to talk about logistics and
provide an organized effort to address neighborhood impacts during construction.
Ms. Jenny Young-Taylor, Oak Street:
• Said that she has been living here for 55 years, which is four years before the
incorporation of the City of Saratoga.
• Agreed with the comments of the previous speaker.
• Stated that this new design is just lovely and a vast improvement in design to the original.
• Said that she did not know what potential impact a designation as a Heritage Lane might
have on this project.
• Reiterated that the School Board, Heritage Preservation Commission and residents are all
interested in designation of Oak Street as a Heritage Lane.
• Said that while the home might be missing a few Craftsman details, she loves the design.
• Said that the number of story poles used seems to be so few and she wondered how that
works.
• Questioned the safety from trucks for children and other pedestrians and said that it would
be wonderful to proactively plan to make construction safe.
• Said that protection measures have been imposed for the healthy oaks and other trees.
• Stressed the importance of watching tree protection very carefully, especially the heritage
Valley Oak located next door.
Chair Rodgers closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1.
Commissioner Hlava:
• Reminded that she was the only one who voted in favor of the previous house and was
wrong.
• Stated that she loves this new design.
• Questioned if this home can be considered authentic Craftsman style.
• Answered that she doubted anything could be called authentic when it is not being built in
the 1930’s.
• Said that she can make all necessary findings to support this project.
• Stated that the applicant did a great job reducing bulk by moving the garage.
• Said that the project looks very nice and that she even likes the red doors, which are a
nice touch.
• Concluded by saying she is very happy to approve this application.
Commissioner Nagpal:
• Explained that this project offers a great example of when staff, a neighborhood and
applicant work together.
• Advised that if this becomes a Heritage Lane in the future this new home would be
compatible.
• Said that there is enough language already so she is not inclined to add language
regarding construction logistics.
• Suggested having some green planted to grown over the wall as soon as possible.
• Stated that she can make all necessary Design Review findings and that she is ecstatic to
see this come back this way.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for February 28, 2007 Page 7
• Reminded that the Building Department will deal with any construction logistical issues
and/or problems.
Director John Livingstone pointed out that the owner has secured the services of a builder
much experienced in Saratoga and who will ensure a smooth process.
Commissioner Zhao said that this home has a lovely design and she can make all the findings
to support it.
Commissioner Cappello said that logistics are more for construction than other traffic. He
added that he too can make the findings to support this application.
Chair Rodgers extended her compliments and thanks to the project architect for this wonderful
design that “is better than we could have hoped for.”
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer offered edits to the draft resolution as follows:
• Add language to Condition 18 (Bond), “… to guarantee the survival of all Ordinance
protected trees.”
• Add language to Condition 19, “…required replacement trees, if any.”
• Add language to Condition 25 (Hold Harmless), “… prior to issuance of a Building permit
defending and holding the City of Saratoga harmless.”
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal seconded by Commissioner Hlava,
the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application
#05-035) to construct a two-story, single-family residence, including a
basement and detached garage on property located at 20626 Komina
Avenue, with the modifications to conditions 18, 19 and 25, by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao
NOES: None
ABSENT: Kundtz
ABSTAIN: None
***
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3
APPLICATION #07-017 (366-57-001 & 002) Aaggarwal, 20865 Wardell Road: The
applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct a two-story single-family residence
with an attached garage, basement, swimming pool, and detached bathroom. The maximum
height of the proposed residence will not be higher than 26-feet. The net lot size is 1.2-acres
and the site is zoned Hillside Residential (HR). (Therese Schmidt)
Associate Planner Therese Schmidt presented the staff report as follows:
• Reported that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to construct a new home in
excess of 6,000 square feet on a Hillside lot including grading in excess of 1,000 cubic
yards.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for February 28, 2007 Page 8
• Said that this project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA.
• Advised that the required geotechnical clearance has been obtained.
• Said that the applicant had originally proposed the removal of two protected trees but the
request has been modified so that no trees require removal.
• Informed that staff cannot make the findings to support grading in excess of 1,000 cubic
yards. The applicant agrees with staff’s assessment and has accepted a condition of
approval requiring them to bring the cubic yards of cut to below 1,000 cubic yards.
• Stated that staff was concerned about the building materials chosen due to reflectivity on
the hillside. The applicant is willing to change their colors to something more acceptable to
the Commission.
