HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-22-1974 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
TIME: Wednesday, May 22, 1974 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California
TYPE: Regular Meeting
***********~*********
I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
A. ROLL CALL
Present:Commissioners Belanger, Marshall, Martin, Matteoni, Smith and
Woodward
Absent: None
B. MINUTES
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the reading
of the minutes of May 8, 1974 be wai~ed and that they be approved as distri-
buted to the Commission. The motion was carried unanimously.
C. CITY COUNCIL REPORT
Chairman Marshall presented an oral ~eport of the City Council meeting of
May 15, 1974. A copy of the minutes of this meeting is on file at the City
Administration office.
D. Commissioner Belanger reported that the PPC Hillside Committee had completed
their study, and had submitted a map!suggesting zoning areas. She reported that
this map would be presented to the COunty Planning Policy Committee on May 23,
and added their suggestions were not in conflict with the Saratoga General Plan
or Sphere of Influence Plan.
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. C-171 - Mel DeSelle, 5th Street, Change of Zoning Request from "R-M-3,000"
(Multiple Residentjail to "C-C" (Community Commercial); a 2.024 parcel;
Continued from.March 13, 1974.
The Secretary stated this item had b~en continued from the March 13 meeting
pending completion of the General Plan and the Village Plan. He stated that a
letter had been received from the applicant dated May 22, 1974 which requested
this matter be continued to the first meeting in June. The Secretary recommended
that C-171 be continued to the June ~2th Planning Commission meeting, but that
the public hearing be opened.~i
Chairman Marshall asked if 'anyone present wished to comment on C-171, which there
were none. He directed C-171 be continued to the June 12 Planning Commission
meeting, and referred this matter to %Staff for further review.
B. V-405 - Robert Tieken, Via Real Drive, Request for Variance to Allow a Swimming
Pool to Extend 17 feet into ~equired Sideyard Setback (Ordinance NS-3,
Section 3.2(f))
The Secretary recommended this matter be referred to the Variance Committee for
on-site inspection, and be continued .to the June 12th Planning Commission meeting.
The Chairman inquired if anyone present wished to comment on this.~as a matter of
!'p~%%.~7.'hearing, which there were none.
Mr. Tieken, applicant, stated that he did not understand the extension of 17 feet
into a required setback in that there was a 10 foot easement along the side of
the house, fnd all he was requesting Was that "it be reduced to 6 feet for the
purpose of installing a swimming pool:." Chairman Marshall explained that it was
normal procedure to refer variance matters to the Variance Committee for an
MEETING OF MAY 22
B. V-405 - Robert Tieken - Continued :
on-site inspection, and indicated th~ Variance Committee would be able to answer
specific questions at that time. Th~ morning of June 1, 1974 was suggested as
the time of inspection. Mr. Tieken indicated acceptance of this.
Chairman Marshall directed V-405 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting
of June 12, 1974, and referred this matter to the Variance Committee for review.
C. V-406 - Frank Robins, Montrose Street, Request for Variance to Allow Construction
of Two-Car Garage within 4 Feet of Property Line in Lieu of Required
10 Foot Setback (Ordinance NS-3, Section 3.7)
The Secretary recommended V-406 be referred to the Variance Committee for an on-
site review, and be continued to the next meeting of the Planning Commission.
Chairman Marshall inquired if anyone~present wished to comment on V-406, which
there were none·
The Chairman directed V-406 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of
June 12, 1974, and referred this matter to the Variance Committee for review·
D. V-407 - John H. Holt, Lynde Court - Bequest for Variance to Allow Expansion of
Residence to be Constructed within 20 Feet of Property Line in Lieu of
Required 25 Foot Setback (Ordinance NS-3~ Section 3.7)
The Secretary recommended V-407 be referred to the Variance Committee for an on-
site review, and be continued to theZnext meeting of the Planning Commission.
Chairman Marshall inquired if anyone= present wished to comment on V-407, which
there were none.
Chairman Marshall directed V-407 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting
of June 12, 1974, and referred this matter to the Variance Committee for review·
E. UP-242 - Constance Ridder, Quito Road - Request for Use Permit to Allow Tennis
Court Fencing within Required Setbacks (Ord. NS-3~ Section 3.7-1)
Ms. Ridder, applicant, stated that she understood the need for a Use Permit but
questioned the need for a variance. ~Chairman Marshall explained that a tennis
court fence was presently consideredz an accessory structure under NS-3, Section
3.7-1. He explained that a Use Permit was required because of the height of the
fence; a fence over 6 feet high with a tennis court within the allowed setbacks
required a variance
Mr. Sells, UP-243 applicant, inquire~ about setback requirements. He was told
that each zone had required setbacks~ which varied, and in his case-'l'[~ required
rear yard setback was 50 feet. The Secretary explained that if a tennis court
was c'~'~i'~red an accessory structure, Section 3.7-1 provided that an accessory
structure was allowed. within 25 feet! of the rear property line if a Use Permit
was first obtained. Me added that the tennis court regulations needed clarifica-
tion, and that the accessory structure secti~"~f"NS~3 was ambiguous. He stated
Staff recommended that action on the' Use Permit be held pending review and
recommendation of the Variance Commilttee on UP-242 and UP-243 specifically, and
tennis court structures in general. 'It was noted that the Variance Committee
findings would be forwarded to the Shbdivision Committee for consideration of
the Use Permit.
Ms. Ridder requested the Variance and Use Permit be acted upon together 'at the
June 12th meeting· Commissioner Smi:th pointed out that the applicant could
apply for a Use Permit subject to a =favorable report from the Variance Committee,
and that both could possibly be acte~ upon at the June 12th meeting if these
findings were made prior to that date·
Chairman Marshall directed UP-242 be' continued to the Planning Commission meeting
of June 12, 1974, and referred this matter to the Variance Committee for review·
-.2-
MINUTES OF MAY 22~
F. UP-243 - Sam Sells, Taos Drive (Tract 5327, Lot 21) - Request for Use Permit to
Allow Tennis Court Fencing Within Required Setbacks (Ord. NS-3~ Sec. 3.7-1)
It was noted that UP-243, like UP-242, required both a Use Permit and a Variance,
and Staff recb~m,ended that this matter be referred to the Variance Committee for
an on-site review and be continued to the.next meeting of the Planning Commission.
Chairman Marshall pointed out that this was in a planned community area, an area
which had been deliberately intendedifor open space. It was noted that the
applicant had a letter from George Day Construction Company approving the
applicant'-s request to build a tenni~ court. Mr. Sells was requested to furnish
a copy of this letter to the City.
Chairman Marshall directed UP-243 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting
of June 12, 1974, and referred this matter to the Variance Committee for an
on-site review.
The following items were set for on-site inspections by the Variance Committee on
Saturday, June 1, 1974: ~
V-407 John H. Holt, Lynde Court - 8:30 a~m'
' · . '1 '.
V-405 - Robert Tieken, Via R~al Drive - 9:15 a.'m.
UP-242 - Constance Ridder, Q~ito Road - 10:00 ~.m'~
UP-243 - Sam Sells, Taos DriVe - 10:45 a~.m.".
V-406 - Frank Robins, Montro~e Street - llz30 a..mL
III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS '3'
A. SDR-1100 - A.R. Woolworth, Brandywine Drive, Building Site Approval - 4 Lots;
Continued from May 8~ 1974
The Secretary stated that a new map had been submitted which addressed the prob-
lems of parking and circulation on Brandywine Drive. He added that a Staff Report
dated May 22 had been prepared which recommended approval be granted. It was
noted that a memorandum from the Assistant Director of Public Works had been
attached to the Staff Report which ppinted out that in granting the applicant
building site approval, two variances would be required: (1) building setback
to existing house was less than requ,ired (21 feet ~ from face of curb instead of
35 feet); and (2) corridor lot off the turnaround portion of the cul-de-sac.
Commissioner Belanger questioned the' reasons for choosing a cul-de-sac over a
hammerhead configuration as a soluti'on to the end of Brandywine Drive. Mr. Trinidad
stated that although a hammerhead would probably increase the setback of the
property at the end of Brandywine by 15 feet, it was felt that parking on both
legs of the hammerhead would hinder 'turnarounds and cause'a safety hazard. He
added that the turnaround radius of a cul-de-sac with parking on all.perimeters
would be 24 feet, the minimum City standard. The Secretary noted that the 6ul-
de-sac would eliminate the traffic qontrol problem of people randomly traveling
down Brandywine Drive through the existing secondary access, as well as eliminating
the problem of people turning around in private driveways. The Secretary further
pointed out that the design review condition 'relative to landscaping and arrange-
ment of street parking would do much~ to mitigate the effects of the variances.
Commissioners Martin and Marshall, however, td'i~ag~dYi'e~'~ variances, expressing
doubt that the setback variance on t'he existing house had~een caused entirely
by the City.
The applicant's representative indiQated acceptance of the Staff Report after
questioning Conditions (z) and (aa).~ Relative to Condition (z) it was noted that
Parks & Recreation Commission had requested a 20 foot easement on the west side
of Rodeo Creek, not a dedication of !land.
Mr. Trinidad amended the Staff Report by changing Condition (c) to read: "... with
a 33 foot radius property line as s~own on Tentative Map."
Commissioner Belanger suggested Staff consider modifying the Staff Report by
deleting Condition (x) in that it was contradictory to Condition (aa). Staff
-3-
MINUTES OF MAY 22
A. SDR-1100 - A.R. Woolworth - Continued
contended that the ambiguity contain[d therein as a result of these conditions
was a protective measure and was satisfactory to Staff.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Commission
approve SDR-1100 and the tentative map (Exhibit A-3 filed May 21, 1974) subject
to the Staff Report dated May 22, 1974, including General Conditions I and
Specific Conditions II (a) through (z) and (aa). The motion was not passed:
Commissioners Smith, Woodward and Ma~teoni voted yes; C6mmissioners Belanger,
Martin and Marshall voted no.
~.- Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Matteoni, that the
Commission approve application SDR-1100 and the tentative map (Exhibit A-3 filed
May 21, 1974) subject to the Staff REport dated May 22, 1974 including General
Conditions I and Specific Conditionsz II (a) through (z) and (aa), with 'the
Commission exempting Condition (x) of the Report and substituting therefor the
following: ..
"x. Provide two additionall.off-Street parking spaces each on Lots A, B
and C." '
The motion was carried; Commissioners Martin and Marshall voted no.
B. SDR-1103 - Fred Marburg, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Commercial Expansion; Continued
from May 8 ~ 1974
The Secretary stated clarification had been requested from fPublic Works rega_rding
the access off Blauer Drive as well as the median thereon. Mr. Trinidad stated
that ,,'h~d'eh'~"Ci~"T~'f'flc Engineer had reviewed this matter, and had determined:
(1) the width of Blauer Drive's entr.'ance was adequate; and (2) the existing median
.""fu~ioned as intended for dividing the traffic." He concluded that no additional
conditions would be required for Blauer Drive.
Mr. Trinidad further reported that according to the latest assessor's plats, the
present owner had control only over 'Parcels 391-3-268, 391-3-270, 391-3-271 and
391-3-281; consequently, the pedestrlia~/bike pathway would be from Blauer Drive
to the creek. ,
Staff inserted an additional change .on the Staff Report by adding Condition (x)
as .follows: "Design review required,."
Mr. Marburg, applicant, indicated acceptance of the Staff Report. He requested
permission from the Commission to remove a tree on the property, and was told that
he would be required to obtain a tree removal permit from the Planning Department.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Commission
approve application SDR-1103 and'! the tentative map (Exhibit A-1 filed April 19,
1974) subject to the Staff Report dated May 22, 1974 including General Conditions I
and Specific Conditions II (a) through (x). The motion was carried unanimously.
C. SD-1110 - Dividend Industries, Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Subdivision Approval -
18 Lots; Continued from May 8~ 1974
The Secretary stated that a Staff Report had been prepared on this dated May 22
which recommended approval be granted.
The applicant was present and asked if an 18-lot subdivision could be approved
at this evening's meeting. Chairman Marshall explained that the Subdivision
Committee had contended a 15-lot subdivision would be feasible, but unless
secondary access was provided, an 18-lot subdivision would not be acceptable.
" After discussion of same, the applic. ant indicated that secondary access would
not be available: to him at this poi'nt, and stated he was applying for a 15-lot
subdivision.
A question of trail easement on the .northern creek was raised, and discussion
followed. It was noted that a traiIs plan o'f this area had not been developed...
MiNUTES OF MAY 22~
C. SD-1110 - Dividend Industries - Continued
It was agreed that the developer would provide a trail easement, and the appli-
cant assured the Commission that there would be a recorded easement with every
lot to insure the property owners would not cut off this trail. Staff modified
the Staff Report by adding Condition (x) as follows:
· "Provide trail easement by mutua~ agreement between developer and Parks and Recreation Commission."
Staff further amended the Staff report by: (1) changing the subdivision approval
amount to 15 lots instead of 18 lots; (2) changing the Exhibit/to A-1 filed
May ·~V·=1974; and (3) deleting General Condition I and substituting therefor the
following: "Comply with standard engineering conditions for subdivisions dated
August 22, 1973."
The Secretary reported that Condition (w) of the Staff Report had been ~dded to
concur with the City Council's decision to deny the ~rchaeological Society's
request for appeal of the Negative Declaration filed on this project. He stated
that the City Council had directed that the applicant was to undertake 6 test
pit excavations under the supervision of a qualified archaeologist in order to
determine the presence of any valuable artifacts. The Council stipulated that
in the presence of discoveries, the project's tentative subdivision map would be
amended to accommodate for the preservation of the artifacts. He directed the
Commission's attention to the memorandum-dated May ~2, ~'~'~ive to the City
Council's deci~·i~
Questions were raised as to the size' and extent of the excavation pits, as well
as to the procedure for hiring a professional archaeologist. The applicant ex-
plained that the Archaeological Soci~ety referred him to an archaeologist; the
gentleman was not available but suggested Dr. Joseph Winter, archaeologist, with
San Jose State University. The appllicant stated that Dr. Winter made a prelimi-
nary report on the site, and attent{on was drawn to his letter of May 19, 1974
indicating there were no surface evidences of any cultural remains·on the site.
The applicant further explained that, the City Council had requested that the
applicant./~k~··~' test pits under the direction of a professional archaeologist
hired by the applicant; he further indicated that the pits were to be about 1 foot
by 3-4 feet deep.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded b~ Commissioner Woodward, that the Commission
approve application SD-1110 for 15 l~ots and the tentative map (Exhibit A-1 filed
May 6, 1974) subject to the Staff Report dated May 22, 1974 including General
Conditions I and Specific Conditions II (a) through (x). The motion was carried
unanimously.
D. SD-1112 - Alan Chadwick~ Pierce Road~ Subdivision Approval - 8 Lots
The Secretary stated that the Staff was not prepared to report on SD-1112, and
recommended this matter be continued.
Chairman Marshall directed SD-1112 ~e continued to t~e Planning Commission meeting
of June 12, 1974, and referred this :matter to the Subdivision Committee for
further review.
E. SDR-1115 - Marvin Kirkeby, Saratoga~Sunnyvale Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot;
Continued from May 8~ 1974
The Secretary stated that the appliQant was renegotiating with adjacent property
owners to secure full street right-~f-way. He recommended this matter be con-
tinued to the next meeting of the Planning Commission, and noted that a written
request for extension was needed.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded ~y Commissioner Belanger, that application
SDR-1115 be denied subject to the receipt of a written r~quest from the applicant
prior to the expiration date for an lextension to the Planning Commission meeting
of June 12, 1974. The motion was c~rried unanimously.
~5-
MINUTES OF MAY 22
F. SDR-1116 - Roger Ross, Saratoga Hill~ Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot;
Continued from May 8~ 197~
The Secretary stated that this matter was a borderline 40% grade lot, and that
the applicant had been requested to ~ubmit revised plans depicting detailed
contours and access. It was noted that Staff would be required to determine
slope density, and that the City AttOrney had been requested to make a determi-
'nation'on the procedure to be followed if slope density is. greater than 40%.
Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1116 be continued to the .Planning Conunission meet-
ing of June r2, 1974, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Cowmittee ~or
further review.
G. SDR-1117 - S. Tom Barton, Pierce Roa~, Building Site Approval 1 Lot; Continued
from May 8~ 1974
The Secretary stated that %he applic__ant had been requested to make.minor revisions.
to the tentative map, and recommended this matter be continued.
Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1117 be continued to the Planning Commission meet-
ing of June 12, 1974, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee for
further review. :
H. SDR-1118 - Robert Johnson, Oriole Ro~d, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot; Continued
· ' from May 8~ 1974 ,
The Secretary stated that a Staff Re~ort had been prepared dated May 22, 1974 on
this matter recommending approval be' granted. It was noted this lot was a legal
non-conforming lot which contained a' corridor lot off the cul-de-sac, a situation
permitted by the City prior to 1968.'
The applicant was present and indicated acceptance of the Staff Report.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded b'y Commissioner Belanger, that the Commission
approve application SDR-1118 and the tentative map (Exhibit A-1 filed April 29,
1974), subject to the Staff Report 4ated May 22, 1974 including General Conditions I
and Specific Conditions II (a) through (o). The motion was carried unanimously.
I. SDR-1119 - John Constantin, Norton Road~ Building Site Approval - 1 Lot
The Secretary stated that the file ~n SDR-1119 was not yet complete, ..and recommended
this matter be continued.
Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1119~be continued to the Planning Commission meet-
ing of June 12, 1974, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee for
review.
J. SDR-1120 - Jeff Bryant, Monte VistaiDrive~ Building Site Approval - 1 Lot
The. Secretary stated that this was ~ remodeling project on an existing residence
which would increase the value of the property by 50%, and that according to the
Building Site Ordinance a building ~ite approval was required. He added that a
Staff Report dated May 22 had been prepared on this which recommended approval be
granted.
Mr. Bryant, applicant, stated that he could not comply with Conditions (1) and
(m) simultaneously, and asked for clarification of these conditions. The
Secretary stated that the Health Department letter of May 20 stipulated that the
applicant should replace the existing drain line with a 400 foot drain line. He
stated that the County Sanitation District letter of May 21 provided that the
applicant should install: (1) a 500 foot sanitary sewer extension on Monte Vista
Drive to the east at an estimated value of $7,500; or (2) a 700 foot sanitary
sewer extension to the north at an ~st{mated cost of $7,000. The letter further
contended that insomuch as the Health Department had recommended an extension of
the septic tank's system drain field by 400 feet, the applicant should first
MINUTES OF~Y 22~ _~
J. SDR-1120 - Jeff Bryant - Continued
explore the feasibility of a sanitary sewer con~ection; it ~econmended the appli-
cant temporarily use the existing septic tank for a period of one year until the
proposed sanitary sewer system connection was installed. Discussion followed,
and it was agreed that the Health Department letter should take precedence over
the Sanitation District; Staff amended ~he Staff Report by deleting Condition (1)
and relettering Condition (m) to (1).
Mr. Bryant next asked the reasoning for Conditions (b) and (c). He was told by
Mr. Trinidad that Condition (b) was intended to bring the applicant's property
up to City standards. Mr. Bryant stated that the other residents on Monte Vista
Drive made improvements to the road ~very 10 years, and contended that Condition
(c) was asking him to build a new road by himself. Mr. Trinidad explained that
this was a standard condition meant ~o bring the applicant's property up to the
Cit '
y s minimum access standards. Mr. Bryant stated that his plans had been sub-
mitted in April and had been approved by the City; he stated it was then deter-
mined that a building site application would be required. He complained that
the bank would call his loan in two days if action was not taken on the property,
and stated "I think you are putting an undue burden on one property owner."
Mr. Trinidad stated that the road no~ varied from between 14.to 16 feet, and the
minimum width allowed by the City wa~ 18 feet. He stated that Condition (e),
bond and inspection fee, was to guarantee the work done on Conditions (b) and
(c). He explained that the bond stood for one year with a one year extension if
required, and that if the conditions;had not been met within that period, the City
could call the bond and repair the r'oad.
The applicant stated that he did not~ agree with the conditions of the Staff Report.
Chairman Marshall pointed out that the applicant had two alternatives: (1) fi~[
~Commission could vote on the applica!tion, and if approved, the applicant could
request reconsideration of the condi!tions or appeal to the City Council; or (2)
continue this item to the next meeting of the Planning Cormnission and meet with
Staff to work out the conditions of !the Staff Report. He stated that the Commis-
sion could not act within the two-day time-frame of Mr. Bryant's, explaining
that after the Commission approved the application, the City Council had to".'vote
on it.
At this time the applicant requested% the Commission to take action on SDR-1120.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Commission
approve application SDR-1120 and the tentative map (Exhibit A filed April 30, 1974)
subject to the Staff Report dated May 22, 1974 including General Conditi·ons I an
Specific Conditions II (a) through (:1). The motion was carried; Commissioner
Matteoni voted no because he did not~ agree with Condition (c).
K. SDR-1121 - Lanoie~ Inc.~ Canyon Vie~ Drive~ Buildin8 Site Approval - 1 Lot
The Secretary stated the file was not complete on SDR-1121, 'and recommended this
matter be continued.
Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1121 lbe continued to ~e Planning Commission meeting
of June 12, 1974, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee for review.
BREAK: 10:10 p.m.
REOPEN: 10:25 p.m.
IV. DESIGN REVIEW
A. A-431 ' Fred Marburg, Saratoga-Sunn~vale Road, Preliminary Design Review -
Commercial Buildin~
Mr. Burr, City Planner, ~tated that ·Staff was not prepared to report on this
matter, and recommended A-431 be continued.
Chairman Marshall directed A-431 be Zcontinued to the June 12, 1974 Planning Commis-
sion m~eting of June 12, 1974, and ~eferred this matter to the Design Re~iew
Committee for review.
' ~NUTES OF ~Y 22 ,4
% ·
B. A-432 - Evans Products, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Preliminar'y Design Review -
Commercial Expansion
Mr. Burt stated a Staff Report had been prepared on A-432 dated May 22 which
recommended approval of the preliminary design be granted. He further amended
the Report, third sentence of the Prgject Description, as follows:
"Materials proposed will consist Of horizontal wood siding to match
existing, and chain link fence with redwood slats."
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Commission
grant application A-432 preliminary design approval subject to the Staff Report
dated May 22, 1974 including ConditiOns (a) through (d). The motion was
carried unanimously.
C. A-430 - Almaden Development, Oak Street, Final Design Review - Multiple-Family
Residential (6 Units)
... Mr. Burt stated a.,Staff R~port had been prepared dated May 22 which recommended
approval of the final design. He further amended the Report by adding Condition
(h) as follows:
"Design and location of garbage bins be approved and reviewed by the Staff."
Mr. Franklin, applicant, indicated a~ceptance of the Staff Report. It was noted
that landscaping plans had been reviewed and approved by the Architectural Ad-
visory Committee. Commissioner Belanger pointed out that final design approval
would be granted for the design and location of the stairway upon the receipt of
the engineering plans, which would be provided at the time of engineering for
the townhouse structure. She added that this would in no way preclude the appli-
eant's responsibility for the design and implementation of the stairway.
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the
Commission grant application A-430 final design approval subject to the Staff
Report dated May 22, 1974 including Conditions (a) through (h). The motion
was carried unanimously.
V. MISCELIJ~NEOUS
A. SDR-1047 - John McLaughlin, Pierce Road - 2 Lots; Request for Unitization of
Parcels
The Secretary stated that this was a request to obtain final building site appro-
j.~..~ val for one' of the two parcels located on Pierce Road; the applicant would like
:,.. ~. to meet the conditional requirements for the development of the second lot, Par-
cel B. It was noted that Parcel A would remain as conditioned originally, and
that the improvement costs placed on the two parcels initially would now be
placed directly on Parcel A (i.e., $12,700 bond). Mr. Trinidad inserted that
Parcel B was involved in a Reimbursement Agreement of $712.50 payable to the
adjacent property owner (Norman Koepernik -. SDR-g30) when Mr. Koepernik widened
Via Real, which would have to be met by the appli'~'~:~'0~' t~ development of
Parcel B.
Commissioner Belanger expressed concern that in the future the applicant might
ask for relief of the conditions placed on Parcel A?CSn~ending that the lot would not
lbe favorable to development. She also questioned whether there would be require-
..... ments to widen the road. Mr. Trinidad explained that the only road improvement
requirement by Public Works on developing Parcel B was to reimburse the Koeperniks.
He added that if Parcel A was developed, the $12,700 road improvement bond would
be applicable.
Commissioner Matteoni recommended:'~.~'['i~ngu~ should be included in the
Commission's motion to grant approval of the applicant's request which stated
.... that this unitization was done at the request of the applicant with the knowledge
.~ that by transferring the total amount of the improvement bond to-Parcel A this
.... lot might be costly to develop.
-8-
~NUTES OF MAY 22, ~
A. SDR-1047 - John McLauShlin - Continued
Chairman Marshall moved, seconded by Commissione~/Martin, that the Commission
approve the modification of Conditions in application SDR-1047· in order·r~to permit
unitization of Parcels A and B provided: (1) the Reimbursement Agreement in
the amount of $712.50 to N.W. Koepernik be adhered to; (2~ that conditions of
the original Staff Report be placed antirely on Parcel A; and (3) that the
applicant be notified by letter of the Commission's action and the point be
made that this action was taken at the applicant's request resulting in the
entire'amount of the bond being placed on Parcel A which might make the lot
costly to develop. The motion was carried unanimously.
Mrs. McLaughlin, the applicant, was present and asked· for Clarification on whether
she could develop Parcel A in the future. Chairman Marshall explained that she
could develop Parcel A~but that the Commission wanted to specify in its motion
that uni~ization of the parcels was done at her request. Mrs. McLaughlin fur-
ther asked how she might get rid of this bond. Mr. Trinidad stated that she
could either build the driveway as shown on the plans, or negotiate acceptable
access alternatives onto the property. He added that th~ purpose of the bond
was to insure that proper access will be constructed to City standards.
· VI. COMMUNICATIONS
A. WRITTEN
1. The Secretary stated a memoKandum dated May 16, 1974 from the City Manager
had been received which requested the members of the Planning Commission
review the proposed modifications the·City Council made relative to the
.-':-; Avco tentative map (SD-1101). The memorandum further r~quested this review
be made prior to the June 5th Council meeting when it was anticipated the
Avco appeaI would be approved. The Secretary pointed out that this request
did not indicate affirmation of the modifications was needed.
Chairman Marshall stated h'e felt it was the consensus of the Planning Commis-
sion that the Subdivision Commit.tee review with the applicant the proposed
modifications prior to the June 5th Council meeting, and that the Commission
endorse the Subdivision Committee's findings on same.
Commissioner Belanger reminded the Commissioners that they had voted to deny
this application on the basis that development of a subdivision would require
too many variances to the Subdivision Ordinance. She stated that by parti-
cipating in the review of the proposed modifications, ~he Subdivision
Committee would not be consenting to the project.
....~.
~ Commissioner Belanger moved, secZonded by Commissioner Martin,· that the
:;"~ Planning Commission acknowledge the request to review the proposed modifi-
cations on SD-1101 made by the City Council on May 15, 1974, and that the
Commission reaffirm its previous' recommendation of denial of this application.
The motion was carried unanimously.
.... ._' ....... ~ ....
2. Memorandum announcing a Joint Meeting of City Council and Commissioners on
Wednesday, May 29, 1974 to hear a presentation on the Parking Assessment
District relative to the Village Plan.
3. Memorandum dated May 22 .relative to Offer to Dedicate Easement for Emergency
Access Road for Tract No. 5384.
B. ORAL
1. Commissioner Belanger stated that the development's landscaping on Sunnyvale-
Saratoga.Road and Mi'liVich had not been completed, and she asked the
Secretary to check into the matter.
2. Commissioner Woodward stated that the development's landscaping on Sunnyvale-
Saratoga Road and Cox Avenue had not been completed, and she asked the
Secretary to check into the matter.
MINUTES OF MAY 22.
B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Continued
3. The matter of tennis courts in a Planned Community areaj~was discussed. It
was noted that in the case of UP'-243, 20% of the property would be fenced,
and the Ordinance allowed'that ~nly.15% of any property courd']5~'f~Fd~d.
Chairman Marshall asked the Commissioners to give special attention for
/future consideration to the tenn'is court regulations, specifically in a
Planned Community area.
4. Commissioner Martin requested the Commission's City Council Meeting Schedule
be updated prior to the next Plahning Commission meeeting.
5. Chairman Marshall expressed apprleciation to Mrs. Parker of the Good
Government Group for serving coffee.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Woodward,moved, seconded bX Commissioner Matteoni, that the Planning
Commission meeting of May 22, 1974 be adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously.
C~airman Marshall adjourned the meeting 'at 11:32 p.m.
Respectully submitted:
ar es . owe
Acting Secretary