Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-14-1999 Planning Commission MinutesCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 1999 Civic Center, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairperson Bernald called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Jackman, Kurasch, Page, Patrick, Roupe, Waltonsmith and Chairwoman Bernald Absent: None Staff: Director Walgren Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - June 23, 1999 COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE JUNE 23, 1999 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Page 4, paragraph 3, last sentence: “Director Walgren agreed that the Commission could inquire require a statement as to the nature of the business.” Page 11, paragraph 2, line 7: “....including Mr. Hawks’ and Ms. Traxler’s homes home. He said that the Commission has seen several of those only a few residents at each of the meetings.” Page 6, paragraph 3, line 1: “She said that she did not mind appreciated hearing and accepting information....” Page 7, paragraph 6, line 2: “....the size of the shops between Long’s and Safeway buildings....” Page 13, paragraph 2, line 3: “...spaces or legislate that a decision is be held off....” Page 18, paragraph 7, line 1: “.....of the dead deer carcass which was seen on the property owner’s front yard noted by the owner in her (owner’s) backyard.” THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0-1 WITH COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSTAINING. Oral Communications There was no one present who wished to speak on matters not on the agenda. Report of Posting Agenda Director Walgren declared that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July 9, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1999 Page 2 Director Walgren stated there were no technical corrections to the packet. However, he read into the record that letters were received from the following regarding Item No. 3 on the Consent Calendar: 1. Jamba Juice representatives describing their processes for maintaining their facilities and squeezing their juices on site in response to the concern regarding bacteria levels that could possibly be contained in unpasteurized bottled juices. 2. Maria Lenquist, resident of Lika Court, expressing support for the Jamba Juice permit. 3. Resident of 19301 Portos Court, Saratoga, expressing support for the Jamba Juice permit. 4. Melissa Barcelo, Saratoga resident, expressing support for the Jamba Juice permit, noting both indoor and outdoor seating. 5. Ann Swain, Saratoga resident, expressing support for the Jamba Juice permit. 6. Terry Murray, expressing support for the Jamba Juice permit. 7. Ben Yuri, Saratoga resident, expressing support for the Jamba Juice permit. 8. Barbara Dutra, Saratoga resident, expressing support for the Jamba Juice permit. Director Walgren reported that the public hearing for this application was closed at the June 23, 1999 Commission meeting wherein the Commission deadlocked on a 3-3 vote regarding the conditional use permit. He said tonight’s agenda was to re-vote on the item and that no public hearing would be re-opened. CONSENT CALENDAR COMMISSIONERS WALTONSMITH/KURASCH MOVED TO REMOVE ITEM NO. 3 FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR TO BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. PASSED 7-0. 1. DR-99-020 (397-02-002, Lot #1) - WESTBROOK BUILDERS, 18588 Allendale Avenue; Request for Design Review approval for a 4,499 sq. ft. single story residence with an 848 sq. ft. detached garage. Total floor area proposed is 5,347 sq. ft. Maximum height of the residence is proposed to be 19 ft., maximum height of the garage is proposed to be 15 ft. The site is located on a 43,801 (net) sq. ft. vacant parcel in an R-1-40,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 7/28/99 AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. DR-99-019 (397-02-002, Lot #2) - WESTBROOK BUILDERS, 18600 Allendale Avenue; Request for Design Review approval for a 4,812 sq. ft. two-story residence with a maximum height of 25 ft. The site is located on a 44,552 (net) sq. ft. vacant parcel in an R-1-40,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 7/28/99 AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONERS PAGE/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS NO. 1 AND 2. PASSED 7-0. 3. UP-99-008 (393-01-041) - JAMBA JUICE, 12868 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road; Request for Use Permit approval for a 1,228 sq. ft. juice bar with both indoor and outdoor seating in the Argonaut Shopping PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1999 Page 3 Center. No new construction or expansion is proposed. The property is located within a Commercial- Neighborhood zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 6/23/99 FOR A RE-VOTE AFTER MOTION FOR APPROVAL FAILED ON VOTE OF 3-3). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Responding to Director Walgren’s question, Commissioner Roupe stated he had read the minutes and viewed the videotape of the last Commission meeting and was prepared to vote on this item tonight. Commissioner Waltonsmith stated she was glad to hear from the people around the proposed site and how they feel about Jamba Juice. She continues not to like the business in that particular position and would like to hear Commissioner Roupe’s comments. Commissioner Roupe concluded that this is a neighborhood-friendly type of store and the kind of business to encourage in that type of location. He said he would not support adding signage or similar elements which he feels go beyond the requirements of the existing law. Commissioner Kurasch, noting that the Commission was considering the compatibility of the facility within the neighborhood area, asked whether the letters of support submitted were from neighbors in the surrounding area of the proposed business. Director Walgren responded that not all of the letters had addresses, but those which did were close to the proposed location, though not in the immediate vicinity. Commissioner Kurasch conveyed that although the Commission could not specify what exact businesses go in any one location, it could encourage a mixed use if too many related businesses are in any one location. She asked if it was possible to continue this issue to another meeting to allow for input from the Council and project developer. Director Walgren responded that at this point the initial vote would have to be resolved. The Zoning Ordinance specifies that a tie vote needs to go to the next available meeting and needs to be resolved. The tie vote cannot be postponed from today’s meeting. He noted that a second tie vote would result in a failed motion and denied project. Chairperson Bernald named the families who were on record as opposing the project and noted that no other letters of objection had been received from anyone in the neighborhood. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE UP-99-008. PASSED 5-2 (KURASCH AND WALTONSMITH VOTED NO). PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairwoman Bernald noted that last night the Council reiterated that they support an interactive conversation with the public and the Commission wholeheartedly supports that practice. However, because of the number of speakers present tonight, she asked Commissioners to decide the amount of time a speaker may speak. Consensus was three minutes. 4. UP-99-009 (517-10-036) - SARATOGA TENNIS CLUB, 20571 Komina Avenue; Request for Use Permit approval to permit three legal non-conforming tennis courts and increase the amount of paved surface in order to provide a larger space between the three courts. The property is approximately one acre PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1999 Page 4 and is located in an R-1-10,000 residential zoning district. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner Roupe recused himself from the discussion as he is a member of the Saratoga Tennis Club. Director Walgren presented the staff report noting that the application is being made by the Saratoga Tennis Club. The club has been in existence at this location, in the middle of a residential zoning district, for approximately 70 years. The club currently has three tennis courts, a small drive to the left side of the tennis courts which accesses a small clubhouse built many years ago. The property backs up to Saratoga Elementary School to the north. One half of the property on the north side adjacent to the elementary school is undeveloped. He said the applicant came to staff to inquire what would be involved to reconstruct and rehabilitate their existing tennis courts. He stated that this case is considered a nonconforming facility in that there never was a conditional use permit approved for a tennis club that was constructed and operated prior to the City’s incorporation. The use permit would be two-fold to allow an expansion and also to legalize or to record the restrictions under which the club would be required to operate. Using visual aids, Director Walgren displayed the project, describing it as 1.09 acres. He reported that the proposed expansion was to reconstruct the tennis courts and extend them to approximately 35 feet to the north to provide netting and distance to prevent balls from bouncing from one court to another. The site has approximately three to six parking spaces within the driveway and another two to three parking spaces which City staff is aware has been adequate to date. Staff has not received a large number of complaints regarding traffic or parking related to the club although it is adjacent to Saratoga Elementary School which has severe traffic and circulation parking problems, particularly in the morning and afternoon peak hours. Director Walgren said that since the application was advertised, staff has received considerable and unique correspondence regarding the proposal, including a petition signed by a majority of the club members indicating that they are not in support of the proposed expansion. He said this is an internal matter and is not subject to the land use consideration of the Commission. He noted for the record that the Commission is considering an application that may not have internal support of its membership. The bylaws indicate that there needs to be a two-thirds majority support to increase the indebtedness of the club. Director Walgren conveyed that staff recommendation is to approve the largely renovation work and allow the expansion of the club which allows the City to memorialize the 100-membership limit, prohibits the lighting of tennis courts for evening play, and bars external club play at the private club that would bring in a large number of cars. Commissioner Patrick stated it appears as if the lot coverage would be maxed out if this proposal is accepted which means there would be no additional parking. She said that the applicants cannot sell any of the remaining unused property because this would put them over the impervious coverage limit. She asked Director Walgren for verification. Director Walgren said that one of the suggestions recommended is that the clubhouse be eliminated and access be made available on that property for parking. If that parking was done in a turf block, it would not count against their lot coverage. Another possibility is that the property is over an acre in size, and any hard surface would be limited to its own 60 percent lot coverage. Responding to Commissioner Waltonsmith’s inquiry regarding dividing the application, Director Walgren stated that the Commission could continue the conditional use permit to develop greater onsite parking by moving the tennis courts back or using some of the back property. Another alternative if internal opposition to the expansion is given during tonight’s public testimony would be that the Commission approve the use PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1999 Page 5 permit to legalize and recognize the existing tennis club, deny the component that expands the tennis courts, and require that a new application be made in the future to address the parking needs and obtain verification that the club membership is complying with their own bylaws. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. Nancy Layendecker, President of the Saratoga Tennis Club, stated she has been a member for many years, and noted that the City requested that membership be limited to 100 members. She said that the club’s intent is a complete renovation of its tennis courts after 70 years. The courts were originally built with peat gravel, burlap, and sand with a topping. The renovation would bring the 52' x 120' courts up to 60' x 120' standard size for the safety of club members. She said usually six cars are parked in their driveway and a couple on the street, depending on how many members are using the club. The club has retained Joseph Smith, a consultant who helped with the design and plan. She said the club has never had a use permit to conform to City rules. She feels conforming is not a problem for club members. Referring to the club bylaws, she stated they are not asking for indebtedness. She does not know why the indebtedness issue was raised as it is an internal problem and a non-issue as far as the Commission is concerned. She conveyed that the courts are painted every two to three years, and with the proposed renovation of expanding courts, rock base would be put in to last 10 years. In response to Commissioner Patrick’s inquiry, Ms. Layendecker indicated the new surface would not affect sound or vibration. Responding to Commissioner Jackman’s questions regarding whether the club planned to replace the fence, Ms. Layendecker said there would be new fence along the backside, and the front side would probably remain the same. Commissioner Waltonsmith asked whether the membership was behind the project, and Ms. Layendecker responded that a survey had been sent out with votes just coming in showing more ayes than nays in support of the project and expansion. In response to Commissioner Page’s question, Ms. Layendecker responded that hours of operation are 8 a.m. to dark. Commissioner Page referred to the petition and asked if a certain number of yes votes were needed to obtain enough money to pay for the entire project. Ms. Layendecker responded that the bylaws permit the Board of Directors to make an assessment. Commissioner Page referred to a letter from Mr. Jacobson which states that with the $70,000 in the bank and $475 member assessment, the project would be completed. He expressed concern that if only one-third of the membership accepts the assessment, would the project stop halfway. Ms. Layendecker responded that the project would be completed as there are other people who will cover the costs. Dr. Arthur Anderson, 20574 Komina, resides immediately across the street from the club, and represents the neighborhood in requesting that the club be required to provide its own onsite parking. The parking presents a problem for the school. Neighbors are concerned about the aesthetics and cosmetic effect of the club in the neighborhood. Although he is a member of the club and likes the club, he described it as a rundown, dilapidated eyesore in the neighborhood. He suggested that the clubhouse which is a ramshackle be moved back or modified. He described the front fence as rotten, reinforced by steel pipes, and rusted so badly that windscreen cannot be attached to it. He said he is also a member of a neighborhood task force called Kids Safety First Committee, which works very actively with the City’s Safety Commission and Board of Trustees of the Saratoga Union School District on safety problems for the children. Based on the neighbors’ concern PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1999 Page 6 for the safety of the children, they are requesting that the club reduce onstreet parking to the extent of providing offstreet parking for their membership. He said it would be easy for the club to move the clubhouse back 100 feet and open a driveway. There is a 100' x 100' area that would create an adequate non-impervious parking lot for club members, and could also be used by school employees and school visitors. Dr. Roger Goodfriend, Monte Sereno resident, has been a club member for 35 years and stated he represented the club’s petition committee. He indicated he had submitted a petition with 48 signatures and explained that two were in error. He said that the 46 signatures out of 90 members represents a majority against the proposed extension. He said he had been told that the new petition the club sent out has received 20-25 responses to date with a 50-50 vote. He stated there was only one bid for the job with increased costs of $36,000 for the extension after members were told there would not be any extra costs. He said there are 120 playing members although only 90 proprietary members. He asked the Commission to consider the club’s internal matters when making a decision. Evelyn Oliver, 20589 Komina Avenue, adjacent land owner between the school and tennis club and a member of the club, stated she opposes the expansion because of the internal issues and the consensus of club members. She expressed concern with the fencing and proposals for flag lots or parking lots. She said she and her husband also have their own expansion in mind and they would certainly like to know what the tennis club had in mind. Joseph Smith, consultant, stated he was retained by the club’s Board to submit the application. He described the composition of the courts, noting that the original base was simply layered dirt, oil, and peat gravel. He said the applicants got three bids but nobody understood what had been previously done. Instead of obtaining more bids, the applicants decided to go to an engineering firm and ask them what to do. In the process of working with the engineering firm, it was discovered that if there was no base rock under the courts, it would be necessary to dig down and remove almost a foot of soil in order to bring in base rock. He stated that the engineering firm said it would be more simple to take the dirt and move it to create a 34' extension with the existing soil on site rather than truck it off and dump it elsewhere. He said the extension thus became feasible and it was felt that the extension would not cost anymore. Commissioner Kurasch asked how much it cost to maintain the courts, and Mr. Smith responded that three years ago the cost was $22,000. Commissioner Patrick recalled the school having drainage problems, expressed concern that the drainage could be impacted, and asked whether a drainage plan existed. Mr. Smith responded that the drainage was addressed and that it would go into an energy dissipater on the club’s property. Commissioner Jackman noted that directly behind the property is Saratoga School which is going through great expense to drain their area directly out to Forest Hills and are putting in pumps to do so. She said she hoped that there were not any plans to send any moisture in the school’s direction. Henry Yamate, Saratoga resident and club member for over 50 years, stated that the Board polled its membership regarding whether they are for or against the expansion. He said 50 responses have come in and the results to date are close. He indicated this would be an official poll. He noted that the cracks are one-half inch wide and there is no way of fixing them in their present state. The club currently has a $70,000 funds for this work and a bid of $114,000. The Board is attempting to assess each member with the difference totaling $475. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1999 Page 7 Ted McKibben, 14463 Oak Street, expressed concern that not many people use the courts, and the fees of $200 per year are low. He said when the membership was polled, half of them said they do not use the courts, but they pay because it is inexpensive. He noted that if the assessment is increased, some members would drop out; they would be replaced by more active members which would increase the traffic and parking problem. He said there are not enough bids for the project, and there is no buy-in from the membership. He expressed that the project was not properly planned. He suggested the applicants come back with a proposal where they have the buy-in from the neighbors, a majority of the club that agrees with an assessment, and a plan with the financial numbers that everybody can buy into. Phil Holmes, San Jose resident, member of the club, stated that the proposed assessment is based on a maintenance clause in the bylaws, and the project is not maintenance, but a full-blown renovation. If more members were brought in to replace those who would leave because of increased assessments, they would be using courts more often and add more traffic. Bob Shepherd, 20491 Forrest Hills Drive, addressed the parking issue. He said if newer players joined the club, traffic would increase. He requested that the Commission delay a vote on the use permit and also delay a vote on the expansion because the membership needs to support this project. Bill Jacboson, 17470 High Street, Los Gatos, stated he has been a club member for 30 years. He is also the developer of the Decathlon Club in Santa Clara. He views the project not as an expansion but as finally getting the courts to the right size. He has not seen an increase in parking since he has been there. He said this project would not go forward if the majority of the club is not in favor of it. He said the financing should not be the Commission’s concern; the decision should be whether or not this project can go forward and perhaps the project could be approved with the condition that it be approved by the members. David Urshan, San Jose resident and club member for over 30 years, addressed the issues of noise, traffic, and membership. Ms. Layendecker provided additional comments and requested that the Commission grant the use permit. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KURASCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:06 P.M. PASSED 7-0. Commissioner Waltonsmith stated she was not in favor of going forward with the agreement or looking at the design tonight. Not having any parking or adding to the parking is a major issue to her and she would urge the applicants to come back at a later date to address parking. She would like to move on the use permit, but feels the project needs more refinement. Commissioner Jackman expressed that it is necessary to proceed with the use permit but she has many questions and does not want to approve anything until she has more complete plans. She asked the Chairman of the Board about whether the chicken wire fence would be replaced, and it was uncertain whether or not it would be replaced. She said traffic on Komina is heavy and the parking is bad. There are no sidewalks in the area and she would not want to see children walking home where there are no sidewalks. She said the plans are totally inadequate to consider any type of drainage problem. She said she was against approving any types of plans at this point. Commissioner Patrick concurred with Commissioner Jackman, stating that it would be appropriate to expand the courts to regulation size but she is concerned with the drainage. She is concerned about the parking. She said the neighbors need some input as to whether they prefer parking on the property in the front in the back or wherever. She is concerned about the fences, neighbors and look of the club. She said neighbors take good PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1999 Page 8 care of the neighborhood, and the club has an obligation to do the same for its neighbors. She thinks proper planning is the key, and she does not see proper planning here. She said her inclination is to deny it or continue it for a period of time to figure out what the club’s plans are. She is concerned with drains, parking, fence, and upkeep. Commissioner Page said he would be in support of continuing this to another meeting to give the applicant an opportunity to redo the plan; however, the use permit should be approved to make it a legal conforming club. He said some of the things related to the construction which ought to be taken into consideration are sensitivity to neighbors, fencing in front, and what membership will be like after construction is done. Commissioner Kurasch stated that this plan would not add traffic, it would simply be doing what is already existent. She said the Commission should look to see how a non-conforming use can conform to current standards. She would not advocate that a clubhouse building be changed or that a parking drive be put in as it would change the whole ambiance of the club. She said the plan is addressing an overall problem with maintenance. She would approve the use permit and is in favor of the improvements. Responding to a question from Chairwoman Bernald, Director Walgren recommended that if there is an affirmative vote on the application as submitted, the resolution could be modified to not require additional parking, but conditions do require that they submit to staff a fencing detail. He said new fencing is restricted to certain types and subject to approval. He noted the drainage plan shows the drainage to the back half of the property and that could be verified to be adequate to keep the drainage from going onto the school district’s property. He said if there was no support, he would recommend approving the use permit and denying the improvements and require that an amendment to the application be resubmitted. A discussion ensued regarding possible scenarios based on Commission decision and Director Walgren responded to Commissioners’ questions. Chairwoman Bernald stated it would not be appropriate to consider an application for expansion that has not received the required attention of the club membership. To vote one way or the other on the expansion would be to taint the application and give the club Board an unfair advantage in their argument. She would support adopting the use permit to give the club legal conforming status with the conditions limiting the membership to 100, restricting the club from holding tournaments or events, and denying evening lights. She stated she did not want her vote to be construed to reflect any opinions on the conditions of the club or the proposed changes to the club. She feels strongly that the issues of parking, drainage, and fencing are issues that should be looked to for the future. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/JACKMAN MOVED TO APPROVE UP-99-009, THE USE PERMIT PORTION ONLY, AND THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY: ANY MODIFICATIONS TO THE EXISTING CLUB SITE OR PROPERTY SITE ARE NOT APPROVED AND WOULD REQUIRE FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION; AND IF THAT DOES OCCUR, A PARKING ANALYSIS WOULD BE DONE AND APPROPRIATE PARKING WOULD BE PROPOSED OR AN EXPLANATION FOR WHY IT IS NOT POSSIBLE OR NOT NEEDED; AND EVIDENCE THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERSHIP IS IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT GOING FORWARD. PASSED 7-0. Chairwoman Bernald declared a recess at 9:30 p.m. Upon reconvening at 9:40 p.m., the same Commissioners, including Commissioner Roupe, and staff were present. 5. UP-99-013 (397-02-093) - MILLS, 14118 Sobey Meadows Court; Request for Use Permit approval to allow a 15 foot tall detached garage to be built within a required rear yard setback. The site is PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1999 Page 9 40,206 sq. ft. and is located in an R-1-40,000 zoning district. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the details of the staff report. Responding to a question from Commissioner Roupe, Director Walgren explained the variation on placement of a structure within a setback. Dennis Burrow, project architect, addressed the Commission and offered to answer questions. Fred Mills, 14118 Sobey Meadows Court, described the proposed expansion, noting that the garage was designed to go in back of the property for most efficient use of the land. He visited his neighbors for any objections, and there were none. Commissioner Patrick asked why the garage was not located at a right angle to the house, and Mr. Mills responded the extensive landscape there would prevent infringement and would prevent access to the back of the property. He liked the idea that the garage doors are not seen in front of the house. He said the garage was staked out at a couple of locations and the best location was in the back. Mr. Mills and Mr. Burrow responded to Commissioners’ questions. Nick Streit, 14076 Sobey Meadows Court, stated his property is adjacent to the north of the Mills property. He spoke in support of the project, noting that he and the Millses worked together on the plan, including a landscape design, which was satisfactory to both parties. Mr. Streit responded to questions from Commissioners. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/JACKMAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:54 P.M. PASSED 7-0. Commissioner Patrick expressed she was concerned with the amount of impervious coverage proposed. She said it is within the standards, and the percentage of coverage was over 16,000 square feet, which is a lot of impervious coverage. She said she appreciates that the neighbors jointly worked out the location and landscaping, but her concern is too much pavement. She said too much coverage causes many problems to the environment including runoff and impacts the streams, creeks, and various things. She said the height of the garage is an appropriate height, and if it were closer to the house it would be better. She said she would be voting against the project based on the amount of pavement. She said she would be in favor of the project if the pavement were decreased so that the current plan adding the large garage does not increase the coverage. Responding to a question from Chairwoman Bernald regarding pervious pavers, Commissioner Patrick said she would consider any solution that would make it pervious rather than impervious. Commissioner Page stated that the amount of impervious coverage was his issue, too. He said if the plan could decrease to a single lane moving towards the back, it would lessen a certain amount. He noted he was not a fan of garage doors in front of the house but in this case adding this garage right on to the new structure seemed more appropriate. He said that Mr. Streit would then be looking at the side of the garage versus the three front doors of the garage and that may be an issue, too. He said he could support this plan but he would like to see either grass pavers for a large portion of the front part of the driveway, especially where it widens next to the main structure or just cutting it down altogether to one lane going to the back to allow the parking prescribed by ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1999 Page 10 Responding to Commissioner Jackman’s question regarding limits of impervious cover or driveway, Director Walgren stated that the maximum limit in this zoning district is 35 percent of the total net site area of lot coverage, and the number for this project is 27 percent. Commissioner Jackman stated that she would vote to approve since the impervious coverage is within the law. Commissioner Kurasch expressed concern with the impervious coverage and she would rather see one access as a simple driveway to the back. She said her concern is the front of the house and how it looks in the overall scheme, especially compatibility with others in the neighborhood. She said she does not like the amount of coverage. Commissioner Waltonsmith stated that there was too much paving. Commissioner Roupe shared the concerns already expressed, especially the large amount of coverage; however, he noted that the coverage is within the limits as set forth by ordinance. Thus, he would be willing to support the project as proposed. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with her fellow Commissioners regarding the amount of coverage. She stated she was impressed that there were no complaints from the neighbors. She would have no problem with the size of the garage, considering the size of the lot and the homes in the area. She would also consider cutting back the amount of paving and asking staff to determine something that would be more appropriate to the site. IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER ROUPE TO ACCEPT THIS PROPOSAL AS SHOWN, EXCEPT REFER IT TO STAFF TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO DETERMINE WHAT CAN BE DONE TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE EITHER THROUGH PERVIOUS BLOCKS OR POSSIBLY THE APPLICATION OF TURF BLOCKS IN CERTAIN DROP-OFF AREAS OR OTHER AREAS. Commissioner Kurasch expressed that she would also want to add to the motion to actually reduce the amount of pervious or impervious coverage. A discussion ensued regarding turf blocks. Commissioner Patrick conveyed that staff needed more direction on this issue from the Commission. Director Walgren suggested that either the hard surface be reduced by limiting the apron area in front of the existing garage to make it a single width driveway going to the back to the new garage or that there be a truly pervious material introduced into this design to achieve an equal reduction in hard surface. Commissioner Kurasch preferred to redesign the driveway to eliminate the apron in front of the existing driveway. She suggested making it a standard driveway width and allow the rest of the driveway to exist in paved areas with the choice up to the applicant so they are not obligated for one type of material that they may not want at all. Commissioner Jackman stated that the owner, the architect, and the neighbor have worked hard to develop a plan that meets the code requirements, and she did not feel comfortable trying to outguess what the Commission should do with their property. FAILING A SECOND TO COMMISSIONER ROUPE’S MOTION, THE MOTION FAILED. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1999 Page 11 COMMISSIONERS KURASCH/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE UP-99-013 AS PRESENTED WITH THE CONDITION TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE BY THE CHOICE OF STAFF AND APPLICANT AND TO ELIMINATE THE PARKING AREA IN FRONT OF THE FORMER GARAGE TO DRIVEWAY WIDTH. PASSED 6-1 (JACKMAN OPPOSED.) 6. DR-99-018 (397-18-048) - BRAMLETT, 14920 Farwell Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to demolish the existing residence and construct a new 5,132 square foot, single story residence. The maximum height of the residence will be 23 feet. The site is 28,229 square feet and is located within an R-1- 40,000 zoning district. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 10:14 p.m. Gary Schloh, project architect, described the project, noting that the compatibility of the house is similar to what already exists there. Responding to a request from Commissioner Kurasch, Director Walgren distributed a material and colors board. Mr. Schloh responded to Commissioners’ questions regarding areas where stone veneer materials would be used. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/ROUPE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:17 P.M. PASSED 7-0. Commissioner Kurasch encouraged sustainable building practices and expressed her interest in salvaging materials from demolished homes from going to landfills. She feels that this application is a good use of the property. She recommended that a condition of approval include xeriscape around the landscape and around the front oak trees as prescribed by the arborist. She said that if it is not included in the arborist report, that appropriate landscaping for the preservation of the two front trees be added as a condition which would preclude irrigation at least ten feet from the trunks and eliminate lawn in an environment that will help correct some of the problems in the growing conditions. Director Walgren indicated that Commissioner’s Kurasch concern was covered in the report. Commissioner Jackman noted that she likes the plan which meets the code requirements. She sees nothing to change. Commissioner Waltonsmith said she likes the design which stayed within the framework of the present house. She expressed concern about the two oaks in front and wants to make sure they stay in there. Commissioner Roupe stated he likes the project the way it is designed. Commissioner Page noted he is in support of the project as is. Commissioner Patrick referred to the project’s copper gutters and requested a condition that the copper is sealed so it does not leach into the soil. She said the design is fine but the plans do not show the design of the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1999 Page 12 house. A more complete drawing would have been more helpful to her. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with her fellow Commissioners’ comments and stated she would like to see copper gutters sealed. She suggested that the architect’s future drawings include more detail. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/ROUPE MOVED TO APPROVE DR-99-018 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE COPPER BE SEALED TO AVOID LEACHING INTO THE SOIL. PASSED 7-0. 7. F-99-003 (503-30-019) - HUANG, 13870 Pike Road; Request for Fence Exception permit to enclose more than 4,000 square feet of a parcel located within the Hillside Residential zoning district. The entire 2.96 acre property has been fenced and the applicant is seeking to legalize the zoning violation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report. Commissioner Waltonsmith referred to the subject of the fence being installed to keep erosion down and asked whether any alternatives for erosion control were considered. Director Walgren said that was one of the questions raised and in staff review it was not taken into consideration. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 10:26 p.m. Richard Abdallah, applicant’s representative, addressed the Commission, noted that he had asked Mrs. Huang to tour her neighborhood and photograph other properties with similar fences. She found 60 properties within the area that have similar wrought-iron fences. He distributed the photographs to Commissioners. He said one of the properties has a similar sloped property along a busy street. He stated that the safety issue was not just the dogs, but included the extremely steep property with up to 10 or 12 feet high steep. The issue of the stability, to be addressed later by the landscape architect, is a combination of the fence, the foliage, a couple of small retaining walls below the fence, and trellis area with wood in the ground. Because of the steep slope, the soil and the rocks have gradually worked their way down, especially in the rainy season. The gullies have washed into the modest drainage area which fills up quite easily and the applicants clean it every winter. He said considerations for drainage and erosion have been addressed. Mr. Abdallah described problems with the dogs who have killed livestock, attacked children, and attached other dogs. He said that Animal Control has been out several times, but nothing can be done about vicious dogs without having to file a lawsuit and obtaining a court order. Mr. Abdallah requested that the Commission make findings on two grounds: not only that the visibility from the public street (Pike Street) is modest, but also that the fence is necessary for safety reasons for people on the property. Paul Reed, landscape architect, discussed the color of the fence and erosion issue. He said that the applicants have already started landscaping on both sides of the fence. Eventually there will be a solid green wall on both sides and the fence in the future will not be visible. He distributed photos of landscaping. He said that one of the conditions raised was to possibly change the color of the fence to black or dark green. Currently, the color is tan and was chosen to try to blend with the hillside when the grass is dry. Commissioner Kurasch asked how fence openings that are four inches apart can be considered erosion control. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1999 Page 13 Mr. Reed responded that it was not an erosion control device, but it stops deer, dogs, and other animals from going up and down the slope. He said there is a lot of loose rock and soil on the slope which is almost vertical in some areas of the gutters right below. He said any kind of traffic on that slope immediately causes debris to go into the gutter area. Commissioner Kurasch asked for clarification regarding how the extensive landscaping will significantly improve the stability of the hillside along with the fence. Mr. Reed responded that the landscaping will act as a barrier for traffic, give the opportunity for the plants to take hold, and the roots will do more for erosion control than the fence itself. Commissioner Roupe commented that the fence did not look like much of a deer fence as it was only three feet high, and most deer fences are probably six feet or higher. Mr. Reed responded that if one is standing on the road, the bottom of the fence does not even start until about 8-10 and sometimes 12 feet above one’s head, but the deer can still climb the slope. He said the fence is right at the edge of the slope so there is no place for the deer to stand once they get to the top. Commissioner Page said that because the fence is right at the edge, some parts look like it is eroding away. He asked Mr. Reed to estimate five years from now how much of that fence would still be there versus some of it falling into the street. Mr. Reed responded that he did not see that as being a problem. He said there are no footings exposed currently, and he would not anticipate any in the future; however, were that to happen, the fence could be adjusted and set back. He said it is easy to modify those types of fences. Responding to a question from Commissioner Kurasch, Mr. Reed said he had not installed the fence. Responding to a question from Commissioner Roupe, Director Walgren said that the ordinance only applies to the hillside residential zoning district which is everything west of Pierce Road, and the ordinance was only adopted in the late 1980's. He said many of the more substantial brick column wrought iron fences in the photographs could have been built prior to 1987. He said a drive up Pike Road revealed that the fences sighted had fencing exemptions. He said that staff does not only follow up on complaints received from neighbors, but also follow up whenever a fence in progress comes to the City’s attention, whether via an inspector out in the field or a call from a neighbor. Responding to Commissioners’ questions, Mr. Reed stated that the back property fences are shared with the neighbors and the maintenance done on them was done with the neighbors. Director Walgren announced he had received two letters this evening from neighbors on Pike Road expressing support for the Huangs’ application. Jim Horner, 13857 Pike Road, lives directly across from the Huangs and his 2-acre property fronts approximately 60 percent of the frontage of the road. He expressed support for the applicants’ exemption. Kathleen Horner, 13857 Pike Road, urged the Commission to approve the request. John Zavoshy, 14081 Pike Road, stated he had no problems with fencing the entire property; however, his objection was with the architectural appearance, how it looks from the road, and the color of the fence. He PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1999 Page 14 said to maintain soil erosion, one cannot put in roses, camellias, and flowering shrubs at the end of the road as they are going to require water to sustain and then they die. He requested that the fence be painted with a color that is aesthetically pleasing, that the redwood behind it be removed, and that the third tier, which he finds unsightly, also be removed. Mr. Reed addressed the landscaping issue, noting that the Huangs have planted camellias and roses in the interior of the fence, and on the exterior fence he has worked with them on planting natural, drought-resistant, deer-resistant plants. He said there is a second trellis on the inside of the fence and grapes have been planted on it. He noted this is not a continuous fence, and it has two foot gaps between every couple of sections to support the grapevines. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KURASCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:50 P.M. PASSED 7-0. Responding to a question from Commissioner Roupe, Director Walgren described the distinction between what is public road and what is not in accordance with the City’s ordinance. Commissioner Roupe expressed concern that this fence went forward in the relatively recent past without some effort to approach the City beforehand when the City clearly had an ordinance in place. Commissioner Page stated he would like to see the fence painted a different color. He expressed concern with what could be erosion at the bottom of the fence. He said it was not laid out in perpendicular lines and it looks like it was piece-mealed in. He could support the entire fence as it is and suggested that maybe the lattice work behind it could be replaced with wires to hold the vine. If he were to cut it anywhere, he would cut it around the north side of the shed so as to eliminate the fence down near Pierce Road. Commissioner Kurasch conveyed that it looked like the fence is in different angles, and she was concerned about the construction of the fence. She also noticed from Pierce walking up Pike Road there is another fence of a different style in back of the property. She has a problem with the extent of the fence on the whole side of Pike especially near Pierce Road, which she felt is a public area and public view, and she has a problem with having the fence located in the whole expanse. She said the alternative for the erosion would be to leave it allowing native vegetation and perhaps netting the area. She would advocate cutting back the area that is fenced. She stated that she recognized the safety concerns. Commissioner Waltonsmith stated that she cannot agree with enclosing the whole property and would be in favor of going back to 4,000 feet with a different color. She said there are better ways to prevent erosion than what is there now. She noted the road behind the property is impervious and would promote runoff. She feels the fence should be taken down and put back up in an appropriate way within the framework of the property. Commissioner Jackman noted this was a very unusual shaped lot with a big dropoff and the fence is needed; however, she does not like the color of the fence. It should be a dark green or black and blend in quite a bit more. Her biggest concern is the color of the fence and erosion below the fence. She feels the fence should be allowed to stay. She wants to send a strong message that if any other property owners install fences without City review, there will be fines in the future. Commissioner Patrick explained why she would be in favor of taking down the existing fence to the extent that it exceeds the 4,000 square feet enclosure. She requested that any fencing installed not be a peach color. Commissioner Roupe commented that the lattice work behind the fence looks rather massive. He expressed concern with the color. He referred to a plan for a future home on this property and raised the question of how PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1999 Page 15 to accommodate the change in fencing as the new home goes in place. Responding to a question from Commissioner Roupe, Director Walgren stated he had not seen the plan for a new home, but that he understood the new home would not go in the same location as the existing home, and the configuration for fencing would change. Commissioner Jackman supplemented her previous comments by stating that she would like to see the enclosure go closer to the 4,000 square feet, leave the fence along Pike Road, and wait until the house is in to do anything else definitive to get it down to 4,000 square feet. A discussion ensued regarding the fence and plans for a new house, wherein Director Walgren responded to questions from Commissioners. Chairwoman Bernald conveyed that she cannot make findings for putting beige or peach wrought iron fencing on this property. She could make findings for putting other kinds of fencing on this property and it could be one row of fencing which would support the vines that have been planted. She expressed concern that plants have been put in under oak trees which are not compatible with the trees. She suggested that the applicants confer with experts on this type of property for the erosion control, for protecting the property, and for planting under the existing trees. She said that the fence should be left in for the protection of the occupants at this time, and the fencing should be incorporated into the design review for the Commission’s consideration. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ROUPE MOVED TO DENY F-99-003 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: THAT THE FENCING BE REMOVED IN ITS ENTIRETY WITHIN 12 MONTHS OR APPLICANT OBTAIN APPROVED PLANS WITH FENCING ATTACHED, WHICHEVER IS SOONER, PROVIDED THAT THEY ALSO MOVE THE PIERCE ROAD FENCE BACK PER STAFF’S APPROVAL SO IT IS NOT VISIBLE FROM PIERCE ROAD. PASSED 7-0. Commissioner Patrick noted that the time was almost 11:30 p.m., and two public hearings remained on the agenda. She referred to the Commission’s practice to cut off opening new items at 11:30 p.m. Following discussion, consensus was to continue with the two items. 8. UP-99-010 (397-15-018) - WEST VALLEY COLLEGE (NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS), 14000 Fruitvale Avenue; Request for Use Permit approval to install 12 panel antennas, two global positioning system antennas, and one four foot microwave dish on the roof of the Theater Arts Building at West Valley College. A 10 foot by 20 foot by 10 foot equipment shelter will be placed on the ground behind the building. The site is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the details of the staff report and responded to questions from Commissioners. Director Walgren stated he received a letter from Mr. Bert Martel citing several points which Mr. Martel will be delivering to the Commission tonight. Commissioner Kurasch questioned why two Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) were used, and Director Walgren responded to her inquiry. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 11:35 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1999 Page 16 Peter Hilliard, Project Manager, Nextel Communications, appeared before the Commission and described the project. Mr. Hilliard responded to questions from Commissioners regarding interference and testing. He said that in compliance with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations, if Nextel were incompatible it would have to stop operations until it came into compatibility from an interference standpoint. In response to Commissioner Jackman’s inquiry regarding the amount of weight on the rooftop, Mr. Hilliard stated he was uncertain of the poundage, but structurally the rooftop can handle it. He said Nextel would not be able to go forward without a structural engineer’s evaluation of the roof and the building permit would address that issue. Melody Blaisdell, Construction Manager, Nextel Communications, responded that the structural engineer has evaluated the rooftop and she would estimate that probably each of the antenna support structures weighs between 500-700 pounds per sector. The project proposes four antennas per sector, three sectors in total. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Hilliard to describe the “creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard” in the Environmental Initial Study (EIS) which indicates a “less than significant impact” ruling. Mr. Hilliard responded that a significant impact would be something for which the FCC has standards and typically the determination of the radio frequency report is less than three percent of the FCC standard for an impact. He said this was very low and is at ground level. He noted that it increases as it gets to the roof immediately in front of the antennas but those mitigation efforts are also addressed in the EIS. Chairwoman Bernald asked what kind of protective measures were available and if a universal symbol for “Danger or Keep Out” had been considered. Mr. Hilliard responded that the unique site is very limited to public access via a ladder from the theater to the locked roof hatch. He said that signs and demarcation would be clearly installed in compliance with guidelines and permit conditions. He said that the industry did not utilize a universal sign for hazard. Commissioner Jackman said that in health care there is a standard sign for radiation and asked whether this would be visible in the door leading to the roof. Mr. Hilliard responded that she raised a good point and that could be part of the sign, but he did not know whether it was universal for this type of radio frequency. Mr. Hilliard noted that the report mentions that a color symbol and content conventions would be included in warning signs. Dr. F. L. Stutzman, 15195 Park Drive, addressed the Commission regarding health issues for Items #8 and #9 on the agenda. He referred to 1993 when this issue came before the Planning Commission and City Council, and an application was submitted by GTE Mobilnet and Bay Area Cellular to place these transmission towers on top of a coffee house in Saratoga. He said he was very concerned at that time as were others who were interested in electromagnetic emissions because there is so much that is not understood. He noted that federal standards are not applicable because the federal government does not understand it either. He stated that it is unknown what is considered a safe level. He said it would be a big mistake to gamble on the fact that these may be safe and put them in areas where there is a large number of students as they would be susceptible to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1999 Page 17 this undue risk until it can be definitely proven that they are safe. He said a significant amount of papers and documents have been published regarding this issue, and he would be willing to share his materials with Commissioners for review. He said the documents show there is a definite risk that is proven but is not 100 percent definite. Commissioner Kurasch asked whether the distance from a tower or transmitter had an effect on the amount of emissions and the amount of time that someone spends around these. Dr. Stutzman responded that they predict the effect varies according to the distance from the particular emitting point, but what is not taken into account is the cumulative effect. He said it would usually take a matter of years probably of exposure, and it may be a low level before there is enough cumulative effect to alter the genetic structure of human cells to produce a malignant cell. He requested that the Commission require a very strict review from an environmental health point of view before approving this permit and before putting it right in the center of a campus. In response to a question from Commissioner Kurasch regarding the day care center on campus north of the proposed site, Dr. Stutzman stated that the younger the age group, the more susceptible they are to this form of radiation. Commissioner Roupe stated he had read in the paper that in 1996 there was a federal telecommunications act passed which precludes the City from considering the health effects of electromagnetic radiations as long as they are built in accordance with the FCC standards. Director Walgren responded that federal laws state as such. He said when these transmissions were first coming before the Commission and Council in the early 1990s, each of these applications were reviewed case by case, and debated over whether enough information was available to make technical decisions. He said since the federal act was enacted in 1996, these antennas have been going much less contentiously. He said the City is prohibited by federal law to deny these permits if they are within the federal standards, and these antennas are well below those standards. Mr. Bert Martel, 14420 Fruitvale, addressed the Commission noting his residence borders the college property. He expressed concern that the property owners around the college were not notified of this issue. He read about the issue in the newspaper last month, obtained information from City Hall, and submitted a letter with his concerns to the Commission. He said instead of calculating levels of radiation around the platform of installation, he asked if it was possible to list the levels on swimming pools where people are swimming, outdoor child care area, library, theater, and the southwest corner of the property. Responding to a question from Chairwoman Bernald regarding noticing, Director Walgren described the site in proximity to Mr. Martel’s property. The site is comprised of three parcels (#18, #22, #30) and the Theater Arts Building is in parcel #18. Notices were sent out to parcel owners within a 500' radius on parcel #18, and Mr. Martel’s home is over 2,000 feet from the building; therefore, he was not noticed. It is staff’s practice to prepare notice based on all APNs on multi-parcel sites for a true notice. This was not done in this case because of a new staff person who noticed only from parcel 18. He said the noticing was done correctly in compliance with the requirement that parcel owners within 300 feet be noticed, and Mr. Martel’s property is located almost 3,000 feet away. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/ROUPE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 12:05 A.M. PASSED 7-0. Commissioner Page stated that since this meets the federal requirements he would vote to approve. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1999 Page 18 Commissioner Patrick concurred with Commissioner Page. Commissioner Jackman expressed concern with the day care center and pregnant women on campus because the long-term effects are unknown and there is no way to find out what they are; however, she feels the Commission is forced to approve because of the Federal Communications Act of 1996. Commissioner Kurasch referred to the Town of Los Gatos challenging findings from an EIR because the town refused to installed a transmitter in a school. She felt that she would like to be familiar with the language with what local municipalities are able to question and review these applications and also obtain from Dr. Stutzman basic information on health issues. She said she but will not be voting for this application until she understands all of the issues, and the findings for her denial are land use issues in that the towers are very much higher than the allowable height limit for Saratoga. She said the number of towers should be part of the variance application, and they are not. Director Walgren pointed out that antennas are exempt from the height restriction. He said that numerous studies have been made and discussions held regarding this subject to arrive at this ordinance and these policies. Commissioner Roupe said he would be voting in favor of the application on the grounds that it is compliant with the FCC and by federal law the City is obligated to not consider the health hazards beyond that. Commissioner Waltonsmith stated she would personally not want herself, her children, her grandchildren to live under one of these antennas. She is in a position in which she needs to protect the community and she intends to vote no. Commissioner Patrick stated she has no objections to the application. Chairwoman Bernald felt it was beyond the Commission’s purview at this point to address the health implications although she agreed completely with Commissioner Waltonsmith’s comments. She indicated that even with the concerns expressed it would be the Council’s place to make a policy to address the health issue. She indicated she would be voting to approve. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/ROUPE MOVED TO APPROVE UP-99-010. PASSED 5-2 (KURASCH AND WALTONSMITH OPPOSED.) Commissioner Kurasch requested that staff check with the City Attorney regarding what would be required in future applications. Commissioner Jackman would like to see more study on this issue, regardless of federal law. 9. UP-96-013.1 (503-24-054) - SPRINT, 14429 Big Basin Way; Request for Use Permit approval to relocate a single eight foot pole with six antenna panels from the rooftop of the building to the right side of the building into a “chimney” enclosure extending 15 feet above the rooftop. Equipment cabinets will remain in an existing garage on the first floor of the building. The parcel is 3,881 sq. ft. and is located in a Commercial Historic zoning district. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner Jackman recused herself from the item because she resides in the neighborhood of the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1999 Page 19 proposed site. Director Walgren presented the staff report and responded to questions from Commissioner Roupe. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 12:18 a.m. Ann Welch, Sprint PCS representative, described the project and offered to answer any questions. Commissioner Page asked whether different antennas were going inside than those currently on the roof. Don Pierce, project engineer representing Sprint PCS, responded that the same antennas are going inside as those on the roof. Commissioner Roupe said he had heard from the previous applicant that they achieved avoidance of interference by moving the antennas laterally away from the other antennas on top of the building, and asked whether that alternative had been evaluated as opposed to raising it vertically. Mr. Pierce responded by providing a history of the site. He said when the site was originally designed, Pacific Bell’s antennas were out at the edges of the roofs. It was decided that Sprint could go up e and either separate horizontally or go on a pole off to one side allowing enough separation to get the isolation needed to avoid interference. When the site was actually built, Pacific Bell’s antennas had all been pushed back basically into a triangle on the roof and Sprint’s antennas now were right in front of Pacific Bell’s. Sprint had to go back and ask for an adjustment to its permit just to move its pole. He said he talked to the Pacific Bell engineer and it was agreed that as long as both entities were only broadcasting off one carrier, if Sprint put its pole inside Pacific Bell’s antennas, it would minimize chances for interference. He said the problem is when all the antennas are together, to place them elsewhere creates antennas pointing right at each other. He said for horizontal separation with Pacific Bell’s current antenna configuration, he assumed that since Pacific Bell was pushed back from the edges of the roof that Sprint would not be able to go there. He said with the small size of the roof the only thing left was to go for height. Commissioner Roupe asked if Pacific Bell somehow violated its use permit in moving the antennas from where they were originally intended. Director Walgren said that the antennas must have been built as they were approved; else there would have been a requirement to come back and modify the application. Commissioner Roupe expressed that Commissioners were concerned with the sight of the antenna chimney effect. Mr. Pierce said that the Pacific Bell engineer told him there was great public outcry and they were coerced to moving their antennas back. Chairwoman Bernald noted that the information presented was grapevine information and could not qualify as evidence at this point. She stated that it appeared there were other options which should be explored and asked Director Walgren about the possibility of continuing the application. Director Walgren responded that to continue the item to get information jointly from the operators and Pacific Bell would be difficult; however, the item could be continued if other alternatives that should weigh in the Commission’s decision regarding the visual impacts of the tower need to be considered. Mr. Pierce conveyed that Sprint would be willing to accept a condition to move the antennas to the same PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1999 Page 20 height as Pacific Bell’s and position them on the roof to meet interference requirements. A discussion ensued regarding continuing the item to the next meeting. COMMISSIONERS WALTONSMITH/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 12:30 A.M. PASSED 7-0. Commissioner Roupe indicated he would encourage a continuance for a configuration of the two sets of antennas to be compatible with a lower profile and looking back at the edges of the roof. He would rather see them on the edges than to see a 15 foot tower. Commissioner Page stated he would deny this application because of its appearance, would deny moving the antennas to the edges because of the visibility, and would approve only if it could be done within the existing site. Commissioner Patrick stated she was not in opposition to the application. Commissioner Waltonsmith conveyed she did not like the project and the idea of having a tower there, and she would deny it on those grounds. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with majority of Commissioners and would like to see it continued for further studies to take place. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/PATRICK MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 6-0-1 (JACKMAN ABSENT.) By consensus, the public hearing was continued to the July 28, 1999 Commission meeting. DIRECTOR ITEMS DR-98-051, UP-98-018 & V-98-017 (517-23-036 & 037) - WOODS, 15595 Peach Hill Road; Correspondence from applicant regarding correction of slope calculations for project approved by the Planning Commission on June 9, 1999. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner Jackman returned to the meeting. Director Walgren provided the details and background of the project, noting that it was approved by the Commission on July 9, 1999. Following the public hearing, Commissioner Kurasch discussed with him the calculations in one of the plans. The plans showed a slope at the building site of approximately 12 percent, an average site slope of approximately 38 percent was referenced repeatedly during the hearing, and the slope calculation given for the pool area was 13 percent. He said the pool slope numbers listed in the table were not noticed at the time. However, upon follow-up by Commissioner Kurasch, it was noted clearly that the slope number was not accurate. Staff notified the applicant of the discrepancy and they readily admitted it was a mistake on their part. The applicants have submitted documentation contained in the agenda packet which breaks out the pool area from the house area and provides an average slope on their calculations of under the 30 percent requirement. Upon double-checking the calculations further, Director Walgren found that the numbers are not correct. He referred to page 2 of the agenda report which indicates area A and area B, and explained that the corrected slope number, specifically for the improvements to the terrace, is 30 percent. Commissioner Kurasch expressed that she had several issues on this. She commented that if this application PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1999 Page 21 had been correct from the beginning, and it is incumbent upon the applicant to submit accurate information, she would have had a different analysis of the application. Director Walgren apologized to the Commissioners, Mr. Woods and his representatives for having to wait so late this morning to discuss a fairly complex issue. He said the site was visited and opportunities were available for others to see where the pool was going to go physically. He said the Commission can consider the inaccurate information a substantive issue relative to the pool condition and require that perhaps the pool be reconsidered. Commissioner Kurasch stated that this issue was raised in two public meetings. In the future she would ask for a clear policy statement on how those slopes are broken out, especially if there is a separate pool and/or a separate terrace. Murray Woods, 15595 Peach Hill Road, addressed the Commission and apologized for the error. Consensus was to do nothing more with this item. Commissioner Waltonsmith thanked Commissioner Kurasch for her work on this subject. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioners evaluated and commented on tonight’s meeting. COMMUNICATIONS Commissioners acknowledged the following communications. Communications were acknowledged earlier in the agenda. Written - City Council Minutes for Adjourned and Special Meetings of June 8, 18, 19 and 21, 1999, and Regular Meeting of June 16, 1999 - Planning Commission Notices for Regular Meeting of July 28, 1999 - Communication to Planning Commission from Saratoga Woods Homeowners Association, dated June 24, 1999 - Communication to Planning Commission from Laurie Girand, dated June 29, 1999 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING There being no further business, Chairwoman Bernald adjourned the meeting at 1:00 a.m. to Wednesday, July 28, 1999, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1999 Page 22 Lynda Ramirez Jones Minutes Clerk MINUTES AMENDED AND APPROVED BY: James Walgren Secretary to the Planning Commission