Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-24-2001 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Barry called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi Absent: Commissioner Jackman Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner John Livingstone, Planner Allison Knapp and Planner Christy Oosterhous APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of October 10, 2001. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the regular Planning Commission minutes of October 10, 2001, were approved with three typographical corrections on pages 2, 9 and 11. AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Jackman ABSTAIN: Roupe ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 18, 2001. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET Director Sullivan advised that any technical corrections would be provided during each respective staff report. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR DR-98-046, UP-98-015 & SD-98-006 – AZULE CROSSING, 12340 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Drive: The applicant requests Planning Commission approval for exterior lighting at the commercial portion of the Azule Crossing project as required by Resolution No. 00-09. Six refractive globes with black poles are to be located throughout the parking lot of the 1.28-acre commercial site. The proposed refractive globes have downward street side reflectors and house side reflectors. The globes are to be mounted at a height of 12 feet. According to the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, the proposed exterior lighting is in compliance with industry standards. (OOSTERHOUS) Commissioner Roupe asked that a Public Hearing be opened for this Consent Item. Ms. Christy Oosterhous, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this is a request for Planning Commission approval for exterior lighting to include six globes on black poles with downward streetside reflectors. • Added that per the standards of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, this proposal is compliant with industry standards. • Concluded by stating that staff is recommending approval of this request, finding that the installation will be both decorative in its appearance and functional in promoting site security. Commissioner Kurasch inquired why the applicants did not choose to install lights on the buildings instead. Planner Christy Oosterhous said she would defer response to this question to the applicant. Chair Barry opened a Public Hearing regarding Consent Calendar Item No. 1 for proposed parking lot lighting at Azule Crossing at 7:09 p.m. Mr. Brent Londre, Frank Electric, Project Lighting Contractor: • Advised that the selection of a pole in lieu of placement of fixtures on the buildings was made because of the structure of the parapet wall, which juts out. Installation of lights on the walls would not enhance the architecture. • Said that the installation of lighting is for safety. • Informed that he has proposed a fixture that is identical to the one used on the adjacent residential project. • Said that they have provided a photometric layout. • Said that these proposed fixtures provide enhanced light in a way that addressed spill with a top and side splash. • Added that a lot of thought went into the selection of this particular fixture in this installation. • Pointed out that to the south of this site are train tracks, to the east are residences and to the north a convenience store that already has an electrolear streetlight. Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Londre if they have spoken with adjacent residents regarding this lighting proposal. Mr. Brent Londre replied that he has worked only with the owner and has not interacted with any neighbors. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 3 Planner Christy Oosterhous advised that staff contacted the neighbors. One came to see the plans and expressed no concerns and did not elect to come to this evening’s meeting. Chair Barry: • Expressed concerns with the fact that some of these poles will be located in front of homes, almost in their front yards. • Suggested that alternative lighting located on the face of the stone wall might be preferable to the proposed 15-foot high poles, which will be clearly visible from the adjacent residences. Mr. Clint Sanders, Associated Lighting Representatives, Oakland: • Suggested that wall fixtures on this project would be an eyesore. • Said that it would take a great number of fixtures to reach the lighting level required. • Added that these proposed pole lights are ideal and meet all requirements without imposing glare on neighbors. Commissioner Kurasch asked if these fixtures tie in with the ones already on site. Mr. Clint Sanders said that there is just one fixture existing on site. Added that this was a nicely planned out job. Commissioner Kurasch: • Suggested an alternate installation, perhaps using a combination of fixtures that would be more sensitive to neighbors. • Said that the homes will see these 15-foot high light poles directly from their front room windows. • Inquired why such lighting is even required since the stores are not opened beyond 5 p.m. Mr. Dennis Griffin: • Said that the installation was designed to provide security for the stores. • Added that employees working on site leave late. • Stated that perhaps the poles don’t need to be as high as 15 feet. • Said that light fixtures placed on the building walls would not provide adequate lighting for necessary site security. Mr. Clint Sanders: • Said that a reduction in height might require additional fixtures. However, if taller fixtures are used, perhaps fewer fixtures might be required. Commissioner Garakani asked for the height of the building. Mr. Dennis Griffin cautioned that placing lights on the building would cause the light to shine onto the residential properties. Chair Barry wondered if the lighting could be placed on sensors so they would not be illuminated when no one was on the property. Mr. Dennis Griffin replied that he was not certain. Said that if the lighting were on sensors there is potential that they would be on all the time as people and/or cars passed by. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 4 Commissioner Kurasch: • Suggested a combination of taller lights at the ends of walls so that the fixtures would not be visible directly from the homes. • Proposed placing one fixture near the planter holding a tree. Mr. Dennis Griffin said that the property owner has a legal requirement to provide parking lot safety to their tenants. Chair Barry: • Said that the Commission does not disagree about the need for security but would like to see an alternative to very tall poles. • Added that they are open to suggestions. • Said that the applicants have heard the direction of the Planning Commission and can now work out the details with staff. Mr. Dennis Griffin said that he is willing to have the Planning Commission select an acceptable alternative. Commissioner Roupe: • Suggested that the applicants confer with staff. • Said that installing lights on the walls would be less obtrusive than 15-foot high poles. • Asked that the applicants look at alternatives and work with staff. • Said to look at safety but in a way that is less obtrusive. Mr. Brent Londre: • Said that the professional standard has been met and all considerations have been taken. • Added that wall fixtures placed at a low height are oftentimes vandalized. • Added that it is not feasible to use motion sensors with this type of light fixture. • Said that this proposed installation addresses the needs while wall packs would shoot light out. Commissioner Roupe: • Reiterated that the issue for the Commission is not the illumination standard but the aesthetics of the 15-foot high light fixtures being visible from the residences. • Said that they would like to see a more subdued installation. Chair Barry: • Said it is not the Commission’s intent to put the applicants on the spot to make a decision this evening. • Pointed out that the adjacent residences have not yet been sold and are currently unoccupied. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Consent Calendar Item No. 1. Director Sullivan said that staff would visit the site one evening to assess the potential impact of this proposed lighting on residents. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 5 Planner Christy Oosterhous questioned whether a 10-foot high pole is found to be out of scale by the Commission. Commissioner Roupe said the Commission would defer the final decision to staff’s discretion. Commissioner Kurasch instructed staff to direct the placement of fixtures and minimize the number of poles installed. Chair Barry: • Said that the proposed lighting fixtures are a nice design and that the only issue is their placement and the height of the poles. • Reiterated the suggestion that a combination of fixtures be installed to meet the lighting needs while also being sensitive to adjacent properties, to the satisfaction of staff. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the Planning Commission instructed the applicants to work with staff to develop an alternative lighting plan for Azule Crossing at 12340 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Drive that takes into account the safety and aesthetics with a test to be conducted from the adjacent residences to ensure that no adverse impacts occur. AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Jackman ABSTAIN: None *** Chair Barry announced that Non-Public Hearing Item No. 4 would be taken out of order. NON-PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 4 GARROD FARMS, 22600 Mount Eden Road (503-10-028): Request for General Plan clarification to allow three new dwelling units on one parcel of land where two dwelling units currently exist. The area is within the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County and is pre-zoned Hillside Residential. The County requires the project to be consistent with the City of Saratoga’s General Plan. (LIVINGSTONE) Director Tom Sullivan provided the staff report as follows: • Said that currently staff is not supportive of this application but that consultation is needed with the City Attorney to develop potential alternatives which staff can support. • Suggested that the Commission make a motion to continue consideration of this application to the next meeting on November 14, 2001. Chair Barry asked the applicant if he will support a continuance to the next meeting. Mr. Cooper replied yes. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 6 DR-01-019, V-0-011, UP-01-016, BSA-01-001 & ED-01-001 (503-13-117) – HUERTA, 22551 Mount Eden Road: Request for Design Review and Building Site Approval to construct a 4,830 square foot two-story residence with garage on a vacant lot. A variance is requested in order to construct retaining walls in excess of five feet for geotechnical mitigation. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The 1.42-acre site is located within the Hillside Residential (HR) Zoning District. (KNAPP) Ms. Allison Knapp, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that there are technical corrections to the staff report: • Page 3 – lot coverage is 13 percent not 17 percent as reported. • Page 6 – replace net site area with gross site area, with the percentage being 13 percent rather than the reported 12 percent. • Advised that this project site is being evaluated as net site rather than gross. The lot coverage has been calculated using the total lot area. • Informed that the proposed structure is a 26 foot high, 4,830 square foot, two-story, single-family residence with a detached garage that is 14 feet high. A carport is attached to the detached garage. The site consists of 1.42 acres. • Said that the property has a slope of 31.17 percent. Therefore, this project is not Categorically Exempt. • Said that staff did an Initial Study for this project and has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration. • Added that staff is recommending that the Commission adopt this Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project as well as to review the Building Site Approval, for which the same findings apply as are made for the Design Review. • Added that two variances are required for this application. One is to allow building on a site with a slope greater than 30 percent. The second is required per Code because of the need for two retaining walls, which cumulatively exceed an allowable height of 10 feet. This project requires two sets of retaining walls, one at the front and another at the back. • Said that the Design Review is very straightforward. • Added that the Conditional Use Permit is required to allow a detached accessory structure that is 14 feet in height. • Said that the proposed structure steps up the hillside on the most stable portion of the lot. The proposed home meets Ordinance requirements and geotechnical clearance has been obtained from Engineering. The lot complies with the Subdivision Map Act. • Distributed a color materials board. • Advised that staff believes that necessary findings can be made in support of this project and recommends the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration by Council. The Commission would conditionally approve the project with the requirement that Council finalize action granting the Negative Declaration. Commissioner Zutshi questioned the ramifications of building on property with greater than 30 percent slope. Planner Allison Knapp advised that the lot coverage is calculated based on Hillside Residential standards and that allowable lot coverage is reduced by 10 percent as a result of the slope being in excess of 30 percent. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 7 Commissioner Kurasch inquired whether the Geologic Report is part of the Environmental Approval. Planner Allison Knapp replied yes. Commissioner Kurasch: • Pointed out page 58 of the report that describes slope stability as being relatively stable. • Asked if the Geologic Report and development of driveway improvements are compatible with the Hillside Specific Plan. Planner Allison Knapp: • Replied that all on-site improvements are taken into consideration at the discretion of the Commission. Staff finds that there is a net improvement in conditions over existing conditions with this development following mitigations. • Added that the residential footprint is outside of the area of landslide movement. • Acknowledged awareness that maintenance of the driveway will be required but that this is a private property issue for the owners and not the responsibility of the City. Commissioner Hunter expressed concern for the approximately 20-year old home situated directly below the project site. Planner Allison Knapp: • Assured that required setbacks are being met. • Acknowledged that the carport will be but 20 feet away from the existing home. • Agreed that there are tough Design Review issues with which to grapple. Commissioner Hunter: • Pointed out that the earth is shifting all the time according to acquaintances she has in this area. • Asked if staff and the applicant are aware of that fact. Director Tom Sullivan replied that this is why the application was required to submit a privately performed Geotechnical Report. That report was then peer reviewed by the City’s Geologist in a process that takes six to nine months to complete. Commissioner Hunter asked if this proposal is considered safe. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes and more importantly the Geotechnical Engineers find it safe. Added that the residence will be constructed with a significant foundation. Commissioner Zutshi asked whether the excavation of the basement could potentially disturb the hillside itself by causing shifting. Planner Allison Knapp advised that this question is one reason a Geotechnical Review was required. The report provides a menu of what has to be done to mitigate and prevent sliding on the site. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that compacting the soil will help prevent any problems. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 8 Director Tom Sullivan said that new things are learned after every major earth movement but, based upon what is known right now, this project is a sound one. Chair Barry asked whether any soils on this site are considered unstable since both the net and gross is calculated to be the same. Planner Allison Knapp replied that there are no “MD” soils to be netted out. Commissioner Hunter questioned the request for two variances to accommodate this project, stating that she was under the impression from personal experience that any variance is difficult to obtain. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that there are three primary findings that must be made by Code. These are outlined in the staff report. Chair Barry pointed out that while there are two slide areas on the property, it appears that only one has proposed mitigations. Planner Allison Knapp assured that both slide areas are being mitigated. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that an incorrect site address is incorporated into the supplemental geotechnical report dated January 10, 2001. Said that it is a concern since it appears on the page that is professionally stamped. Director Tom Sullivan said that this appears to be a word processing error, which will be corrected. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:12 p.m. Mr. Charles Brown, Applicant’s Representative: • Stated that the retaining walls would be installed prior to the basement excavation to provide stability. Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Brown if any mitigation was proposed down the ravine or if just the area on which the home would be constructed would have mitigation. Mr. Charles Brown replied that the old major slide area on the property would not be mitigated while the property where the new house would be constructed would be mitigated. Chair Barry asked if the old major slide area could be mitigated. Mr. Charles Brown replied that they are following all guidelines prepared by the Geotechnical Engineers. Planner Allison Knapp reminded that both a private Geotechnical Engineer and the City’s Geotechnical Engineer have authorized the proposal. Chair Barry suggested that adding additional conditions to require the mitigation of the second major slide area should be imposed. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 9 Mr. Charles Brown advised that this is a long time slide that is older than everyone present this evening. It has not caused problems to the property below in more than 50 years. Commissioner Kurasch: • Said that it appears that the best probability is that the old slide area will remain as it has for all these years. • Suggested that an Open Space Easement is a possible mitigation. • Added that additional mitigations are a reduction in the size of the building as well as the placement and design of the building. Said that she has concerns and questions. • Suggested moving the home away from the edge of the slide plane and slope as is possible. This is the east property line. Mr. Charles Brown: • Said that they are willing to do anything that is constructive. • Added that perhaps the Variance for the retaining wall would no longer be required as a result but that a different Variance for encroaching into the other side setback would be needed instead. • Said that they can move the house as far as authorized by the Commission. Commissioner Roupe: • Suggested at least five to ten feet. • Commended the design, which blends into the slope. • Supported the shift in Variance to the East Side setback in order to accommodate moving the house back or uphill. Mr. Charles Brown said that they might be able to move both retaining walls too. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the garage could be moved. Mr. Charles Brown: • Responded that they could leave the house and slide the garage/carport five feet up the slope, which would reduce the retaining wall needed. • Added that they have met with the property owner of the home below this project site on two occasions. They have agreed to provide extensive landscaping and that property owner is satisfied. • Said that there will be five feet between retaining walls, which will be landscaped to provide future screening of the walls. Commissioner Garakani asked about the thickness of the walls. Mr. Charles Brown said that the engineer who ends up designing the wall would determine this. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the garage and rear of the home would be what is visible from the road. Mr. Charles Brown: • Said that they have made the best possible use of the site. • Added that the view of the property is limited due to the trees and the turn in the road. • Said that they are making every effort to make this home pleasing to the eye. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 10 Commissioner Kurasch: • Said that the placement, size and design on the West Side are of concern. • Said that this elevation is different from the rest of the house with the maximum number of full height walls. • Said that the mass of this elevation is so big that it looks like a condo complex. Mr. Charles Brown clarified that the plans are shown two dimensionally and that in reality the structure will not appear as massive. Based on the slope of the property, only the bedroom is visible and not beyond that. Commissioner Kurasch said that she still has concerns about the massiveness. Mr. Charles Brown said that he tries to pay attention to massing and scale. Commissioner Garakani asked whether moving the house up the slope would adversely impact the front entry feature. Mr. Charles Brown replied that the move would only impact the living room and not the front entry. Commissioner Garakani suggested moving the house even further than five to ten feet. Commissioner Roupe suggested that the applicant work with staff and the Geotechnical Engineers to decide how far the structure can be moved uphill. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that the size of the structure is large for a property with a small buildable area. The use of a home with the maximum floor area ratio is hard to accept and/or justify for such a constrained lot. Mr. Charles Brown reminded that the parcel consists of 1.42 acres and that the allowable square footage has already been dramatically reduced because of the slope of this property. This proposal is actually a relatively small house for a property consisting of 1.42 acres. Commissioner Zutshi asked why the garage needs to be 14-feet high. Mr. Charles Brown replied that the roof pitch is 6 and 12. Added that City Ordinance allows a matching pitch for the house and detached garage. Commissioner Zutshi said that this lot cannot simply be looked at as a 1.42-acre buildable lot. Due to the slope it is not considered that way when determining what can be constructed on it. Mr. Charles Brown reminded that the house they are proposing is something that would fit on a much smaller lot. Added that the rest of the property will be vegetation and open space. Commissioner Roupe suggested a dedicated easement to open space. Director Sullivan provided the term of “scenic easement” and agreed that such a condition could be included in the motion for approval. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 11 Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Brown if this is an acceptable proposal. Mr. Charles Brown replied yes. Chair Barry asked Director Sullivan if the Commission can require the planting of indigenous trees. Director Sullivan replied that this would be a separate condition and asked Chair Barry if she was looking for these trees between the house and the road. Chair Barry said that she was actually looking for these indigenous trees at the second slide area as a means of stabilizing that area. Director Sullivan cautioned that these trees would not serve to remediate a slide condition area but can be requested as additional landscape screening for the site. Chair Barry: • Said that this is a constrained lot on which this house looks big. • Suggested that the Commission could ask for a reduction in square footage. • Asked Mr. Brown if he has considered this possibility. Mr. Charles Brown: • Replied that they originally wanted a much bigger home but greatly reduced the home based upon the geotechnical report. • Said that they are hoping that there will be no further reduction required. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:45 p.m. Commissioner Roupe: • Suggested that this project can be approved with conditions, including having the applicant work further with staff to move the structure eastward on the property for a distance that makes sense to help mitigate the impact of the retaining walls on the property below. • Added that a scenic easement should be required and appropriate landscaping installed using native trees in the non-buildable slide prone area. • Said that appropriate landscaping should also be included at the front of the property to mitigate the retaining wall impacts and to protect the view of the property below this site. Director Sullivan suggested that the condition incorporate a requirement to use native landscaping based upon review and approval by both the City Geologist and City Arborist. Commissioner Roupe supported that suggestion. Director Sullivan advised that since this project was specifically advertised for variances, the proposal for moving the house uphill requires its own public hearing following appropriate advertising for obtaining the necessary variance for that aspect of the project. Commissioner Roupe suggested that the Commission limit the next hearing just to the variance for moving the house up hill and no further design review should occur. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 12 Chair Barry suggested a condition that asks the Project Geologist to provide a written statement that assures that the second slide area poses no eminent threat. Director Sullivan cautioned that this is a nexus issue that will require discussion with the City Attorney. Chair Barry said that the report states that the site will be improved with this development. Commissioner Roupe said that the property is only improved in the area on which the new house will be built. Chair Barry said that the Commission has the right to ask for site mitigations as long as they can establish proportionality. Director Sullivan agreed that this can be looked at. Commissioner Hunter announced that she plans to vote against this proposal based on precedent because she believes that constructing on this property will be potentially unsafe for the people living below. Stated that she does not believe this is a buildable lot. Director Sullivan reminded that following the mitigations prepared by the Geotechnical Engineers, this lot can be considered buildable and that there are exceptions in the Code to allow approvals for construction on property with a slope greater than 30 percent. This prevents inverse condemnation. Commissioner Hunter said that she has a problem with a project needing two variances as well as a home design where the rear of the home is the elevation that is visible from the road. Director Sullivan said that the Commission has to be careful when Engineering says a proposal is viable. Commissioner Kurasch: • Said that she has concerns about this proposal and that an applicant does not have an automatic right to a specific project. What must be considered is the appropriateness of the design. • Reiterated her belief that this structure is too large and massive for this location. • Said that it is important to approve something that has the least amount of destruction and/or impact on the area. The Hillside District is an important area for Saratoga and the higher standards established must be respected. Pure and simple, this project is too big and cannot be justified. • Added that she cannot support encroaching on a neighbor. • Suggested the project must be scaled back so that it is more in keeping with the actual physical site and the intent of the Hillside District requirements. Commissioner Garakani asked Commissioner Kurasch how much reduction she is proposing. Commissioner Kurasch replied 10 to 15 percent in order to get away from the absolute maximum. This property should be developed in a low-density way, honoring the rural/semi-rural area. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that this reduction would equal about 300 to 400 square feet. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 13 Commissioner Kurasch agreed. Chair Barry asked if this reduction should occur on the first or second floor. Commissioner Kurasch replied that the ground frame would have to be reduced or she will not support this proposal. Chair Barry agreed that she would like to see the reduction occur on the first floor or footprint of the structure. Commissioner Roupe reminded that this is a 1.42-acre lot and the proposed house is not unreasonably sized for that size property. Commissioner Kurasch restated her concerns about the nearness to the adjacent neighbor. Chair Barry: • Said that a number of suggestions have been made this evening. One is not to approve the project at all. Another is to scale the house back by 10 to 15 percent. • Said that the Commission must adopt a Negative Declaration, which is hard to do with the house at its current size. • Added that an informal indication of where the Commission stands on the Negative Declaration shows that four Commissioners are not comfortable approving it as the proposal stands. Commissioner Roupe: • Asked his fellow Commissioners for clarification as to what is unsupportable in adopting the Negative Declaration. • Reminded that the geotechnical conditions will be mitigated. Chair Barry replied that the issue is not geology at this point but rather aesthetics. Commissioner Garakani: • Pointed out that there are already two large homes already in the immediate area. • Added that he didn’t even see this lot as he was driving to it. • Said that this house is less intrusive than other large structures already in the area and additionally the applicant has offered to install more screening trees. Commissioner Zutshi informed that some houses in this area are not within Saratoga city limits but rather fall within County jurisdiction. Commissioner Kurasch asked Director Sullivan if design changes can be considered when the variance application comes back before the Commission following necessary advertising. Director Sullivan said yes if that is the concurrence of the Commission. Commissioner Kurasch said that it would be better to have it back before the Commission to consider the reduction and relocation of the residence on the site. Commissioner Garakani agreed that this is a good idea. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 14 Commissioner Roupe said it appears the Commission is considering a continuance. Chair Barry said that the Commission does not have to take a vote tonight. Commissioner Hunter declared that this application represents the most serious house application since she joined the Commission and that she would appreciate a continuance. Commissioner Garakani said that it would be important to provide guidance to staff and the applicant. Chair Barry said that the Commission has already given clear instruction to reduce the residence by 10 to 15 percent as well as the appearance of mass and bulk. Director Tom Sullivan: • Said that it is not necessary to assign a specific square footage reduction but rather to require the applicant to reduce the appearance and how it fits in the lay of the land. • Suggested a continuance to the December 12, 2001, meeting as the best option. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission moved to continue consideration of DR-01-019, V-01-011, UP-01-016, BSA-01-001 and ED-01-001 for a new home on property located at 22551 Mount Eden Road to the Planning Commission meeting of December 12, 2001, with the following direction to staff and the applicant: • The house should be moved east toward the fence up hill to help mitigate the impact of the retaining wall, with the ridge line staying constant; • The unbuilt portion of the property will be dedicated as a Scenic Easement and delineated as such on the site plan; • Appropriate landscaping, including indigenous native trees, shall be installed to the south where land falls away; • Appropriate landscaping screening shall be added to the west to help screen the retaining wall from the house below; • The geologist shall be asked to certify that the second landslide area, in light of the request for landscape screening. AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Jackman ABSTAIN: None Chair Barry asked the Commission for an informal poll on what Commissioners are supportive of the suggested 10 to 15-percent reduction in square footage. AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: Roupe ABSENT: Jackman ABSTAIN: None Planner Allison Knapp: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 15 • Informed the Commission that this evening’s would be her last appearance before them since the Department is now fully staffed. • Commended the Commission and staff and thanked them for all they have done to make her time with Saratoga a positive experience. *** PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 3 UP-01-007 – SPRINT, Saratoga-Los Gatos Road & Farwell Avenue: Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to construct a wireless communication facility consisting of antennas and equipment cabinets in the Caltrans right-of-way. The site is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (LIVINGSTONE) Mr. John Livingstone, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this application is for a Conditional Use Permit to install a wireless transmission facility to be located within an existing Caltrans right-of-way on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. • Said that this item was continued from an August Planning Commission meeting where concerns were raised about the pole proposed for behind the bus stop included within a light fixture. The Commission asked for alterations to the proposal. • Informed that the revised proposal retains the underground installation of support equipment as well as the landscaping of the bus stop. The proposed pole has been moved 100 feet closer to Three Oaks Way and is a total of 35 feet tall. The pole will be nestled within a cluster of trees with new screening trees to be added. The bus stop area will be landscaped, much like another local bus stop that was privately landscaped by local residents. The plant material will be drought tolerant and flowering, which will be a positive addition to the area and help act as a deterrent against dumping on this property. • Recommended that the Commission approve this proposal. Commissioner Roupe asked about the continuation of the bike path. Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that the applicants will provide a continuation of the bike path across the site. If the Commission wishes, the path can be positioned either in front of or behind the berm. Commissioner Kurasch asked the purpose for the short wall. Commissioner Garakani suggested that it is to obscure equipment. Associate Planner John Livingstone clarified that the berm is to allow for landscaping. A cubbyhole will hold the benches and bus stop. The undergrounding site is behind it. Commissioner Hunter asked what the wall would be made from. Associate Planner John Livingstone at first replied cinder block but upon review of the plans clarified that this wall’s material is proposed as Douglas fir. Mr. Ben Davies, Zoning Consultant, Sprint: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 16 • Pointed out that two antennas will be located and obscured entirely within the 35-foot pole. • Clarified the need for the site is to improve currently poor coverage in the area between two existing Sprint installations. • Said that the neighbor who had expressed concerns at the previous meeting prefers this proposal. • Described several alternatives (Locations A through D) and explained why each was less desirable to Sprint, from being even closer to residences to a lack of interest by property owners to allow this installation on their properties. • Said that the only real change from the August proposal is the move of the pole by 100 feet. Director Tom Sullivan said that in the future, antenna applicants will be required to provide signal strength tests in order to allow the Commission to evaluate data that is real. Chair Barry questioned whether this pole is closer to the Highway than the PG&E poles. Mr. Ben Davies replied approximately 10 to 15 feet closer. Chair Barry asked if this distance makes any real difference in signal. Added that there are already Sprint antennas located on PG&E poles. Mr. Ben Davies said that this distance could make a difference. Added that it is an easier install like this than atop existing poles. Commissioner Garakani asked if there is interference when situating antennas on power poles. Mr. Ben Davies said that an existing power pole is not as preferable as a separate pole. Said that they reduced one of three original antennas from their proposal for this location. Commissioner Roupe asked for clarification on the position of this new monopole. Mr. Ben Davies pointed out the position on the plans. Commissioner Roupe said that this appears to be 20 feet closer to the road than the existing power poles in the nearby area. Chair Barry questioned why this particular installation has to be on an individual monopole when the other local installations are atop PG&E poles. Mr. Ben Davies replied that this proposal will be more effective in covering the distance between the two other antenna sites. Chair Barry stated that she is unable to make a decision without knowing different effectiveness numbers for the different locations. Commissioner Hunter reminded that the bus stop, bike path and berm would disappear with a PG&E pole installation. Chair Barry asked Mr. Davies if the monopole could serve as a co-location with another carrier. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 17 Mr. Ben Davies said that it would be possible but is not typical. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Davies if there are any antennas currently location on Location A. Mr. Ben Davies replied no. Commissioner Kurasch asked if there is any other obstacle other than trees to placing antennas on this pole. Mr. Ben Davies said that such antennas would be structural antennas that are visible. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 10:02 p.m. Ms. Sandy Baker, 15069 Park Drive, Saratoga: • Stated that she likes the nice country road and does not want to see clutter across from where she lives. • Emphasized that she does not want to see a new monopole installed in this location as it would be intrusive and unattractive. • Said that she is afraid that something ugly will be installed. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the bus stop already exists at this location without any improvements. Commissioner Hunter reminded that currently the stop does not include benches. Ms. Sandy Baker said that she does not want it to change and is not supportive of this proposal. Commissioner Garakani said that cell phones are now just as much a part of life as television is part of daily life. Chair Barry advised Ms. Baker that the Commission is entertaining design issues because it does not have the option to simply say no. The only question is where the installation will take place and not if. Said that the proposed monopole will be hidden within a grove of trees. Said that there is no choice that does not impact someone. Ms. Sandy Baker said that she felt it was important to speak in opposition this evening as a concerned area resident. Commissioner Hunter: • Stated that she thought it was wonderful that Ms. Baker took time to come this evening to express her views on this proposal. • Added that it frustrates people in Saratoga to have poor cell phone service and that Sprint has gone out of its way to make their installation as pleasing as possible. Ms. Sandy Baker said that she will trust the Commission’s judgement. Commissioner Roupe: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 18 • Suggested that Sprint consider placing its antennas atop an existing power pole instead of installing this monopole although he would hate to have to lose these proposed site improvements. • Said that the Commission needs data over supposition. Chair Barry: • Declared that it is important that a cellular vendor sends a technical person to answer technical questions. • Said that she hopes the failure to do so this evening does not happen again. • Suggested that Mr. Davies bring along an engineer in the future. Mr. Rakesh Sethi, 14930 Farwell Avenue, Saratoga: • Disagreed that trees would degrade coverage. • Agreed that each site creates problems for somebody and that neighbors need to be respected. • Asked for more data about coverage. • Offered his personal checklist of considerations that should be undertaken when evaluating a potential antenna installation site. Included are not being nearer than 80 feet from any living space, not sacrificing view aesthetics or line of site, plans for sharing cumulative exposure, prohibiting any competitive carrier within one mile and requiring the regular provision of data to the City. • Said that Site A is an exceptional site but more costly to the applicant by 50 percent. Chair Barry asked Mr. Sethi to provide his checklist to staff and asked if he has a specific question. Mr. Rakesh Sethi said suggested that Site A be considered. Commissioner Roupe: • Said that he does not feel that installation of a new monopole is the best way to go. • Suggested that power poles are the least intrusive and encouraged Sprint to reconsider their plans. • Said that he needs to see more specific data on all the proposed placements. Director Tom Sullivan said that a labeled site plan will be provided. Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that two members of the community completed speaker cards but could not stay through this hearing. One is Ms. Donna Paisley, 14870 Three Oaks Court, and the other is Ms. Patti Workman, 14918 Three Oaks Court. Both of whom support this project. Commissioner Kurasch asked why Site B is not supported. Mr. Rakesh Sethi replied that Site B is visible from his living room and he does not want an already unsightly pole made even more unsightly. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that there are differences between directional and Omni directional antennas. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 10:32 p.m. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 19 Chair Barry said that no decision can be made tonight without all necessary data. Added that the Commission needs actual figures from engineers to show the size of the detriment for each potential placement. Mr. Ben Davies promised to bring an engineer to the next meeting. Commissioner Roupe said he questions whether directional antennas are required or if line-of-site antennas would work well enough. Commissioner Garakani suggested that data for existing power poles A through D versus the proposed monopole be provided. Mr. Ben Davies said that they will make a clear demonstration through their technical people. Chair Barry asked Mr. Davies to be prepared to discuss co-location potential. Commissioner Roupe added that cumulative effect should be evaluated. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that there are about five cellular vendors serving Saratoga. Commissioner Roupe reminded that the Commission is interested in seeing a coverage map. Director Tom Sullivan advised that preparation of that map is underway but not yet completed. Commissioner Roupe pointed out this consideration of cumulative effect to evaluate health concerns is something that would have to be discussed with the City Attorney for appropriateness. Chair Barry said that it is simply a means of establishing compliance with FCC standards. Commissioner Roupe said it is important to clarify with the City Attorney the scope of what can be asked of a carrier. Commissioner Kurasch: • Pointed out that the reason for such data is not only to consider the best advantage for the carrier but also to evaluate the aesthetic impacts of these installations. The applicant should be able to prove why a site will or will not work. • Said that denying an application is more appropriate than putting in something that is not going to work. Commissioner Hunter said that there will be objections to installations on power poles too. Added that she feels Sprint has done a good job here and this installation will be a nice addition to the area. Commissioner Roupe agreed that the Commission may end up concluding that this is the best of all alternatives. Commissioner Kurasch disagreed and said that this creates physical aesthetic clutter. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 20 Chair Barry instructed Mr. Ben Davies to come back to the next meeting with more data on all alternatives, a better site plan and accompanied by a technical person to answer any technical questions the Commission might have. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the Planning Commission continued consideration of UP-01-007, to allow a antenna installation on Caltrans right-of-way at Saratoga-Los Gatos Road & Farwell Avenues, to the Planning Commission meeting of December 12, 2001. AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Jackman ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR ITEMS Posting of Exhibits/Inclusion of Full Size Plans in Packets Director Tom Sullivan advised that per the request of the Commission, staff will resume posting copies of exhibits on the boards located behind the Commissioners beginning with the next meeting. Asked the Commissioners whether they are finding the inclusion of full size plans within their packets to be useful. Commissioner Roupe said that he finds them too bulky in the packets. However, bringing full-size plans to the site visits would be helpful. COMMISSION ITEMS Chair Barry distributed copies of a news article describing a talk to be held by Sir Peter Hill on Livable Downtown Areas. She added that she will not be at the next meeting and neither would Commissioner Jackman. Commissioner Roupe advised that he too would miss the next meeting. Chair Barry suggested the formation of a Commission Subcommittee on cellular antennas. Commissioner Garakani: • Advised that he has attended two Ad Hoc Committee meetings at which options for the Safety Plaza have been discussed. • Added that three options have been considered. One is the combination of the three parcels (Post Office, City property and Fire Station). Another is the creation of a below-ground parking lot beneath the existing ground-level parking lot at the Federated Church. A third option is the potential of one of the three existing uses leaving the area with two to remain. The Post Office was the most viable candidate for relocation. All options depend upon cost. • Added that 145 parking spaces are needed to support all three uses. Chair Barry asked if these Ad Hoc meetings are open to the public. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 21 Commissioner Garakani replied yes. He added that they are held weekly on Mondays at 5:30 p.m. Added that the Fire Department will be seeking a permit for the temporary use of the Contempo Building for temporary operation until the completion of the new permanent facility. COMMUNICATIONS There were no communication items. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 24, 2001 Page 22 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Barry adjourned the meeting at 10:58 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, November 14, 2001, to begin at 7 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk