Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-24-1996 Planning Commission Minutest ~~ .~ ~ANNING COMMISSION MINU~ JULY 24, 1996 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Chairwoman Kaplan called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. Roll Call Present: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami, Pierce Late: None Absent: Patrick, Siegfried Staff: Community Development Director Curtis and Planner Walgren. City Attorney Riback was not present this evening. Pledge of Allegiance iViinutes - 7/10/96 COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE THE JULY 10, 1996 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: - Page ~, paragraph 6, amended to read: "Commissioner Asfour asked staff to clarify t€:the. audene~ the status of this pre~ee~- request- vvith.:.r~~ards::;::::t~: ........... ;:.;::. Measure G. - Page 7, second paragraph amended to read: "Commissioner Abshire ~'~~' ~°* '~°'~°~~° f:.:~:: that this parcel eauld beterpre~e~.: as a flan lot. " - Page 8, paragraph 2, line 2 amended to read: "...input from the neighbors was a reason to deny a tu4 st©nF:. request.... " rt.: THE MOTION CARRIED 3-0-2 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ABSHIRE, ASFOUR, MURAKAMI; NOES: NONE; ABSTAIN': KAPLAN, PIERCE: ABSENT: PATRICK, SIEGFRIED. Oral Communications No comments were offered. Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code X4954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July 19, 1996. Technical Corrections to Packet PLANNING COMMIS~~I MINUTES JULY 24, 1996 PAGE - 2 - Planner Walgren noted two corrections to consent calendar item 1 as follows: 1) Condition 1 of the resolution of approval has been amended to clarify that the future building and driveway locations need to be consistent with the approved site development plan and all tree protection measures, and 2) The applicant requested that page 2 of the handout be clarified to state that the applicants would have the opportunity to select their o~vn geotechnical and geological consultant to complete the study. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. SD-95-004 - BURKE, 13485 VILLA OAKS LN.; Request for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide the 15 acre (gross) Lot 18 of the Mt. Eden Estates subdivision into three individual lots of 6.1, 5.1 and 3.1 acres. The property is located within a Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district (cont. from 7/10/96 to adopt approval Resolutions; Cite review deadline is 9/20/96). COMMISSIONERS PIERCE/ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 1 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). PUBLIC HEARL~IG CO\TSENT CALENDAR 2. DR-95-048 - CLARK,12189 PARKER RANCH ROAD; Request for Design Revie«~ approval to construct a ne~v 3,366 square foot t«-o-story residence on an undeveloped parcel pursuant to Chapter 15 of the Saratoga City Code. The subject property is approximately 47,180 square feet in gross area and is located in a Hillside Residential zoning district (continued to 8/14/96 at the request of the applicant for additional time to complete plan revisions; City review deadline is 1/9/97). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. DR-96-034 & SD-91-004.2 - HUSAIN: 20150 ~1ENDELSOHN LN. Request for Design Review approval to construct a 4,510 square foot single-story residence pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is 20,006 square feet located in an R-1-20,000 zoning district. The application also includes a request to modify a condition of the subdivision approval. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI/ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 2 AND 3 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. DR-96-022 - SL1~1, 14360 DOUGLASS LA\E; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 5,340 sq. ft. t«°o-story residence pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is 65,166 sq. ft. and is located in an R-1-20,000 zoning district (continued from 7/10/96 at the request of the applicant to complete plan revisions; City review deadline is 11/1/96). i• PLANNING COMMISa1~T MINUTES • JULY 24, 1996 PAGE - 3 - Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that letters were received from area neighbors withdrawing their previous concerns and objections regarding this application. Chairwoman Kaplan noted that page 21, item 1 of the mitigation measures, apart of Scott's Design Associates' letter, addressed the use of a gate. She asked what gate was being referenced as a concern? Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the design group vas referring to a proposed gate that would start at the beginning of the driveway. Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 7:46 p.m. Scott Cunningham, project designer, addressed the fence issue. He indicated that a ne~v driveway is proposed as an alternative and that the gate being referred to is to be separated by a delineated pedestrian pathway to access the Sun's property. He indicated that he was trying to determine if this was a construction improvement as defined by the tentative map requirements. It vas his belief that the issue of the riparian easement vas supposed to be scheduled for public hearing at the last meeting but that staff did not notice it for public hearing. He addressed the compatibility of the building with those of the neighborhood. He noted that the home next door was remodeled to a two story structure with no public input and that there were a number of two story homes within this region. He addressed the following conditions: - Condition 6a -requested clarification whether the condition meant that parking would be prohibited under the tree planting during construction or whether it was a permanent condition; - Condition 8 -requested that the 15 gallon trees be maintained as there are a number of large trees located on site and that the 15 gallon trees would meet the concerns that were originally expressed; - Condition 15 -requested that Mr. Sun be indemnified from any injuries derived from the pedestrian right-of-way. Mr. Cunningham addressed the modifications made to the proposal and felt that the proposed revised design addressed the concerns of grading, mass and bulk. Chairwoman Kaplan noted that three fireplaces were proposed. Mr. Cunningham stated that the applicant would agree to modify the fireplaces to be gas burning. y John Tefer, 19931 Durham Court, stated that the applicant's willingness to modify the plans was appreciated. He addressed the fruit trees and felt that they were compatible with that typical of Saratoga. He thanked the Commission for seriously considering the concerns of the neighbors and hoped that it would continue to do so. Annette Woolsey, 19952 Durham Court, stated that the applicant met with the neighbors and that the modifications presented this evening address the neighbors' concerns. i• PLANNING COMMIS~T MINUTES • JULY 24, 1996 PAGE - 4 - Mr. Sun, applicant, informed the Commission that two proposals were submitted, noting that the second alternative was not reviewed or considered. He requested that he be allowed the use of the easement. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that it reviewed the applicant's original proposal at its June 26, 1996 meeting. He stated that Exhibit "B"addresses the recommended changes of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kaplan informed Mr. Sun that the Commission considered the original proposal and the it has reviewed all pertinent information that has been included in the Commission's packet. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PIERCE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:02 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED ~-0 (COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). Commissioner Asfour noted that a concern was raised regarding condition 8 relating to the landscaping. He asked staff why it was recommending an increase from 15 gallons to 24 inch boxed trees. He also requested staff clarify condition 15 to the applicant relating to indemnification. Community Development Director Curtis clarified that condition 15 holds the applicant liable and not the city. Planner Walgren stated that eight oak trees are proposed, noting that it is a common practice of the Planning Commission to require that half (four) of the trees be upgraded to 24 inch boxed size trees to achieve a variation in tree canopy. Chairwoman Kaplan clarified that condition 15 is a standard condition and that the Commission does not have the authority to amend it. Commissioner Murakami stated that early in the design phase of the project, staff worked with the applicant for some time. He did not believe that the applicant took steps to address some of the concerns expressed by staff. He stated that this was the reason he raised the compromise issue. Regarding the request to amend condition 15, he did not believe that the City should be held liable. Commissioner Abshire felt that the applicant made reasonable adjustments to the plans. noting that the neighbors stated their agreement to the modifications. He felt that the house would look like a castle in the neighborhood. However, if the neighbors did not object to this, he would not object to it either. Commissioner Pierce stated that the applicant worked with the neighbors and that the neighbors appear to be in agreement with the modification. He also felt that the home vas a big house but would support the home as the applicant agreed to the modifications to address the Commission's previous concerns. C t• PLANNING COMMIS•1~T MINUTES • JULY 24, 1996 PAGE - 5 - Chairwoman Kaplan felt that it was reasonable to vary the size of the planting materials and would support staff's recommendation. If the applicant wishes to plant additional trees beyond staff's recommendation, she would support it. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she opposed the use of the pedestrian easement for vehicular traffic as it would set a terrible precedent. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE/ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-96-022, APPROVING EXHIBIT "B" AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). 5. SD-96-001 - BLACKWELL; 13145 PIERCE ROAD; Request for Tentative Subdivision Map approval to subdivide a parcel of land totalling 9.02 acres into six single-family lots. The existing residence and improvements would be maintained and a new cul-de-sac would access the development off Pierce Road. The proposed lots range in size from 40,000 to 51,000 sq. ft. and would permit 5.766 to 6,160 sq. ft. residences (including garages). The property is located in an R-1-40,000 zoning district. y An environmental initial study and subsequent Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project pursuant to the terms and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He identified the reports completed as part of the project's environmental review (i.e. ,traffic impact statement, soil sampling and analysis report. geotechnical and geologic investigation report, arborist report, and biotic assessment to assess the impact of the bridge construction on riparian habitat through the Calabazas Creek area). He stated that the reports conclude that there are no long term significant environmental impacts that would result due to this development. He informed the Commission that letters were received from area residents expressing concern regarding: 1) the size of the homes that ~~~ould allowed with the creation of the lots; 2) whether this proposal would be affected by the recently enacted Measure G (Planner Walgren indicated that the proposal would not be affected by Measure Gas the subdivision as proposed complies with the City's General Plan designation and complies with the zoning standards for this property); and 3) questioned whether the construction of the bridge has been properly reviewed (it was indicated that the Department of Fish and Game. the Water District, the City Engineer, biologist, geologist and the arborist have reviewed this proposal and that they are supported the proposal). Chairwoman Kaplan referred to page 27, Environmental Initial Study, III. Geologic Problems, and inquired as to the creek setbacks for the Odd Fellows' property. She asked if there was a setback standard for creek setbacks. Planner Walgren responded that the creek setbacks for the Odd Fellows' project was recommended to be 100 feet for a particular area , noting that it was reduced in areas that were already developed. He indicated that City codes does not stipulate creek setbac k requirements. Community t PLANNING COMMISiN MINUTES • JULY 24, 1996 PAGE - 6 - Development Director Curtis further clarified that creek setbacks are determined on a case- by-case basis. Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 8:15 p.m. Bill Heiss, civil engineer, noted that the parcel vas a large level one and that it lends itself to the proposed development. Access to the parcel located on the other side of the creek is to be by a railroad flat bed with a clear span of 80 feet and that the fill to be used would reduce any impact to the riparian corridor. Greg Blackwell, applicant, furnished the Commission with preliminary renderings for lots 1 and 6, noting that the designs were that of single story homes. He informed the Commission that lot 4 would probably be a two story home as it has a smaller building area. He informed the Commission that the existing 3.500 square foot adobe home that is located on lot 2 is to remain. y Commissioner Murakami asked if there vas any new information regarding access to lot 3`? Mr. Blackwell informed the Commission that no decision has been made regarding access to lot 3. He further informed the Commission that there was a possibility that lot 3 may be sold to Mr. Hulme. Lewis Franklin, 13209 Padero Court, informed the Commission that he owns the property that runs the entire length of the western side of this property. He expressed concern regarding lots 3 and 4. He expressed concern with the proposed bridge and with the trees that would go down the creek. He stated that approximately 10 years ago. the Water District brought in 300 large rocks to control erosion, noting that the rocks have moved around the creek. He stated that he did not oppose the development, but indicated that he only had one week to review the proposal. Haus Stellrecht, 13200 Pierce Road, expressed concern with the size of the proposed homes. the need to connect to existing services (increased load), and with increased traffic to Pierce Road (lack of visibility of the corner of Pierce Road as it turns southwest). He requested that two story homes be prohibited. John Hulme. 20964 Comer Drive, stated that he has seen trees fall into the creek and bank erosion occurring during big storms. He expressed concern with the proposed bridge that would access lot 3 and with the creation of a channel to his property. He expressed concern that the SCVWD would not maintain the creek area. He also expressed concern regarding the setback of the home proposed behind him. Luanne Nieman. 13217 Padero Court, expressed concern with the cumulative affect with development upstream from the Calabazas Creek and with increased water runoff (maintenance of the creek). She noted that there are several levels of bureaucracy involved with the Calabazas Creek. She also expressed concern with the construction of the bridge. Although 5 homes do not impact the schools or roads, she felt that the power lines would be impacted (power surges). _ t PLANNING COMMIS•N MINUTES • JULY 24, 1996 PAGE - 7 - William Glennon, 13091 Pierce Road. stated that he opposed the replacement of vineyards with homes. He also did not like homes being built for individuals ~vho were not residents of Saratoga. He inquired about condition 7 relating to the asphalt swale and expressed concern that the s~vale would run all the way to Comer Avenue. He noted that there were three private driveways between this property and Comer Drive. He hoped that the swale would not traverse the driveway but that it be tunneled through. He noted that Condition 8 addresses the widening of Pierce Road and that he hoped that the entire frontage would not be widened as it would create an unsafe traffic situation (i.e., cars passing). Mr. Heiss indicated that he would be working with the city engineer regarding the s~vale issue. He stated that a shoulder is being proposed to be installed to prevent erosion. He indicated that widening of the road would be approximately five or six feet as one approaches the cul-de-sac. He stated that the bridge proposed would be high enough to handle a 100 year flood. He indicated that the bridge would be an intrusion into nature by two feet but that it can be architectural treated with a facade. He also indicated that the utilities are to be undergrounded. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:45 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED ~-0 (COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). Commissioner Murakami inquired about the size of the bridge and whether its size vas a fire requirement? Planner Walgren responded that the size of the bridge vas a building code requirement as well as a fire code requirement. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that there were outstanding issues that needed to be addressed and that she could not take action unless the issues were addressed. Commissioner Asfour expressed concern with access to lot 3. Commissioner Pierce asked if other lot layouts were submitted for review. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that this was the only map that staff reviewed and that based on the civil engineer's ability to design a bridge that is well above the 100 year flood plain and with all of the environmental clearances, it seemed like the design could work. Commissioner Murakami stated that he could not support the bridge proposal because it would be a hazard. He concurred with the neighbors' concern regarding flooding. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she understood the neighbors' drainage concern. She asked if the city could limit the homes to one story structures for lots 1, 5, and 6. Commissioner Asfour stated that he would support restricting lots 1 and 6 to one story homes but not the other lots. PLANNING COMMIS•N MINUTES JULY 24, 1996 PAGE - 8 - Commissioner Abshire felt that there may be some valuable information regarding the bridge that traverses Comer Drive as to how it handles flooding and recommended that staff investigate its history. Planner Walgren noted that the Comer bridge is a shorter spanned bridge and that it was a lower bridge than what is being proposed. He indicated that the Comer bridge requires regular maintenance by the Water District. Chairwoman Kaplan asked if the material proposed would help stabilize the banks? Planner Walgren stated that the material would help stabilize the banks at the point where they support the bridge. Community Development Director Curtis addressed the construction and height requirement of a bridge to meet a 100 year flood. He indicated that staff would research the history of the Comer bridge. Chairwoman Kaplan asked about the non-responsiveness concern expressed by the neighbors by the Water District. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that the Public Works Department would have that information. Commissioner Murakami asked if there was an active problem with power outages in the Pierce Road area. Community Development Director Curtis stated that he .vas not aware of a specific development that was over loading power lines. Commissioner Murakami asked staff if thought had been given to installing a sign warning individuals of a blind spot near the cul-de-sac area. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that the Public Works Department refers traffic concerns to the Public Safety Commission to determine whether a warning sign is necessary. Commissioner Asfour recommended that this item be continued to determine what would happen to the front portion of lot 3 should the back portion of lot 3 be sold to Mr. Hulme. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE/ASFOUR MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:00 P.M. Mr. Blackwell informed the Commission that lots 3a and 3 would be sold to Mr. Hulme and that Mr. Hulme has not indicated that he would install a bridge but that its installation would not be ruled out. Commissioner Asfour asked if Mr. Blackwell would be willing to sell the back lot to Mr. Hulme Mr. Blackwell responded that the back portion of lot 3 could be sold separately, but that it would not be as valuable. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE/ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:02 p.in. i PLANNING COMMIS~T MINUTES ~• JULY 24, 1996 PAGE - 9 - Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she liked the proposal with the exception of lot 3. She also expressed concern that the flooding issues. Commissioner Pierce recommended that there be a size limitation to lot 3 due to its small footprint. Community Development Director Curtis recommended that this suggestion be addressed at the design review stage. Planner Walaren stated that the resolution could stipulate that lots 1 and 6 are to be restricted to single story home and that the future home for lot 3 is to be designed in size to be compatible and consistent with the size of the back portion of the lot. Commissioners Pierce and Abshire stated that based on staff's response, they could support the request. Commissioner Murakami expressed concern with the proposed bridge and the impact to the creek and recommended that this item be continued so that the concerns can be addressed. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR APPLICATION SD-96-001 AS PRESENTED. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. SD- 96-001 WITH AN ADDED CONDITION TO STIPULATE THAT LOTS 1 AND 6 ARE TO BE RESTRICTED TO SINGLE STORY HOMES AND THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION TO STATE THAT LOT 3 IS TO BE COMPATIBLE AND CONSISTENT WITH THE SIZE OF THE BACK PORTION OF THE LOT. THE MOTION CARRIED 3-2 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ABSHIRE, ASFOUR, PIERCE; NOES: KAPLAN, MURAKAMI: ABSTAIN: NONE; ABSENT: PATRICK, SIEGFRIED. 6. UP-96-006 -PACIFIC BELL 1iOBILE SERVICES/WEST VALLEYCO~II\~IU\'ITY COLLEGE; 14000 FRUITVALEAVE;Request for Use Permit approval to construct Personal Communications Services antennas atop an existing building at West Valley Community College. Planner VValaren presented the staff report. Chairwoman Kaplan opened UP-96-006 to public hearing at 9:20 p.m. Charles O'Brian, representing Pac Bell, concurred with staff's recommendation. He noted that the proposed antennae panels are to be of a slim profile. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PIERCE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:20 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). PLANNING COMMIS~T MINUTES • JULY 24, 1996 PAGE - 10 - COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/ABSHIRE MOVED TO APPROVE THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS SUBMITTED. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI/PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION UP- 96-006. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. UP-96-007 -PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SERVICES/TURKUS; VACANTLOT NEXT TO 13501 SOUSA LN.; Request for Use Permit approval to construct a 30 ft. tall monopole Personal Communications Services antenna at a vacant on Sousa Ln. at the corner of Quito Rd. and Route 85. Planner Walaren presented the staff report. Commissioner Murakami asked if the property owner has been contacted and whether the property owner has agreed to clean up the property (weed abatement)? Community Development Curtis indicated that the applicant receives the conditions of approval and that it would be up to the property owner and the applicant to determine who would be maintaining the property. Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 9:24 p.m. Mr. O'Brian indicated that he is working with the property owner regarding the maintenance of the property. Commissioner Asfour noted that the antenna structures are different for this site. He asked why the Sousa Lane site proposes a tri-pole versus a single pole as proposed at West Valley. Mr. O'Brian indicated that this was a single pole with an array of antennas and that it would be mounted differently. y Rolf Slade, 13501 C Souza Lane. noted that there were three homes located on Souza Lane. He stated his opposition to the antennas because he did not want to see the antennas from his backyard. He indicated that the adjacent neighbors were not notified of the request. He asked if the zoning would allow this commercial use? Commissioner Asfour stated that the antenna structure located at Lawrence Expressway was different than the newly designed antennas which are different due to the frequency used. Nick Lundmark, 13501 B Sousa Lane, indicated that he is the adjacent resident. He informed the Commission that he vas not notified of the public hearing for this use, noting that he purchased the home eleven months ago. He opposed the antenna because of its visibility. Chairwoman Kaplan indicated that there would be greater control of maintenance with the approval of a use permit. PLANNING COMMIS~T MINUTES JULY 24, 1996 PAGE - 11 - Jack Clay, representing his mother ~vho resides at 13393 Sousa Street, expressed concern with property values and the fact that the antennae would be an eye sore. Also of concern vas the lack of maintenance to the site. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PIERCE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:30 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). Commissioner Asfour stated that technology moves on whether one likes it or not, noting that antennas need to be located somewhere. It vas his belief that antenna sites are scientifically selected and were not randomly selected. Commissioner Murakami noted that the antennae vas sited in the middle of the property. He stated that if a tree was located on the site, it would hide the antenna so that it is less obtrusive. Planner Walgren noted that the antennae is located behind a tree to screen it from the street view. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she has driven up and down the state and stated that you would not notice these antennas unless you were looking for them. Planner Walgren clarified the city'spublic noticing process, noting that a never resident may not be listed on the most current tax roll. y Commissioner Pierce stated that he sympathized with the neighbors. Unfortunately, the antennas are going to have to go somewhere. It vas his belief that this was a better location than other locations. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she did not feel that this request would detract from the neighborhood and that approval of the request may help with the property's maintenance. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS PIERCE AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/ABSHIRE MOVED TO APPROVE UP-96-007. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. U~P-96-008 -PACIFIC BELL 1~10BILE SERVICES/O'CO\TNOR; 12820-12840 SARATOGA-SLNI~TYVALERD.; Request for Use Permit approval to construct Personal Communications Services antennas atop an existing commercial/retail building at the Saratoga Oaks shopping center. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 9:40 p.m. PLANNING COMMIS~T MINUTES • JULY 24, 1996 PAGE - 12 - Mr. O'Brian addressed the siting of the proposed antennae on the property. He indicated that he field tested the alternate site as recommended by staff and that it would be necessary to raise the antennae 3~ feet above grade to achieve a clear reception. He did not believe that there would be a visual impact on this site and that it would not be visible from surrounding streets. He indicated that he would agree to relocate the antennae to the alternative location and that it be no higher than 35 feet above grade. Commissioner Asfour stated that he would prefer a shorter structure at the original location. Ken Wilton, 20405 Cox Avenue, stated that one antennae is not objectionable but how do you deny future requests to install antennas on retail buildings. He indicated that most of the neighbors oppose the request. y Marc Kocii•, 12795 Saratoga Road, questioned the need for these antennas in Saratoga. He felt that the residents of Saratoga object to these antennas. He noted that Mayor Jacobs has indicted that telephone poles are to be undergrounded along Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road up towards the Village. He asked why residential areas are no«~ being selected for antennae sites. Mr. O'Brian responded that the process is part of a large network and that sites are selected in intervals, noting that antennas are sited along the freeways to serve commuters as «-ell as the community This site is a localized infill site to serve the community. noting that the antennae would be virtually invisible. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PIERCE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:46 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). Commissioner Asfour stated that he has no personal interest in the request and felt that the use would benefit the general public. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she attended work sessions where it has been indicated that there is a need for these antennas. This is a world wide event and that in this case, it would benefit everyone ~vho resides in the city or travels through the city. She felt that this was an ideal location for the proposed use. Commissioner Murakami asked if this would be a multiple user site? Planner Walgren stated that it could be, noting that two new applications have been submitted. Commissioner Pierce stated that the Commission has been revie«-ing these requests for the past six months that he has been on the Commission. He indicated that he attended the work sessions in Long Beach with Chairwoman Kaplan relating to this issue. He stated that if the City of Saratoga had commercial areas. antennas could be located within those areas. He noted that Saratoga was primarily a residential city. He felt that the City needs to deal with these uses as best that it could. He felt that this antenna was sited adjacent to the oak trees and that it would be screened. PLANNING COMMIS~T MINUTES • JULY 24, 1996 PAGE - 13 - COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE ALTERNATE SITE AT THE BACK OF THE BUILDING, ADJACENT TO THE CREEK. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIOI\TERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI/ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. UP-96-008. THE MOTION CARRIED ~-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. LAP-96-009 - PACIFIC BELL i\iOBILE SERVICES/CITY OF SARATOGA; CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK; Request for Use Permit approval to construct a 34 ft. tall monopole antenna at Congress Springs Park on Glen Brae Dr. An environmental Initial Study and subsequent Negative Declaration have been prepared for each individual project and site pursuant to the terms and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 10:00 p.m. Mr. O'Brian stated that he concurred with staff's recommendation. Madeline Chiavetta, 19548 Chardonnay Court, felt that the park vas an eye sore due to the lack of maintenance. She felt that individuals are hesitant in moving into this area, noting that the older homes are depreciating in value ~~-ith the construction of ne«~er homes. She stated her opposition to the request. Bernard Vogel, 13010 Glen Brae Drive, indicated that he resides adjacent to the park. He stated that he was not contacted by Pacific Bell regarding their proposal. He indicated that he received a weeks notice of the request and that he submitted a letter to be included in the Commission's packet. He did not believe that the weeks notice vas enough time to inform adjacent residents of tonight's meeting. He felt that technology needs to be dealt with in a very prudent fashion and that there are more than scientific reasons ~;shy sites are selected (i.e., financial reasons). He recommended that the City consider sharing the burden because he felt that this park already shares more than its fair share of poles. Commissioner Asfour informed the public that the issue of antennas, in general, has been before the Commission for the past six months but that this is the first time that the Commission is reviewing these use permit requests. Commissioner Abshire asked the applicant if there vas a technical reason ~vhy one of the existing poles could not be used? Mr. O'Brian responded that the poles holding the net are of a wood design and that it is not structurally designed for this antenna. ' PLANNING COMMIS~T MINUTES JULY 24, 1996 PAGE - 14 - Commissioner Murakami noted that there were existing utility towers located adjacent to this field and asked if there would be transmission interference with the existing towers. Mr. O'Brian responded that there would not be transmission interference because there would be a difference in frequencies. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PIERCE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:10 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). Commissioner Murakami felt that this was one of the better sites for the antennae as it blends in with what exists on the site. Commissioner Pierce asked staff if Sprint has applied for a use permit application for this site? Community Development Director Curtis stated that Sprint has submitted an application at the far end of Congress Springs Park and that it is scheduled for an August 14, 1996 public hearing. Commissioner Pierce recommended that both requests be considered at the same time to view its location in relationship to the park to minimize the impact of multi-users. He recommended that the pole be relocated to the tennis court area. Chairwoman Kaplan felt that this was a perfect site as it was located adjacent to the freeway and that it already contained a number of poles. Approval would require that the site be cleaned up. Planner Walgren stated that a maintenance district has been established for the maintenance of the park and that it is likely that the property owner would be required to participate in the district. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PIERCE MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:18 P.M. TO ASK THE APPLICANT IF HE WOULD AGREE TO A CONTINUANCE. Commissioner Asfour asked if the applicant would be willing to relocate the antenna closer to the tennis courts? Mr. O'Brian stated that he supported the proposed location because it fits with the network established. He indicated that he would agree to a condition that would stipulate that he is to cooperate with Sprint if they ~;pant to explore the possibility of co-location of this site. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:21 P.M. Commissioner Asfour stated that he would not support the placement of the antennas in the middle of the park and recommended that they be located at either end of the park. He stated that he accepts the applicant's explanation/preference. PLANNING COMMIS~T MINUTES • JULY 24, 1996 PAGE - 15 - Commissioner Abshire stated that he had a credibility concern and that he did not believe that moving the antenna a couple hundred of yards to the east would create a technical problem. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR UP-96-09. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. UP-96-09 AS PRESENTED. THE MOTION CARRIED 3-2 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ASFOUR, MURAKAMI, KAPLAN: NOES: ABSHIRE, PIERCE; ABSTAIN: NONE: ABSENT: PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. 7. DR-96-035 -MUELLER; 14840 ~IONTALVO ROAD; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 213 sq. ft. first story addition and a 1,075 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing 3,226 sq. ft. single story residence. The subject property has a net site area of 20.400 sq. ft. and is located within the R-1-20.000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 10:27 p.m. Doug Todd, architect, concurred with staff's recommendation. He felt that the design was compatible to the existing homes. He addressed the privacy concern as they relate to the proposed upper windows. He provided the Commission with photos depicting the line of site. Mr. Mueller, applicant, indicated that he spoke to the neighbors to the south ~vho have indicated that they do not object to the request. Igbal Husain, 13271 Via Arriba, expressed concern with the reduction in privacy. He requested that additional landscaping be required to mitigate his privacy concern. Commissioner Murakami stated that at the site visit, the Commission felt that there was adequate tree coverage and that the applicant has indicated that he would be wi111nQ to install additional landscaping to address Mr. Husain's concern. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PIERCE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:35 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/ABSHIRE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-96-035 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). PLANNING COMMISI~T MINUTES • JULY 24, 1996 PAGE - 16 - 8. DR-96-021 - BASU; 21777 VLtiTTAGE LANE; Request for Design Review approval to construct a ne~v 5,28 sq. ft. two-story residence on a vacant, hillside lot pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is 1.57 acres and is located within the Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district. Planner Walaren presented the staff report. Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 10:36 p.m. Walter Chapman, project designer, thanked staff for its assistance in the redesign following being informed that trace faults exist on the property. He felt that efforts have been made to minimize the impact to the oak grove of trees and to grading of the site, taking into consideration the neighbors' concerns. He noted that shifting the home downhill would require the removal of six additional trees. He addressed the pavilion architectural feature. Bill Heiss, civil engineer, addressed the building envelop and indicated that he had no prior knowledge of the faults. He also addressed the boundary lines of buildable area and the 30 foot public service easement. He further stated that the Geologist did not believe that the pool would create a safety concern. y Chairwoman Kaplan requested clarification regarding the proposed Gate. Mr. Chapman indicated that a gate is proposed to be installed at the driveway as the entire area has been fenced in to contain a dog. Evert VanDeven, 21615 Vintage Lane, President of the Saratoga Heights Homeowners Association, stated that he was pleased that the proposed home would be consistent with the existing buildings. He was also pleased with the fact that the six trees are to be retained for screeninG purposes. He stated that he did not have a problem with the proposed plans for a single story home. He requested that the city engineer review the drainage plans as there have been many landslides in the area. Patrick Saffarian, 21519 Saratoga Heights Drive, indicated that he did not receive plans for this proposal until Sunday because they were sent to the vacant lot D. He objected to the location and the heiuht of the structure. He felt there were some inconsistencies with the geotechnical findings from previous reports. He requested that a second opinion be