• Said that the neighbor notification was done and that one three-page email was received
just before this meeting. The comments in the email represent five households. Their
concerns are primarily the access road, which was approved to serve four parcels in
December. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted for the access road and no one
appealed the approval.
• Stated that the access road is ready to be approved and is not a part of this project being
reviewed at this time.
• Reported that staff needs to add one Public Works’ condition of approval (#14) that states
that the applicant “shall obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works prior to
issuance of a Zoning clearance.
• Said that the email from the group of neighbors also outlines a few Design Review issues
as follows:
o Question: Whether this parcel can be developed because it does not have the
minimum two-acre lot size called for in this zoning designation. Answer: Section
15.13-060 of the Municipal Code allows for an exemption for any parcel created prior to
April 25, 1978. It appears this parcel was subdivided in 1948 and that an easement
dated 1967 has been found. Therefore, this is a legal lot of record that is non-
conforming because it is less than two acres. The applicant could develop this parcel
with adjusted setbacks but is not requesting that. They are meeting the setback
requirements of the Hillside District zoning.
o Question: Should the access road be counted in the impervious surface? Answer:
The Municipal Code allows that access roads on a flag lot not be counted in the net lot
size. It is counted in the gross lot size. Therefore this applicant does meet the Code
requirement for impervious coverage.
o Question: Why approve a house with over 8,000 in square footage? Answer: This
house is a little over 6,000 square feet with a 2,500 square foot basement. The
basement is not counted in floor area. Therefore, this project meets the maximum
allowed square footage allowance.
• Explained that she believes the email writer is present and can provide additional
information on the concerns raised.
• Recommended approval with conditions.
Commissioner Hlava compared the apparent location of the road on Sheet C-1 versus the
picture on the front of the staff report, which appears to be different.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for February 28, 2007 Page 9
Planner Therese Schmidt explained that the map on the front of the report is simply for
identifying the noticing area for 500 feet. An outside mailing house provides it. Since the road
was just approved in December and is not yet installed the map they use is not yet updated.
Commissioner Hlava asked if the plan sheet C-1 is correct for the road as approved in
December.
Planner Therese Schmidt replied yes.
Commissioner Nagpal asked about the property locations in relation to the subject site for the
five property owners represented by this evening’s email communication.
Planner Therese Schmidt said she did not know.
Commissioner Zhao asked if the folks were given an opportunity to provide feedback earlier.
Planner Therese Schmidt said that Charles Madrone had previously signed off on the
neighbor notification form as having no issues. He is one of the property owners represented
by this evening’s email raising issues.
Commissioner Hlava asked for verification that the people building the road are not the same
ones who are building this house.
Planner Therese Schmidt replied correct.
Chair Rodgers asked if the Commission should add some sort of provision to ensure access
rights to the road during construction.
Director John Livingstone cautioned that the City stays away from making specific conditions
on private access roads. It is a civil matter that the City tries to avoid. The neighbors have
access rights and easements.
Chair Rodgers asked if the road has to be done first.
Director John Livingstone said that the encroachment permit has to be issued but the road
doesn’t have to be completed before the house can begin construction.
Commissioner Nagpal:
• Reiterated that staff has addressed several issues raised in the email. That includes the
fact that despite the parcel being less than two acres it can be developed since the lot was
created prior to 1978. The house is not considered 8,000 square feet because basement
space is not counted. The access road is not counted as pervious surface against this
property per Code allowances.
• Asked if drainage has been addressed.
Planner Therese Schmidt reported that a conceptual grading and drainage plan has been
submitted. A condition of approval requires the submittal of a final grading and drainage plan
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for February 28, 2007 Page 10
that has been certified by a civil engineer. She clarified that regarding the height issue, the
measure of height is taken at the lowest and highest points and averaged.
Commissioner Nagpal cautioned that it is hard to deal with issues raised by a letter received
at the last moment.
Chair Rodgers opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 3.
Mr. Aaggarwal, Applicant and Property Owner:
• Advised that he moved here from New York about 18 months ago.
• Thanked Planners Lata Vasudevan and Therese Schmidt for their assistance in educating
him on the local development requirements.
• Reported that his lot is a flag lot that consists of 1.877 acres. When you take out the
conservation and road easements, the lot is 1.2 acres net.
• Said that this is a buildable lot with a proposed 6,250 square foot house and impervious
surface at 13,400 square feet.
• Assured that they would be able to reduce the grading so that it is less than 1,000 cubic
yards.
• Said that the two trees they originally wanted to remove would be retained.
• Informed that he had shown his plans to all adjacent neighbors about three to four months
ago.
Commissioner Nagpal asked about the proposed color scheme and what the first and second
choices might be.
Mr. Aaggarwal said that he went to the roof tile shop and obtained materials samples that he
has brought with him this evening to show. He said he would be happy to select the tile that
makes the Commission feel more comfortable.
Chair Rodgers admitted to having been concerned over the tile color that is called “red.”
Mr. Aaggarwal assured that it is not red although that is the name of that sample.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if the house color would be off white.
Mr. Aaggarwal replied yes.
Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that the front view plan lists stucco or stone and asked Mr.
Aaggarwal which he plans to use.
Commissioner Zhao said that the house still appears pretty massive. She suggested that
something be done to add more details or make it two levels so it is not so massive looking.’
Mr. Aaggarwal said that he could put in another horizontal band. He pointed out that there are
two roof elements, on the left and right sides of the house.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for February 28, 2007 Page 11
Commissioner Zhao admitted that a two-dimensional drawing might have better demonstrated
what is proposed. She reiterated that this seems like a big house that is out of proportion in
her opinion.
Chair Rodgers said that use of stone would serve to break up what the neighbors would see
and make it appear like a two-story instead of three-story.
Commissioner Hlava asked how high the stone accent would be.
Mr. Aaggarwal replied between 3.5 and 4 feet high, coming up to the windows.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if the front entry is about 11 feet and goes up to about 18.
Mr. Aaggarwal replied yes, it goes up to 19 feet.
Commissioner Hlava pointed out that landscaping would soon obscure the stone so installing
it may not be that necessary.
Commissioner Zhao asked if stucco or stone would be used all around.
Mr. Aaggarwal said whichever option the Planning Commission prefers, he would do.
Commissioner Zhao said that natural stone does not seem to fit so well with this design in her
opinion. A horizontal line or some detail like that might be preferable.
Mr. Aaggarwal said that he would be happy to incorporate a horizontal band.
Chair Rodgers expressed concern in having a wood-burning fireplace in the master suite and
asked Mr. Aaggarwal if he might consider relocating the wood-burning fireplace downstairs
instead.
Mr. Aaggarwal said he had a fireplace in the master bedroom in his New York home and
probably used it once in seven years. He assured that he would be willing to relocated the
one allowed wood-burning fireplace downstairs.
Chair Rodgers said that green building techniques are encouraged, including use of glass
doors to help close off large areas into smaller ones to save on heating/cooling needs and
costs.
Mr. Aaggarwal said that he would be adding a door to be able to close off the dining room.
Chair Rodgers said that these types of suggestions are simply recommendations to help
reduce utility use.
Mr. Aaggarwal said that it is a point well taken and pointed out that he has increased the
quality of insulation for this house to R-26.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for February 28, 2007 Page 12
Chair Rodgers asked if solar panels would be used for the pool.
Mr. Aaggarwal replied yes, absolutely.
Director John Livingstone said that for the record the City does not tolerate any variation in
height from the approved plans. They are very specific. He added that since this house is
being located on a sloping lot, one will not see the same elevation when looking up at this
house from one direction versus looking down upon it from another direction.
Mr. Matt Christiano, Resident on Wardell Road:
• Explained that the emailed letter was not just from him but also from all the neighbors
collectively on the south side of the road.
• Reported that they all feel deceived about where this road was supposed to be located. It
has never been marked on the ground specifically indicating where it would be.
• Said that where this road is going in will be unsafe.
• Added that, when they made no progress with staff on this issue, they hired their own
traffic engineer. That traffic engineer says that it is unsafe.
• Provided a copy of the letter and traffic engineer’s report.
• Suggested that issues such as utilities, fire hydrants, sewer lines, gas and water going up
the hill be taken into account because none of that is up there now.
• Stated that these houses are going to create new fire hazards for the houses that are there
now.
• Said that this house is completely out of character and is easily twice as large as any other
house in the area. It is gigantic.
• Said that impervious coverage regulations are in place to prevent run off and to allow
water to soak into the hillside. This road will be up to 10,000 square feet of additional
impervious coverage.
• Asked the Commission to focus on safety issues, impervious coverage and the character
of this neighborhood.
Commissioner Cappello asked Mr. Matt Christiano to comment on the findings related to the
safety of the road.
Mr. Matt Christiano said that the new road is very steep and comes down at an oblique angle
that intersects their existing driveway in a place where they have very little sight distance of
approximately 30 feet. He added that they had originally been told that the road was going on
the north side of Wardell but that is not where it is going. Instead it is going on the south side
of Wardell in a very congested intersection.
Commissioner Nagpal reminded that the road is not what is in front of this Commission. It is
already approved.
Director John Livingstone added that the road was a separate process. The City’s traffic
engineer has approved the road with a stop sign
Commissioner Nagpal asked if the road would be brought before the Commission.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for February 28, 2007 Page 13
Director John Livingstone replied no.
Commissioner Nagpal asked whether the house, as proposed, would create views
interference.
Mr. Matt Christiano replied no.
Mr. Dan Cheadle, Owner of Lot C:
• Said that he has had conversations with Mr. Matt Christiano.
• Advised that it is not feasible to relocate the access road.
• Pointed out that these lots were sold with the access road a part of the deal. They have
been told that this road is the only solution.
• Recounted that these lots sat since 1998 as unsellable.
• Said that the four owners will be sensitive to neighbors.
• Disagreed that the access road would be unsafe, saying that traffic needs to go slow here.
• Added that in the countryside there are forks in the road everywhere.
Commissioner Hlava pointed out that Mr. Dan Cheadle’s home would be next door and up the
hill from this one. She asked him if he felt this proposed home is too big.
Mr. Dan Cheadle:
• Said that the design is well done albeit a little on the square side but that’s how they are
done in New York.
• Stated that he doesn’t like the appearance of the houses located on the ridge.
• Advised that he is trying to design his own house to have a good appearance.
• Pointed out that since he has been living in the flats he is used to seeing other houses.
Commissioner Hlava asked if he has a problem with bulk.
Mr. Dan Cheadle said that while the house does have bulk he has no problem with it. He said
he supports any suggested architectural details as appropriate.
Mr. Tom Nim, Owner of Lot B:
• Said that the north side of the Wardell is impossible to build the access road. Only the
south side is possible.
• Said that the applicant has done a good job designing this house.
Mr. Aaggarwal:
• Said that this lot was sold as a flag lot and that the area where the road will be installed is
the only possible place for it.
• Advised that he had consulted with an attorney.
• Said that some might ask the question of whether this design is out of character but that
the home conforms to City requirements.
• Added that all of the new homes on lots A through D will be more than 6,000 square feet
and two-story homes.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for February 28, 2007 Page 14
• Reminded that the five people who sent the email cannot see this proposed home from
their own homes.
Chair Rodgers pointed out that there are several smaller houses directly across. She asked if
Mr. Aaggarwal had talked to the owners.
Mr. Aaggarwal replied yes. All seven have signed off on the neighbor notification form.
Chair Rodgers closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 3.
Commissioner Nagpal:
• Said that she appreciates what has been said but that this Commission is simply looking at
Design Review here this evening.
• Said that the issues raised by the five neighbors in their email have been addressed.
• Expressed appreciation that the plan to remove trees was withdrawn as well as the
agreement to limit cut to no more than 1,000 cubic yards.
• Said that the articulation and panels will minimize the perception of bulk as well as use of
window trim, varying rooflines and columns. With those details, she is satisfied. The
house has symmetry. She can make the bulk finding.
• Added that as far as compatibility, this is a large lot with an appropriately sized house for it.
The Commission does not talk about square footage just architectural design.
• Stated that the story poles help determine that there are no significant impacts from this
house. There is good topography and screening.
• Said that as far as the colors, she thanked the applicant for bringing actual samples and is
fine with either color choice.
• Stated that as far as use of stone, she would like to hear what the others think but that she
thinks it might help.
• Advised that she is supportive of this application.
Commissioner Zhao:
• Reiterated that this action tonight is Design Review.
• Added that the Commission cannot comment on the road.
• Said that it is hard to tell with the drawing provided but that the house looks like it might be
a little bulky with its straight wall on both sides.
