The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-09-2005 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, November 9, 2005 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Nagpal called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Schallop Absent: Commissioner Uhl Staff: Director John Livingstone, Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan, Associate Planner Therese Schmidt and Planning Intern Suzanne Thomas PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of October 26, 2005. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rodgers, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of October 26, 2005, were adopted with corrections to pages 11, 12, 17, 29 and 31. (5-0-1-1; Commissioner Uhl was absent and Commissioner Kundtz abstained) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on November 3, 2005. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Nagpal 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). CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. Planning Commission Minutes for November 9, 2005 Page 2 *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #05-123 (397-23-044) – ROSEVEAR, 20283 La Paloma Avenue, Saratoga: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct a new multi-story residence with a maximum height of 25 feet. The total floor area of the new home including the attached garage will be 2,880 square feet. The gross lot size is 7,491 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-10,000. This application was conditionally approved by the Planning Commission at a public hearing on September 28, 2005. This application is again being presented at a public hearing at the applicant’s request and according to the Planning Commission’s direction because the applicant is unable to comply with a specific Condition of Approval established at the September 28th public hearing. (LATA VASUDEVAN) Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that on September 28, 2005, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #05-040) with conditions that allowed the demolition of a single- family residence with garage and the construction of a new 2,880 square foot new residence. • Reminded that one of the imposed Conditions of Approval required the applicants and neighbors to come to an agreement on the issue of window size and glazing on the west façade. If an agreement could not be reached, this item was to be brought back before the Planning Commission. • Reported that the two sides were unable to reach an agreement. • Said that the applicant has requested that the Planning Commission review this issue again tonight. • Informed that since the overall home design has already been approved, staff has provided just the drawings that pertain to the western façade in tonight’s staff report. • Stated that staff is recommending the approval of the original window design as submitted by the applicant. • Recommended that the Commission take action this evening to amend Resolution #05-40 to allow these windows as originally proposed for the western elevation. Commissioner Hunter asked Planner Lata Vasudevan what made staff decide to return to the original design. Planner Lata Vasudevan reported that staff’s initial recommendation to the Planning Commission was to approve the design as submitted. She added that staff felt that the required Design Review findings to support it could be made in the affirmative. Chair Nagpal asked if staff’s recommendation reflects Option E. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that the recommendation was as originally shown on the submitted plans. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Planning Commission Minutes for November 9, 2005 Page 3 Mr. Bryan Rosevear, Applicant and Property Owner, 20283 La Paloma Avenue, Saratoga: • Informed the Commission that he had gone to all his immediate neighbors to secure their sign off on his plans. • Added that he installed the story poles as requested. • Stated that the City also notified neighbors of his plans and advised him that the neighbors from two doors down had problems with his proposed design. • Advised that he met with those neighbors, the Bonds, who indicated that they had privacy concerns over the windows in his proposed second floor. • Said that he offered the Bonds some alternatives but they rejected each one. Rather they wanted to see the windows on this western second story elevation eliminated outright from the plan. • Said that Planning staff had recommended approval as submitted at the September 28th public hearing. • Reported that Mr. Ken Bond approached him at the start of the last public hearing and it was thought that a compromise could be reached. • Stated that since that time the Bonds have threatened to sue them on several occasions. • Said that he and his wife have discussed the private agreement proposed by the Bonds regarding these windows with two different attorneys. Both attorneys discouraged them from entering into a private agreement with the Bonds. • Advised that he warned the Bonds that if this matter were brought back to the Commission he would no longer be willing to use a compromise design. • Explained that the Bonds had requested funds to replace five sets of binds in their home. • Reported that he went to the Bond home with a check in the amount of $2,000, which they refused to accept. • Added that the Bonds later advised that they also wanted him to replace binds on the opposite side of their house. • Said that he had then filed an appeal to Council but staff recommended that this item be brought back to the Planning Commission prior to that action. • Said that emails and phone calls have been exchanged with the Bonds. Again the request was made by the Bonds to replace all the blinds in their house. • Reminded that his home is not directly adjacent to the Bond home and is actually 75 feet away, window-to-window. • Said that the Bonds have had plenty of time to reach an agreement and refused. • Suggested that the only time there is potential for privacy impacts by the Bonds is at night when they could close their blinds to ensure their privacy. He added that this should not be a problem since there is no view outside from inside at night. • Said that there is no reason for his home to be shortchanged view and natural light. • Suggested that perhaps the Bonds need to move to a neighborhood with larger lots. • Reminded that all of the other neighbors are in full support. • Said that he is not asking for more windows than the Bonds already have on their second story. • Advised that his architect is present. • Requested that the Commission approve the design of this western façade as submitted. Ms. Barbara Bond, 20295 La Paloma Avenue, Saratoga: Planning Commission Minutes for November 9, 2005 Page 4 • Agreed that the post hearing negotiations did not go well. • Distributed photographs that depicted views from the windows of the proposed project, another of a recent remodel on the street that includes one elevation without windows, another picture of a home across the street with only one small bathroom window overlooking a neighbors yard and finally a picture of the across the street neighbor’s home. • Said that they have not yet reached an agreement with the Rosevears regarding privacy impacts. • Suggested that the distance between their homes is only 50 feet. • Reminded that design guidelines state that the first priority for an addition is to existing neighbors and their privacy. • Stated that the windows on this elevation facing her property should include smaller windows than proposed. Commissioner Rodgers asked Ms. Barbara Bond what size windows she is specifically looking for. Ms. Barbara Bond said that she finds that the smaller windows of Options C and E still maintain the architectural compatibility sought by the Rosevears. Commissioner Schallop asked Ms. Barbara Bond why they don’t simply pull their blinds. Ms. Barbara Bond said that they do have blinds and do pull them down every night. She added her belief that the Rosevears do not need these windows. Commissioner Schallop asked Ms. Barbara Bond if the Rosevear home as proposed was pre- existing would she not simply buy blinds or does she have an expectation of privacy without blinds? Mr. Ken Bond, 20295 La Paloma Avenue, Saratoga: • Pointed out that the Rosevear property looks down on theirs while their property looks up at the Rosevear home. • Said that their windows are the main ones for their master bedroom while the Rosevears have five proposed windows for their master bedroom. • Stated that they simply want to retain their privacy and do not want the Rosevear’s money. • Reminded that the Rosevears will have French doors, two large windows and another three windows for a total of five. • Said that per Planner Lata Vasudevan no windows are required on the northwest wall. These windows are therefore not needed and are of concern to he and his wife. • Said that while use of obscured glass has been discussed, the City has a limited means of ensuring that this glass would stay obscured. • Questioned the appropriate size for windows on this elevation but stressed that the need to have his privacy respected is more important that the Rosevears’ need to have these windows. • Quoted from the Design Guidelines from other nearby cities on privacy impacts from windows. • Asked the Commission to limit the size of these windows and to use higher sills. Planning Commission Minutes for November 9, 2005 Page 5 • Supported Options C and E. Commissioner Schallop asked Mr. Ken Bond to provide a brief history of the negotiations for compensation for blinds by the Rosevears to the Bonds. Mr. Ken Bond: • Reported that the Rosevears had given them an ultimatum. • Said that Bryan Rosevear told him that the Planning Commission was leaning in their favor. • Stated that Bryan Rosevear came to them with a check for $2,000. • Explained that since they had just replaced all of their blinds a year ago they wanted them all to match. Chair Nagpal asked Mr. Ken Bond if he still supports an agreement. Mr. Ken Bond said he would love to enter into an agreement as proposed with obscured glass and a supplemental agreement to retain the glass as obscured. Commissioner Schallop said that such an agreement would leave the Rosevears stuck with obscured glass even if the neighbor between their homes were to go with a two-story addition that would then block any possible visibility between the Bond and Rosevear homes. At that time such an agreement would no longer be necessary. Mr. Ken Bond said that in that case this agreement could be cancelled. It could also be cancelled if he and his wife were to move from their home. Commissioner Schallop pointed out that most people close their binds at night. Mr. Ken Bond said he agrees that most do so at night but during the day there would still be visibility into his home from the Rosevear home. Mrs. Rosevear, 20283 La Paloma Avenue, Saratoga: • Thanked the Commission for its time. • Reminded that she spoke with two attorneys and met with the Bonds several times, at which time they offered blinds, windows and fans without reaching any agreement. • Reported that the two attorneys both advised her not to sign any agreement. • Pointed out that Barbara Bond is an attorney with unlimited resources to sue that they simply do not have. • Said that the proposed legal agreement made them uncomfortable. • Reminded that Joan’s property is located between their home and the Bond home. • Said that the agreement could remain in place even if the Bonds move away or if Joan adds a second story to her home located between them. • Requested approval and pointed out that they have already lost time and spent money on attorneys. Commissioner Hunter asked the Rosevears how they felt about Options C and E. Planning Commission Minutes for November 9, 2005 Page 6 Mr. Bryan Rosevear said he does not like them because they would lose their view with those options. Commissioner Hunter cautioned that the Commission likes to accommodate neighbors whenever possible. Mr. Bryan Rosevear said that those options do not match the architectural style of their house using these smaller windows. Mrs. Rosevear corrected the assumption that there are windows on more than two sides of their master bedroom. Commissioner Hunter asked if it would be possible to put these proposed windows on the other side of the house since the neighbor on that side is more supportive. Mr. Bryan Rosevear replied not really. Mrs. Rosevear said that there are specific Code requirements to be met including near stairs. Flipping the design creates Code problems and would not work. Mr. Bryan Rosevear advised that a licensed land surveyor verifies the 75-foot distance between the Bond home and their home. Commissioner Rodgers asked if this distance is window to window. Mr. Bryan Rosevear replied yes. Mr. Michael McKay, Project Architect: • Pointed out that the proposed French doors are located at the front. French doors are not usually left open for ventilation purposes. • Said that as a matter of balance, these windows are needed for both inside and outside aesthetics. • Said that use of short high windows would appear unbalanced. • Reminded that they had offered five options to the Bonds and that the two preferred by them are the least architecturally compatible to the home’s design. Commissioner Hunter asked the size of the windows as proposed. Mr. Michael McKay said he was not sure since the drawings are not to scale. Mr. Bryan Rosevear said that they are six feet wide by three-and-a-half feet tall. Commissioner Hunter asked if the smaller windows are three feet by five feet? Mr. Michael McKay replied yes. Use of these windows results in the loss of view of the hills. The Rosevears would be able to look at the skyline from bed with the proposed windows. Planning Commission Minutes for November 9, 2005 Page 7 Commissioner Hunter asked about the possible use of skylights. Mr. Michael McKay said that skylights only offer view of sky. He added that they are not as compatible architecturally as the proposed windows are. Mr. Bryan Rosevear added that they also do not provide any ventilation. Commissioner Cappello asked if Option A is acceptable. Mr. Michael McKay replied yes. He added that he thought Option A was the best alternative offered and the least likely to create intrusion on the either the Bonds’ or Rosevears’ privacy. Commissioner Cappello asked if Option A is balanced architecturally. Mr. Michael McKay replied yes, Option A is the best compromise solution. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Schallop; • Said that the neighbor has raised a privacy issue. However, there is no reason to expect privacy without blinds. • Added that this applicant is entitled to have windows on that side of the house. • Advised that he is in favor of Option A as a solution. • Stated that he likes to encourage resolution between the parties and both sides have made good faith efforts to do so. • Pointed out that Code does not support the Bonds’ version of privacy expectations and they are not reasonable. • Added that the average person should expect the potential for two-story neighbors with windows. Commissioner Rodgers: • Said that Codes and Design Review findings must be considered. • Said that Design Review supports the avoidance of any unreasonable view and/or privacy interference. • Questioned whether the distance of 75 feet creates an unreasonable interference since there is no direct view into the bedroom. • Pointed out Policy 3 in the Residential Design Handbook that states that a key ingredient in quality of life includes controlling views into adjacent properties. • Said that when there is a conflict between the Zoning Ordinance and Design Guidelines, the Zoning Ordinance supersedes the Design Guidelines. • Agreed that absolute privacy is not supported but reasonable privacy is. Chair Nagpal asked Commissioner Rodgers which option she supports. Commissioner Rodgers replied staff’s recommendation at the moment. Planning Commission Minutes for November 9, 2005 Page 8 Chair Nagpal asked about Option A. Commissioner Rodgers said that there is no unreasonable interference and staff’s recommendation can be supported and is architecturally superior to the other options. She reminded that the neighbors prefer Options C and E and she is willing to listen to the other Commissioners. Commissioner Kundtz: • Pointed out that the Residential Design Handbook’s Policy 3 calls for the avoidance of interference with privacy as a key ingredient in the quality of life. • Continued to read that privacy impacts should be resolved and addressed through good design and not as mitigation measures. • Stated that he cannot support staff’s recommendation as proposed. Commissioner Cappello: • Stressed the need to balance privacy impacts and good design and to consider reasonable versus unreasonable expectations. • Said that if the Bond and Rosevear properties were adjacent it would be easier to determine impacts. When the homes are located two houses away there is a grey area. • Pointed out that there is precedent here as there is another house a few doors down from the Rosevears with windows facing the Bond property. • Said that he has no problems making the required findings. • Said that Option A lends itself to diminishing the privacy impacts while still maintaining good design. • Agreed that the view of the hills is spectacular and the design would be ruined without enjoyment of views. • Said he agrees with the architect that it would be a travesty to remove that view. • Said that he is for Option A over the original design option as a clear compromise. Commissioner Hunter: • Said that she has served on the Commission