obtained to verify the findings. He expressed concern that the hillside home would be visible to every home in the neighborhood. He felt that the home would infringe on his family's privacy, noting that his views would be obstructed. He requested that the height of the home be reduced as a 26 foot height limitation seems to be excessive. He also requested that the home be redesigned to reduce the height of the structure or that this item be continued so that he could have adequate time to review the plans. Commissioner Asfour inquired about the discrepancies between the prior geotechical report and this geotechnical report. Planner Walgren stated that the discrepancy could be as a result of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. He also noted that at the time Mr. Heiss submitted an application, it vas not a city requirement that these properties receive PLANNING COMMIS~T MINUTES • JULY 24, 1996 PAGE - 17 - geotechnical clearances in advance of the public hearing. If permits were pursued, the Qeotechnical information would have come up later in the process (building permit stage). Commissioner Asfour noted that the applicant has an approved geotechnical report and that the Commission would be willing to accept the report. He asked Mr. Saffarian, for the record, if he would be willing to fund the completion of a second geotechnical report'? Mr. Saffarian responded that his family would be willing to fund another aeotechnical report. James Saffarian, 21519 Saratoga Heights Drive, noted that lot 33 shows fault traces. He did not believe that the geologist reviewed every part of the lot to determine whether there were other faults. He requested that this item be continued or that the Commission require that the home be sited higher on the site to preserve the existing trees. Marie Rose Gaspar, area resident for 46 years, stated that she did not have an opportunity to review the plans. She requested that the Commission continue this item to allow her the opportunity to complete her studies (i.e., have her architect study the plans and to hire an engineer to determine if a home other than what is being proposed can be built). Commissioner Asfour asked staff to advise the audience if project plans are normally mailed with the public notices'? Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that plans are not mailed to the adjacent property owners. However, the notices indicate that plans are available in the Communit}° Development Department for review. John Aldrich, project landscape architect, informed the Commission that the project would add 18 more trees and that the recommendation of the arborist would be followed. Radha Basu, applicant, informed the Commission that she purchased the lot from Mrs. Gaspar. She stated that it vas a surprise to her to find that trace faults exist on the property. She stated that this vas the only location that the home could be sited. She indicated her willingness to install additional landscaping to address Mrs. Gaspar's concerns. Commissioner Asfour noted that Ms. Basu has stated that she would like to site the home where it was originally proposed. He asked if Ms. Basu would be willing to continue this item to allow the completion of additional studies. Ms. Basu responded that she would not support a continuance as it would cause a delay in construction. Mr. Chapman stated that further studies would not result in additional findings and that a continuance would result in delay of construction due to weather conditions. He indicated that screening is proposed above the vineyard area to provide the neighbors with privacy and screening from the proposed home. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI/ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:11 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). PLANNING COMMIS~T MINUTES • JULY 24, 1996 PAGE - 18 - Commissioner Murakami felt that the applicant was severely constrained as far as siting the home. He stated that he did not object to the two story home. He felt that the trees that had to be removed were addressed with the replacement policy. He indicated that he would support the application. Commissioner Asfour stated that he would have preferred a single story structure. He indicated that he would accept the geotechnical report and support the application. Commissioner Pierce stated that he visited the site and indicated that he would support the application. Commissioner Abshire indicate that he would support the request with mixed emotions. He stated that he would have preferred to see a lower and smaller structure. but he noted that City ordinance allows this design construction. Chairwoman Kaplan indicated that the Commission visited the site and could not find any reason not to approve the application. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI/ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-96-035. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONER PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. 9. DR-96-032, SD-1567.2 - YE\; 20988 BURNETT DRIVE; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,462 sq. ft. two-story residence on a vacant lot pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The application includes a request to modify a condition of the subdivision approval which limited the allowable floor area to 4,800 sq. ft. The subject property is 1.27 acres and is governed by the standards of the R-1- 20,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He recommended that this item be continued to the August 14, 1996 to allow the applicant the opportunity to revise the plan to reduce the mass of the home and the innateness of the structure. Should the Commission wish to approve the request, staff would prepare resolutions of approval for its next meeting. Should the applicant not be willing to modify the design, the Commission could deny the request and staff would return with a resolution of denial. Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 11:19 p.m. David Pruitt, project designer, indicated that a design change has been completed to mitigate staff's concerns. He furnished the Commission with reduced. revised elevation plans for its review and identified the changes made to the plans. He noted that the landscape plans have been revised to mitigate the neighbors' concerns. He stated that it would be difficult to design a home that would not impact the neighbors. He indicated that he would be willing to work with the neighbors to screen the property with the installation of additional shrubs and trees. He felt that visibility from the front street can be mitigated. He requested a decision this evening due to the applicant's time constraints. -~~ PLANNING COMMIS~T MINUTES JULY 24, 1996 PAGE - 19 - Raymond Sinsley, 12280 Farr Ranch Road. stated that he helped create Beauchamps Lane. He stated that the maximum allowable square footage is 4.800 square feet according to the CC&Rs. Mr. Pruitt stated that he is a little over the 4.800 square feet due to the raising of the ceiling in the attic area for storage. He felt that the size of the lot and the constraints of the lot merits consideration of the increased square footage. He noted that this parcel was required to install a fire hydrant where other parcels were not required to do so. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI/ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:32P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). Commissioner Asfour asked if the CC&Rs restrict the size of the home to 4,800 square feet? Planner Walgren indicated that the 4.800 square feet restriction was made as part of the original subdivision conditions. He informed the Commission that the title report submitted to staff did not have the CC&Rs attached. Commissioner Pierce noted that staff has not had an opportunity to review the design submitted this evening. Commissioner Murakami stated that staff's concerns have not been mitigated and that he concurred with staff's recommendation. Chairwoman Kaplan expressed concern that a buyer purchased a property with restrictions. She felt that the residents of Saratoga do not want the city approving projects contradicting what was originally approved. Commissioner Asfour stated that he would not be willing to approve the request this evening. Should this item be continued, he requested that staff research the CC&Rs to review the restrictions. Chairwoman Kaplan clarified that what is being requested was a change to the subdivision and that she would not make changes to what was originally approved. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that the CC&Rs would take precedent over an amendment by the Commission. Commissioner Pierce inquired as to the material composition of the driveway? Planner Walgren responded that a concrete driveway is proposed. Commissioner Pierce expressed concern with the size of the driveway and its surface. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PIERCE MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBIC HEARING TO INQUIRE IF THE APPLICANT WOULD BE WILLING TO REDESIGN THE MASSIVE LOOK OF THE HOUSE AND THAT THE DRIVEWAY MATERIAL BE CHANGED TO A PERVIOUS MATERIAL. uc PLANNING COMMIS~T MINUTES • JULY 24, 1996 PAGE - 20 - Mr. Pruitt stated his agreement to a continuance. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/ABSHIRE MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SD-1567.2 TO AUGUST 14, 1996. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). Ms. Yen, applicant, indicated that this vas not the only request for an over sized home as a 5,500 square foot home has been built in the area. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS 1. DR-96-019 & 020: 13925 Trinity Ave. & 20755 Pontiac Ave. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the builder is requesting that the t~vo elevation trims be switched. He stated that the adjacent neighbors have expressed concern with the change in elevation. He noted that the applicant is also requesting a square foot adjustment to lots 1 and 2, noting that the homes are well under the lot and floor coverage allowed. y Chairwoman Kaplan indicated that she and Commissioner Siegfried received a call from Jean Williams who was informed by the construction crew that the homes had been switched. Ms. Williams expressed concern that the neighbors were not notified of the proposed changes. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the additional 50 square feet to lot 1 would bring the proposed home to 3,892 square feet where the code allows 4,000 square feet. For lot 2, the house was approved at 3,800 square feet and that it is no~v proposed to be 4,000 square feet where 4,100 square feet is allowed. Commissioner Asfour stated that he would support the requested modification with the stipulation that the modifications have not yet been completed without benefit of revie«~ and approval. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that it ~z=ould not be appropriate to approve the design modification only to rescind it in the future. He informed the Commission that if the applicant commenced construction of the design change without benefit of approval, the applicant would be required to pay a double fee at the building permit stage. Commissioner Abshire stated that he did not believe that the size vas appropriate. Therefore, he could not support the request. IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION THAT THE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE AND THE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE ORIGINAL DESIGN APPROVAL. w : i. PLANNING COMMIS~i MINUTES , JULY 24, 1996 PAGE - 21 - COAZ~IISSION ITEMS Chairwoman Kaplan stated that the letter submitted by Ms. Nieman does not accurately reflect the action taken by the Planning Commission on the Wona application located on Chadwick Court, noting that the Commission followed City codes. She also stated that when the Commission drove up to Aloha to Lomita. where a remodel has taken place, the Commission noted that the oak tree had debris and construction material located adjacent to the tree. Planner Walaren stated that he spoke with the property owner and with the city arborist. He informed the Commission that the City arborist was aware that the fencing was removed. He noted that the construction has been completed and that a walkway was being constructed underneath the tree. He indicated that the City arborist has been requested that he revisit the site. Commissioner Pierce stated that he attended a bicycle meeting and that the Committee was enthusiastic about the access through at the Stitch property. Commissioner Asfour informed the Commission that he has advised the Mayor that he would not be seeking reappointment to the Commission as his schedule would not allow him to continue serving as a Commissioner. CO1t1MUNICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes dated 6/29, 7/3, 7/5, 7/9/96 Oral City Council ADJOURI~IMENT -There being no further business. the meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m. to 5:00 p. m. ,Wednesday, August 14, 1996, EOC Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. , Saratoga, CA Respectfully Submitted. Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk IT;PC072a96.SAR