• Said that her only issue is that the house is bulky.
• Stated that she thinks she can support this application.
Commissioner Cappello:
• Echoed what has already been said.
• Said that he has no issue with bulk. This is a big home but it is also a big lot in an area
that supports it quite well.
• Added that he would like to see more articulation and that the proposed stone may not
provide it since it is proposed to be located quite low on the house.
• Suggested that landscaping does a better job than stone so he would prefer to see stucco
to stone there.
• Agreed that both color choices are good ones.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for February 28, 2007 Page 15
• Said he can make all findings and support this request.
Commissioner Hlava:
• Said that stucco is fine.
• Advised she has no problem with bulk as there is a lot of in and out going on in the design
and the house is located on the lower end of the hill and will be perfectly fine without
looking excessive.
• Added that there are no view impacts.
• Reminded that the road is not the issue before the Planning Commission.
• Said that she can make the findings.
• Agreed that either color sample is fine although she herself prefers the Almond color
better.
Chair Rodgers:
• Agreed that the Commission is not dealing with the road this evening.
• Said that she sees a nicely designed house.
• Expressed concern with the concept of using landscaping as a remedy for deficiencies in
design.
• Reminded that they have been taught not to use landscaping in that manner.
• Added that she would like to see concerns addressed by architecture and not landscaping.
• Suggested that, rather than utilizing some sort of stone veneer, real stone is used but she
would leave the final decision up to the applicant and his architect.
• Said that she personally thought stone might be too busy.
• Advised that she had been concerned with the color names of “Peach Bliss” and “Red” for
the roof tiles but looking at the actual samples alleviated that concern.
• Thanked the applicant for installing story poles on site.
• Said that as far as the character of the neighborhood, it is being established here with this
first home. One can expect a large house. This is a nicely done design.
• Stated that she can make the findings to support this project.
Director John Livingstone pointed out that there are two bay windows in the front façade over
which copper roofing would be used. The large clay roof tiles cannot be used in that type of
turning radius.
Commissioner Nagpal suggested leaving color choice and use of stucco or stone to the
applicant.
Chair Rodgers said that she is not so sure that use of stone goes that well with an Italian
Renaissance style architecture. If stone is used, it should be of a high quality.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said he needs to make one additional change to the resolution
in addition to adding the Public Works condition #14. Condition #16 on bonds should be
amended to read, “… value of the ordinance-protected trees.”
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for February 28, 2007 Page 16
Director John Livingstone suggested that if a choice between use of stucco and/or stone is to
be made he would prefer the Commission make that decision. The applicant wants to use
stucco. Unless a compelling reason exists not to, he would generally allow that to occur.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hlava,
the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application
#07-017) to construct a two-story single-family residence with an attached
garage, basement, swimming pool, and detached bathroom on property
located at 20865 Wardell Road, as modified
• The addition of Public Works’ Condition 14 requiring an encroachment
permit;
• The modification to Condition 16;
• The modification so that the notations on the plan reading “stucco or
stone” be amended to read “stucco”; and
• Modifying Condition 3-B to limit grading to less than 1,000 cubic yards
of cut,
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao
NOES: None
ABSENT: Kundtz
ABSTAIN: None
***
DIRECTOR’S ITEMS
There were no Director’s Items.
COMMISSION ITEMS
Chair Rodgers:
• Advised that last week Council upheld the Planning Commission’s action with a 3-2 vote
on the Martin Appeal on Springer Avenue. She added that the $200 appeal fee is a direct
cost to the City to process appeals and should not be considered for reimbursement too
lightly. The Council prefers not to reverse the fee.
• Reminded that Council would hold its retreat on Friday, March 2nd. At that time, they will
consider Ordinance amendment priorities for the year. She listed the Planning
Commission’s prioritization as being:
o Fence Ordinance
o Story poles, mandated increased noticing, contact info signs on project sites, etc.
o Sign Ordinance
o Non-Conforming Use Ordinance.
• Announced that the Council would conduct a Study Session on the General Plan on March
6th. On March 13th making the Design Review process friendlier as well as green
construction will be discussed in a Study Session.
COMMUNICATIONS
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for February 28, 2007 Page 17
There were no Communications Items.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, Chair Rodgers
adjourned the meeting at 9:11 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of
March 14, 2007, at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk