Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-13-1998 Planning Commission minutes• w CITY OF SAR.~TOGA PLANNING C0~4iVIISSION ;V~UTES DATE: ~~'ednesdap,l~Iay 13,1998 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruih~ale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular l-leeting Roll Call Present: Chair Pierce, Commissioners Martlase.l\Iurakami. Patrick Absent: Commissioners Bernald. Kaplan Staff: ~~'al;ren. Ratcliffe Pledge of Allegiance :~'Iinutes -April 22, 1998 At the request of Chair Pierce. consideration of the minutes of the previous meeting ryas postponed until the May 27, 1998 public hearin,. r Oral Communications ?Tone. Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 64964?. the a,enda for this meetin~* ryas properh~ posted on tilay 8. 1998. Technical Corrections to Packet Re,ardin_ Public Hearing item No. ~ (Cellular One), condition =6 ~;as stricken from the approval Resolution. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. DR-97-060 (AP\ 503-78-038) - NEOGY, 22665 Garrod Road; Request for Design Review approval to construct a ne«° 6.699 sq. ft., t~yo-store home on a vacant 4.48 acre lot in the Hillside Residential zouinT district. PATRICK%NIARTLAGE ~10VED TO COtiTIi`ItiE DR-97-060 AT THE APPLICANT'S REALEST. TO 6127/98; ivIOTIO\? PASSED 410. PUBLIC HE ARI\'GS 2. DR-97-028 (503-16-090) - BLACKR'ELL BROTHERS, 18850 Bella Vina Court; Request for Design Reyie~y approval to construct a ne~~• 6,219 sq. ft. t~i•o-story home on a vacant lot. The site is approximateh~ 76.000 sq. ft. Gross, 34,438 sq. ft. net (accounting for the Santa Clara Vallee Water District easement). It is accessed by a bridge across Calabazas Creek from Bella Vina Court and is located ~yithin an R-1-40.000 zonin, district. This application ryas previously heard at the Planning Commission meeting of January 28, 1998, and the study session of February 11, 1998. The parcel is Lot 3 of the recently approved Black«°ell 6 Lot Subdivision. Planning Commission Minutes • ~ PaQe 2 May 13, 1998 y VValgren presented the staff memorandum. Chris Spaulding. applicants architect. described changes made to the project. John Hulme, 2096=I Comer Drive, distributed a letter to the Commission. He was pleased with the screening and stated his support of the project in general, requesting that open space and landscaping be used rather than a redwood fence. y Martlage asked a question about the breezeway. Murakami asked the reason for the increase in square footage of the project and was told that the increase ryas primarily in the breezeway. y Patrick liked the plan but ryas unsure if the Commission should impose fencin{, conditions. She wanted the fence to reflect the "craftsman°' stele. i~lartlage liked the design but ~yanted to impose guidelines on the fence, and referred this matter back to staff. Murakami felt it was unfortunate that tree =2~ «-ill not be sat=ed but liked the design and the decision to keep the large oak tree. Pierce liked the design and the fact that the oak tree «ill be saved; he wanted the applicant and Mr. Hulme to work together on the fencing issue. PATRICK'h1ARTLAGE MOVED TO APPROVE DR-97-028 ~~'ITH MODIFICATIONS FOR FENCING. BASED ON THE APPLICANT Vl•'ORKI\G ~~•'iTl-I STAFF: MOTION PASSED ~1%0. 3. DR-97-062 (~03-7,-010) - JEPSEN, 2176 Congress Hall Lane; Request for Design Revie~y approval to construct a new J,1~~ sq. ft. two-story home on a vacant lot. The site is approximately 3 acres, located within the Hillside Residential zoning district. ~'l~'algren presented the staff memorandum. Park Miller, applicants architect, produced a photo simulation sho~ying the views from Tollgate Road and addressed the issues of the paved area and its impact on the neighborhood; impervious coverage: and replacing asphalt with interlocking squares. He commented that a neighbor had recommended a higher retaining ~yall to avoid extra grading. ~ y ~ y Martlage asked about the proposed colors of the house. Patrick asked whether interlocking pavers are pervious. The architect felt that pavers ~yould be impervious due to compaction. Neighbors expressed concerns with visual proximity and noise, and suggested there be a higher retaining wall along the drive~i•ay, and that the project be relocated ~ feet to the south. ~ y y Patrick asked what the neighbors meant by a "higher ~ retaining wall Planning Commission Minutes ~ • Page 3 May 13, 1998 The architect said that the applicant would agree to increase the height of the retaining wall, but that moving the house ~ feet to the south wot-Id be proble-natic. y 1lurakami liked the design and the step-down, and was Glad to see the neighbors in agreement. He appreciated the view tiom Toll;_~ate Road and noted that this house appeared to be toyer than existing structures. The lot is constrained and he felt it would be difficult to move the house. Patrick was concerned about impervious coverage but was willing to approve the project, based on resolution of the height of the retaining wall. She felt that neighbors should not demand an odd placement of the new house, and she did not sense there was a privacy issue. She said she was able to support the project. iVlartlage appreciated the ~~°ork the architect had put in for the Study Session and will support the project. Pierce susffested that the neighbors work together to resolve the issue of the retaining wall and w°as able to support the project PATRICK;%I~lURaK.AVII MOVED TO APPROVE DR-97-062 \VITH THE MODIFICATION THAT STAFF ~~'ORK ~~'ITH THE APPLICANT ON HEIGHT OF THE RETANiNTG WALL: ti1OTION PASSED =1i0. 4. DR-98-007 (.aP\ X03-23-006) - JAYAKUVIAR, 1J265 Burns «'ay; Request for Design Review approval to construct a ne«° two-story. single family residence. 4,03 sq. ft. in size, 2~ ft. in height. on a 29,020 sq. ft. lot in the R-1-1,000 Zoning District. A single story residence currently exists on the property. «'algren presented the staff report. The applicant's architect presented color copies of renderings of the second story. He stated that an effort had been made to respect neighbors` privacy by placing the second story away from the nearest neighbor and using low- pitched roof lines. Patrick asked the architect if they had considered putting in a basement. and the applicant responded that a basement had not been considered. ~Iurakami wondered ~yhy such a lane balcony had been placed in the rear of the house, feeling there might be privacy issues. The applicant stated this would be an eatinv area and a place for outdoor enjoyment. \'eighbors appreciated efforts to reduce the bulk of the house and to create a sensitive design. but expressed concern about the precedent such a lame house would set and submitted a letter with 11 sianan-res in agreement. They felt the house should be built on a smaller scale, more in line with existing homes, and raised questions about the compatibility and bulk of such a large 2 story house, including loss of sunshine and views. The applicant maintained that the design is a good and sensitive one. Nlartlage asked if neighbors had seen the colored renderings, and the architect responded that they had. tilartlage liked the design but not the deck, and wondered ~~•hv no consideration had been given to a basement. She felt the design was sensitive. but she was not sure that a 2 story home is appropriate in this neighborhood. Patrick liked the neighborhood and felt she might agree to a smaller 2 stone house. She felt that the design gave the Planning Commission Minutes ~ ~ Page 4 May 13, 1998 v applicant a great view at the expense of the neighbors. She was unwilling to impinge on the neighbors and wondered «°h~~ there had been no consideration of a basement. y y l~lurakami noted that most of the opponents to the project live on Marion. not Burns ~Vay. He felt that anythins would be an improvement from what is existing. especially since the applicant has worked with staff and neighbors to mitigate privacy concerns. He felt the size could be reduced. or that a basement might be utilized. Pierce liked the design of the house and felt it was considerate of the neighbors, but questioned whether the design is appropriate to the lot. I-Ie did not want to take away from the uniqueness of the neighborhood, and felt that a 1 story house with a basement might be more appropriate. The Commissioners advised the applicant that there were not enough votes to approve the project, and they offered the applicant the opportunity to re-design for presentation at a future public hearing. In lieu of a continuance, the applicant asked for a vote. y PATRICI{fNIARTLAGE MOVED TO DE1~TI' DR-98-007: ZiOTION PASSED =1.!0 S. UP-98-0(h (403-24-001) - CELLtiL.AR OtiE, East of Quito Road and Adjacent to H~r~~ 85; Request for Use Permit approval to install 3 cellular panel antennas on an existing PG~.E transmission tower with an associated radio equipment shelter (approximately 160 sq. ft.) to be located directly beneath the tower. The site is located ~a-ithin an R-1-10.000 residential zoning district. An Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environment Quality Act. Walgren presented the staff report. Jennifer McCook of Cellular One, applicants representative, said this project would provide service to Saratoga residents and that the aesthetic impact would be minimal. ~'Iartlage questioned the paint colors on the antenna and the structure. Niurakami raised questions and received confirmation that there would be no interference with radio transmission. that additional cell sites were needed largely because of an increase in the use of phones in cars. and that application for a site at Nest Valley College was a few months avav. Pierce said there was a similar configuration on Pollard Road, and the applicant confirmed that it belongs to Sprint. He asked if co-location on this site might be a possibility, to which the applicant said that the landlord has requested there be only one carrier. The applicant requested that the Commission make an exception in the process for submitting building plans, as they wished to submit before the end of the appeal period. «'algren said this might be a possibility and that a form is available covering assumption of risk. Cheriel Jensen. 13737 Quito Road, spoke in opposition to the project, raising issues that the Initial Study was inaccurate and violated the Cin°'s and County's General Plan. also challenging the aesthetic and health impacts. The applicants representative responded that the area will he kept clean. that Cellular One is regulated by the PUC, and that the Engineer's report is ~i ithin the FCC Standards fior cellular antennas. Martlage felt the location for this utility is a logical one but that the area needs landscaping. She suggested Plannin_ Commission Minutes ~ ~ Page ~ May 13, 1998 v modifications to the approval. including addition of landscaping to screen the structure. elimination of Condition #6 of the Resolution, painting of the antennas to match the tower, and painting of the structure in a light brown. ~;~ith staff s approval. y Patrick concurred that the location is reasonable. that the structure should be painted a light brown, and that the weeds ~yill need to be controlled. Murakami said that the City Council has already determined that a Conditional Use Permit is appropriate for this project, and the FCC has done the same. It is logical that the City alloy;~ this project. Pierce did not feel the• esistiuQ tower is aesthetically pleasing, but that it is needed. Regarding color, he recommended the applicant work with staff. MURAKAiI'll""PATRICK MOVED TO ADOPT THE \EGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVE UP-98-00~ WITH MODIFICATIONS FOR LANDSCAPING TO SCREEN THE STRUCTURE AND REMOVAL OF CONDITION #6 FROM THE RESOLUTION: MOTION PASSED 4/0. DIRECTOR ITEMS None COMMISSIO\ ITEMS Murakami asked if applications had been received for the vacant position on the Planning Commission. Walgren responded that none had been received as }'et, as the vacancy had just been posted in the Saratoga News the previous week. 2. Patrick reported she had been contacted by a resident who said she had not been noticed for the Fitzsimmons project. Patrick assured the resident we would do our best. C01~IVI U\TICATIO\ S Written 1. Cite Council Minutes dated April 1~ and April 21, 1998 2. \btices for Planning Commission )Meeting of May 27, 1998 ADJOL?R\MEi\T TO NEXT MEETING 9:32 p.m. to Wednesday, May 27. 1998. Civic Theater 137?7 Fruityale Avenue. Saratoga. CA