for many years and has faced this issue many times. • Reminded that the Commission has changed designs to honor privacy and has taken out requested windows. • Agreed that a compromise is needed and neighbor privacy must be respected especially when a new home is being constructed in an existing neighborhood. Commissioner Rodgers asked Commissioner Hunter about a previous hearing she watched prior to joining the Commission for another home in this neighborhood. Commissioner Hunter: • Recounted that a neighbor had concerns about loss of light in her kitchen. • Reported that in that case the provision of a skylight was the compromise. • Stated that use of obscured glass is a strange thing. • Expressed support for smaller windows. Planning Commission Minutes for November 9, 2005 Page 9 • Stressed the importance of compromise here where privacy concerns have been raised. Chair Nagpal: • Said she agrees with some points made and disagrees with others. • Stated her concern that newer homes should not be held to a different standard. They should be held up to the same Design Review criteria as anyone else without being penalized for being new and held to a higher standard. • Said that the key issue here is whether the proposed placement of windows here is unreasonable. Are windows needed here? • Agreed that homes are close together in this neighborhood and she puts her drapes down at home for privacy. • Said that she supports this application and in the interest of compromise can support Option A. • Stated that the four other alternatives look odd. They are not consistent or proportional. • Added that she is not in support of the use of obscured glass and is against having the Planning Commission impose a condition to file a formal legal agreement with the neighbors. • Said that she can support Option A or staff’s recommendation. • Stated that this is a tough decision but based upon a variety of criteria she does not feel that this request unreasonably interferes with privacy. Commissioner Rodgers reminded that both sides negotiated privately and that good faith negotiation is not a consideration in our findings. Commissioner Hunter said that six-foot windows on a second story are large. Chair Nagpal said she was not clear the size of the two windows for Option A. Commissioner Cappello said that they are four feet by four feet. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Cappello, seconded by Commissioner Schallop, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #05-123) with window design Option A for a new single family residence on property located at 20283 La Paloma Avenue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Nagpal, Rodgers and Schallop NOES: Hunter and Kundtz ABSENT: Uhl ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION #06-002 (397-34-006, 397-34-007, 397-30-060) 13998 and 14000 Shadow Oaks Way and 13425 Fruitvale Avenue – MEHRA, NARAYAN & SARATOGA UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT: The applicants request a recommendation of approval of a General Plan Planning Commission Minutes for November 9, 2005 Page 10 Amendment, Rezoning and Lot Line Adjustment. Saratoga Union School District proposes to transfer 9,851 square feet of its property at Redwood Middle School to a residential property at 13998 Shadow Oaks Way and 6,868 square feet of its property to the neighboring residential property at 14000 Shadow Oaks Way. The portion of school property being transferred to the two residential lots is situated on the opposite (north) side of Wildcat Creek and is not used by the school for any purpose. The two residential property owners would like to add this unused portion of land to their respective lots for maintenance purposes. The parcel owned by the School District is in General Plan designation CFS (Community Facilities) and is zoned R-1-40,000. The two residential lots are in General Plan designation RLD (Residential Low Density) and are in the R-1-20,000 zoning district. All three parcels would remain in the same General Plan and zoning designations. However, a General Plan Amendment is required for approval of this application so that the General Plan and zoning designation boundaries are consistent with the new proposed lot lines of the three parcels. (LATA VASUDEVAN) Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicants are seeking approval of a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning and a Lot Line Adjustment to allow the transfer of 9,851 square feet of property to 13,998 Shadow Oaks Way and 6,868 square feet of property to 14000 Shadow Oaks Way. • Described the property as being located on the southwest side of the school site (Redwood). It is located on the other side of Wildcat Creek and is not being used by the school. • Said that the transfer of this school land to adjacent residential owners is proposed for maintenance purposes. • Explained that the entire Wildcat Creek portion of this land would continue to be located on school property. • Reported that the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) is not interested in purchasing this land but might want to have an easement. • Said that staff has added a Condition of Approval requiring compliance with any SCVWD easement request. • Informed that any work that occurs within 50 feet of a watercourse requires a permit from SCVWD. This work would include any fence installations. • Described the General Plan and Zoning designations for the three properties and explained that while all would remain the same, General Plan and Rezoning are required in order to retain consistency with the Lot Line Adjustment. • Reported that a Lot Line Adjustment would be processed through an Administrative process. • Recommended that the Commission forward a recommendation to Council to approve the proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezoning for these parcels. Commissioner Hunter expressed her concerns about having three General Plan Amendments within a short time and asked how many are allowed per year. Director John Livingstone: • Replied that there will have been three this year with this one. Planning Commission Minutes for November 9, 2005 Page 11 • Said that General Plan Amendments are a tool available to staff to promote minor zoning changes and good land use planning techniques. They help eliminate inconsistencies between Zoning and General Plan designations. • Said that this action would be correcting the General Plan to match this proposed Lot Line Adjustment and is better for the future. Commissioner Hunter asked staff to further explain the SCVWD easement and whether that means that they would be responsible for the maintenance of that easement. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that SCVWD has existing easements up and down creeks but not on this land. They would maintain the creek for flood control purposes. She added that the School District would remain the owner of that section of Wildcat Creek. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the path leading to the street would be maintained by the school. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied yes, this Lot Line Adjustment does not affect the path. Chair Nagpal asked staff about the lot sizes for these two residential properties and whether this action would allow them to be subdivided. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that they are 20,000 and 20,500 square feet in size respectively and each would be increased by approximately 9,000 square feet. As these parcels are zoned R-1-20,000, neither property would be large enough to be subdivided in this zoning district. Commissioner Hunter asked if the School District notified the public of its intent to sell. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that there is a long procedure for selling of surplus land but it is not under the jurisdiction of City staff. Commissioner Rodgers asked if a finding is required that the health, safety and welfare of the community would be improved with this action. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied no. She said that the action required is that the Commission finds this application to be in compliance with the General Plan and forwards a recommendation to Council to take action on the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning. Commissioner Hunter asked staff why a Negative Declaration was not required. Planner Lata Vasudevan explained that there is a provision under CEQA that if there is no possible way of impact found, a Negative Declaration is not required. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that per a School District report this property is seen as a nuisance. Director John Livingstone reiterated that just the findings in the draft Resolution are required. Planning Commission Minutes for November 9, 2005 Page 12 Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Mehra, Applicant and Property Owner, 14000 Shadow Oaks Way, Saratoga: • Explained that he had discussed the nuisance conditions of this property located behind his with the School District. • Said that in April 2005, he signed a contract with the District for the purchase of this land. • Stated his intent is to fence the area as allowed and to preserve the old trees. • Said that the School wants to get rid of this surplus land. Mr. Narayan, Applicant and Property Owner, 13998 Shadow Oaks Way, Saratoga: • Expressed is support for this application. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Cappello: • Said that this is a good project with the new owners fencing off the area and maintaining it. • Stated that this action will keep the area safe, keep children out of there and works out well. • Advised that he is supportive. Commissioner Hunter: • Said she has mixed feelings about a School District selling land. • Stressed the importance of creek maintenance and existing native landscaping along the creek. • Added that she would be supportive. Commissioner Rodgers said that she too supports this application and agrees with the need to maintain the native vegetation along the creek banks. Chair Nagpal reminded that these areas could not be cleared without the approval of SCVWD within 50 feet of the creek. Planner Lata Vasudevan agreed. Commissioner Rodgers said that this provision must be made clear to these owners. She said she is comfortable with the required findings and finds this a more practical solution for the School District who has to cross the creek to maintain this property. Commissioners Kundtz and Schallop agreed. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rodgers, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation to Council to approve a proposed General Plan Amendment (Application #06- 002) for properties located at 13998 Shadow Oaks Way, 14000 Shadow Oaks Way and 13425 Fruitvale Avenue to facilitate the sale of surplus Planning Commission Minutes for November 9, 2005 Page 13 Saratoga Union School District property located on the other side of Wildcat Creek from Redwood Middle School to the two adjacent residential property owners, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Schallop NOES: None ABSENT: Uhl ABSTAIN: None Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rodgers, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation to Council to approve a proposed Rezoning (Application #06-002) for properties located at 13998 Shadow Oaks Way, 14000 Shadow Oaks Way and 13425 Fruitvale Avenue to facilitate the sale of surplus Saratoga Union School District property located on the other side of Wildcat Creek from Redwood Middle School to the two adjacent residential property owners, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Schallop NOES: None ABSENT: Uhl ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3 APPLICATION #06-100 (397-22-012) – SARATOGA FEDERATED CHURCH SCHOOL, 20390 Park Place, Saratoga: The applicant requests modification of plans that required the installation of an automatic gate at the Church parking lot access to SR-9 across from Oak Street. When originally planned, the parking lot was to allow traffic ingress directly from SR-9 and the gate was proposed to mitigate potential cut-through traffic into the neighborhood. However, as designed, traffic flows only in a one-way direction providing egress onto SR-9. (SUZANNE THOMAS) Planning Intern Suzanne Thomas presented the staff report as follows: • Stated that the applicants are seeking approval of a modification to an approval from November 6, 2002. • Said that at that time, the Fire District required the installation of an automatic gate. • Advised that the applicant is now seeking relief from that requirement. • Explained that at the time of approval, it was thought that the parking lot would be used as ingress from Highway 9 and might become a pass-through for traffic. • Added that today it serves as only an exit from the site to Highway 9. There has been no significant cut-through traffic through this parking lot. • Informed that letters of support for the elimination of this gate have been received from the Fire District and from neighbors. No negative correspondence has been received. • Said that this gate was originally to prevent cut-through. Conditions have changed and this gate is no longer necessary. Planning Commission Minutes for November 9, 2005 Page 14 • Said that the removal of the gate would not impact the original Use Permit. This change is not significant and not detrimental. • Reminded that the Commission retains on-going jurisdiction over this Use Permit. • Recommended approval and advised that the applicant is available for questions. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Jerry Bruce, Director of Church Administration, Saratoga Federated Church: • Thanked staff for its assistance. • Said that there was a very long process during the planning, development and execution of this project. • Said that in 2002, there were safety and traffic concerns around the church. These concerns have been reduced. The automatic gate was required as a deterrent to cut- through traffic. • Said that at this time, this gate is unnecessary and counterproductive. • Said that he has one variation from staff’s recommendations in that he would like this action to be permanent rather than temporary. • Reported that he went door to door on Park Place and received letters of support. • Reminded that the City retains the right to evaluate their use in the event it becomes necessary. • Asked for approval. Mr. Bryan Rosevear, Co-President, Village Green Neighborhood Association: • Explained that just one neighbor on Park Place had wanted this gate. • Said that traffic in the area has been mitigated since then. • Said that this gate was a big waste of money. • Expressed support for its removal. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Hunter said she never understood the need for this gate to begin with and is in total support of getting rid of it. Chair Nagpal asked staff why it recommends temporary approval of its removal. Planner Suzanne Thomas said that the original request was for the temporary removal. Commissioner Rodgers asked if a change to the draft resolution is required. Director John Livingstone replied no. Commissioner Cappello said he supports this request. Commissioner Kundtz said that it makes sense. Planning Commission Minutes for November 9, 2005 Page 15 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission granted a modification of plans (Application #06-100) to allow the elimination of a requirement for an automatic gate on property located at 20390 Park Place, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Schallop NOES: None ABSENT: Uhl ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 4 & 5 APPLICATION #06-090 – CROWN CASTLE, Highway 9 & Big Basin Way: The applicant requests approval for a Conditional Use Permit to co-locate an omni antenna and associated cabinet directly on existing telephone poles along Highway 9 and Bib Basin Way. The proposed height of each antenna will not exceed the height of the existing telephone poles. (THERESE SCHMIDT) APPLICATION #06-094 – CROWN CASTLE, 20506 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road: The applicant requests approval for a Conditional Use Permit to construct an unmanned telecommunications hub within a 691.23 square foot tenant space, which would provide sublease area for up to four carriers in the CN Zoning District. (THERESE SCHMIDT) Associate Planner Therese Schmidt presented the staff report as follows: • Stated that the applicant is seeking two approvals to allow the installation of a telecommunications hub with five antennas that are eight feet, three inches high on six-foot extension arms and between 26 and 48 feet from the ground on utility poles. The hub would be unmanned and consist of 691 square feet of retail space that is not considered prime space. • Said that no parking is required to support the hub and it creates minimal noise. • Advised that both applications are Categorically Exempt under CEQA. • Reported that no correspondence has been received. • Recommended approval as conditioned and deferred any technical questions to the applicant. Chair Nagpal sought clarification that both items would be discussed together. Planner Therese Schmidt replied yes. The Commission would have the option to approve one or both requests. Commissioner Hunter asked about the height of the box. Planner Therese Schmidt said that it is approximately eight feet or higher from ground level attached to a utility pole. There are eight-foot long antennas located at the highest level at 48 feet. Planning Commission Minutes for November 9, 2005 Page 16 Commissioner Schallop asked if they would be located over the road. Planner Therese Schmidt said that they are toward Highway 9 predominately. Commissioner Rodgers questioned the placement of the hub in the CH-1 zoning that calls for retail uses whenever possible. She asked if that was considered when making the staff recommendation. Planner Therese Schmidt agreed that this site is located within the Village Central area where normally retail, pedestrian-friendly uses are encouraged. However, this use will provide cellular coverage using less desirable retail space with no street frontage. The benefits are found to outweigh the concerns over loss of such a small amount of retail space. Chair Nagpal asked if other locations were evaluated. Planner Therese Schmidt said she would defer that question to the applicant. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Items No. 4 and No. 5. Mr. Charles Dunn, Representative for Crown Castle, Applicant: • Thanked Planner Therese Schmidt for her work. • Said that they are working to do the utmost to maximize coverage with the lowest possible visual impacts. • Said that the major advantage of their technology is that it results in non-proliferation. • Added that a minimum number of antenna sites would be needed in the area. • Advised that they can handle multiple carriers with fewer cell sites down the road. • Said that he has just one problem with the proposed conditions. That is Condition #4 that requires CalTrans approval prior to issuance of a City Building permit. • Explained that they must be able to work concurrently with both CalTrans and the Building Division. • Said they support a condition that CalTrans must issue its approval prior to their constructing their site. • Said he and the technical staff would be available for questions from the Commission. Commissioner Cappello: • Asked for clarification on the possibility of multiple carriers with this installation. • Recounted how other carriers have said that they can’t have too close proximity with other carriers. • Questioned the differences in information and asked how this design is different. Mr. Charles Dunn reported that this technology is next generation. Mr. Raj Srimantale, Project Engineer: • Explained that this technology uses horizontal coverage. • Assured that it can handle between four and five carriers. Planning Commission Minutes for November 9, 2005 Page 17 Commissioner Cappello asked if there is any carrier that cannot be accommodated with this technology. Mr. Raj Srimantale replied no. Commissioner Rodgers asked if coverage would be provided for Big Basin Way and the Village itself. Mr. Ward Enright, Crown Castle, said that the coverage range is depicted on the provided map for all the antennas. The installation can be expanded in the future but is not intended to serve the Village at this time. Commissioner Cappello asked the applicant to further describe this design concept as it is new to this community. He asked for details about the hub and capacity, the antenna structure, the unobtrusive nature of the design and how it can be incorporated into residential communities. Mr. Ward Enright: • Said that their system is a distributed antenna system with five antennas spaced along Highway 9. • Added that they also create the hub site and pike out fiber-optically to poles where these antennas are located. The system converts the RF into fiber optics. • Advised that they can either install or lease fiber optics and can easily increase capacity. Commissioner Rodgers asked if more physical equipment is required to expand capacity. Mr. Ward Enright said yes more equipment is needed but not more space. Commissioner Rodgers asked for clarification that they are not looking at expanding coverage on Big Basin Way at this time. Mr. Ward Enright said that is correct. They are focusing on the other direction at this time. Chair Nagpal asked for clarification on the request to revise a Condition of Approval on the timing of approvals for both Building permits and CalTrans. Mr. Ward Enright said that they need to be able to secure these approvals concurrently. First the Public Utilities Commission must issue permits and after that CalTrans will be able to issue. Mr. Charles Dunn pointed out that it is often difficult to coordinate with two separate governing bodies such as CalTrans and the local jurisdiction. Chair Nagpal asked if CalTrans requires issuance of a Building permit before it would issue its own clearance or is it just the Planning Use Permit approval that is required prior to CalTrans approval. Planning Commission Minutes for November 9, 2005 Page 18 Mr. Ward Enright said that they can start work on the hub but not on the antennas along Highway 9 prior to CalTrans approval but would need the Building permit to do so. Chair Nagpal asked if other hub sites had been considered. Mr. Ward Enright said they looked at several sites. Either there was not enough space or a site was located too far off. He said that there are distance and cost factors. Pointed out that using towers is actually cheaper than this type of installation. Chair Nagpal again asked if other sites were fully evaluated. Mr. Ward Enright said they certainly were but they were monumentally expensive options. Commissioner Rodgers asked about the generator. Mr. Charles Dunn explained that the generator would not remain on site but rather would be brought in on an emergency basis. Commissioner Cappello asked what other formats would accommodate this type of installation for the antennas. Mr. Ward Enright said light poles, phone poles and utility poles. He said that equipment could also be place in buildings with the corresponding antennas place on a roof. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Items No. 4 and No. 5. Commissioner Rodgers: • Pointed out a needed amendment to Condition #7 to add the word “pad” after the words emergency generator. Planner Therese Schmidt agreed that the pad would be in place only and generators brought in when needed in an emergency. Commissioner Cappello: • Declared that he is happy to see this type of technology coming into our community. • Pointed out that this design with its smaller antennas on phone poles is unobtrusive and provides valued phone service. • Said that while he is not crazy that the hub is going into the Village, it is not on prime street frontage retail space and the adjacent bike shop would be able to use the window display space the hub itself does not require. • Stated that he has no issue with this project. Commissioner Hunter: • Said that she agrees with Commissioner Cappello. Planning Commission Minutes for November 9, 2005 Page 19 • Pointed out that this hub will be located in the newly redeveloped Corinthian Corners building but in a back area. It is only 600 square feet and no parking is required to serve this unmanned hub. • Said she supports both applications. Commissioner Kundtz: • Said he supports this project as well. • Expressed his appreciation for this advanced technology that is of a discrete nature. • Said that the fact that no parking is needed to serve the hub is a plus. • Said that this project makes sense and is an efficient way to move forward. Chair Nagpal asked staff if they could support the proposed modification to Condition #7. Planner Therese Schmidt said that staff is concerned. If CalTrans ultimately does not allow this project to move forward after the applicant has begun installation of equipment, the applicant would be forced to remove that equipment. She stated that staff could support the applicant obtaining their Building Permit but not beginning installation until issuance of the CalTrans permit has occurred. Commissioner Rodgers asked Director John Livingstone for his input on the timing of the issuance of permits by various levels of government. Director John Livingstone: • Said that staff can be flexible but cautioned that CalTrans approval must ultimately be obtained by the applicant. This is a Condition of Approval for this Use Permit. • Added that if CalTrans ultimately does not approve its application, any equipment installed would need to be removed. • Stated that it is staff’s preference to have the CalTrans approval in place first but could condition that the CalTrans approval must be issued prior to final Building Permit sign off. Commissioner Rodgers: • Said that she is happy to see this type of facility. • Said that this is a very classy solution for the Village area to potentially increase coverage in the Village. • Said that staff has made the finding for community benefit with this use versus retail use for this space that is not considered prime retail space. Chair Nagpal agreed that it is great to see this technology. She said she would support a modification to Condition #7 that would require the issuance of the CalTrans approval prior to signing off on the City’s final building inspection. Agenda Item No. 5 Motion: Upon motion of Chair Nagpal seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit (Application #06-094) to allow the construction of an unmanned telecommunications Planning Commission Minutes for November 9, 2005 Page 20 hub within a 691.23 square foot tenant space on property located at 20506 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road with the modification to Condition 7 to add a word emergency generator pad, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Schallop NOES: None ABSENT: Uhl ABSTAIN: None Agenda Item No. 4 Motion: Upon motion of Chair Nagpal seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit (Application #06-090) to allow the co-location of an omni antenna and associated cabinet directly on existing telephone poles along Highway 9 and Big Basin Way, with the revised condition requiring CalTrans approval prior to final building permit sign off, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Schallop NOES: None ABSENT: Uhl ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR’S ITEMS Director John Livingstone advised that there would be a Regular Planning Commission meeting in two weeks on November 23, 2005. The indication of cancellation on this week’s agenda was an error. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Hunter advised that she attended a two-hour Village Ad Hoc Committee meeting today where they went over the existing Village Design Guidelines. Commissioner Rodgers advised that she did research and learned that the County does have a free neighbor dispute resolution program. The Dispute Resolution Program operates out of 70 W. Hedding Street. Al Lampell is the Program Director and can be reached at 408-792- 2320. Preparation time takes about two weeks. Commissioner Rodgers expressed appreciation for the hand written pagination of the staff reports in this week’s packets. Director John Livingstone said that it is easier to hand number the pages than using the stamp they have that requires manually changing numbers with a metal stick between each number, which is a cumbersome process. Commissioner Hunter agreed that it is nice to have all of the report pages and exhibits numbered as they are easier to use. Planning Commission Minutes for November 9, 2005 Page 21 COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Jerry Bruce, Director of Church Administration, Saratoga Federated Church: • Said he stayed to this point following the completion of his item (Agenda Item #3) because he wanted to make it clear in the record that the neighbors on Park Place were very cooperative in their dealings with the Church. • Added that he did not want the comments made by a member of the community during the hearing to appear to reflect the Church’s views on its interactions with its neighbors. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, Chair Nagpal adjourned the meeting at 9:23 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of November 23, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk