Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-26-1974 Planning Commission Minutes .... , .. ........ = ........ ~' OF SARATOGA PLANNINGCOMMISSi MINUTES TIME:. Wednesday, June 26, 1974 - 7:30 p.m.i PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting ********************* I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION : Chairman Marshall opened the Planning Commission meeting of June 26 at =7'i.~57p~m~ A. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Belanger, Marshall, Martin, Matteoni and Smith Absent: Commissioner Woodward B. MINUTES Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the reading of the minutes of June 12, 1974 be waiv&d, and that they be approved as distributed to the Commission with the followingZcorrection: blight instead of plight on Page 10, Item A-391, third paragr~ph~ The motion was carried unanimously. C. CITY COUNCIL REPORT Commissioner Matteoni gave an oral presentation of the City Council meeting of June 17, 1974 covered by Commissioner Woodward. Of special interest to the Commission was the passage of Resolution 700 authorizing a new fee schedule for Planning Department applications, and the denial without prejudice of the Gerald D. Butler appe~r/(sD-1057). A copy of these minutes is on file at the City Administration office. D. Prior to nominating Mr. Van Duyn as the new Planning Commission Secretary, Chairman Marshall expressed appreciation on the part of the Commission to Mr. Rowe for his role as Acting Planning. Secretary pending the appointment of a new Planning Director. CommissionersSmith moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that Marty Van Duyn be nominated and elected as Secretary of the Planning Commission. The motion was carried Unanimously. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. V-405 - Robert Tieken, Via Real Drive - Request for Variance to Allow Swimming Pool to Extend 17 Feet into Required Sideyard Setback (Ordinance NS-3, Section 3.2(f)f)'; Continued ~rom June 12~ 1974 Mr. Rowe stated that the Variance Co.mmittee had met in th~ field with the appli- cant, and had suggested that the applicant meet the given setbacks of the City Ordinance. He further added.that based on these discussions with the Variance Committee, the applicant had submitted a letter dated June 24, 1974 requesting his application ~or Variance be witharawn. Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Matteoni, that the Commission accept the letter of withdrawal dated June 24, 1974 on Application V-405. The motion was carried unanimously. B. V-408 - Carolyn F. Smith, Colby Court - Request for Variance to Allow Patio Extension to be Constructed Within 6 Feet of Property Line in Lieu of Required 10-Foot Setback (Ord. NS-3~ Sec. 3.7); Cont'd from June 12~ 1974 Mr. Rowe stated that the Variance Committee had met with the applicant on-sit~.t and had indicated to her ~hat alterations to the request~'~'~s'~.~-~d~'~ri~..nc~l: might not be needed. Based on these discussions, the applicant submitted a letter dated June 26, 1~'~4 requesting the application for variance be withdrawn. Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Matteoni, that the Commission accept the letter of withdrawal dated June 26, 1974 on Application V-408. The motion was carried unanimously. MINUTES OF JUNE 26~ 1! C. V-409 - Hortense Rozman, Chateau DriVe - Request for Variance to Allow Accessory Structure in a Rear Yard in Excess of 250 Square Feet (Ord. NS-3, Sec.3.7-1) Mr. Rowe explained that this item wag not on the agenda but asked that the Variance Committee consider an on-site inspection of this matter on Saturday, June 29, 1974 at 10:30 a.m. The Variance Committee indicated acceptance of this suggestion. Chairman Marshall directed the Stafflto notify the applicant of this on~s~te inspection. D. UP-242 - Constance' Ridder, Quito Road, Request for USe Permit to Allow Tennis Court.F~.ging within Required Setbacks (Ordinance NS-3, Section 3.7~1); Continued' from June 12~ 1974 Mr. Rowe explained that adjustments had been made to enable the tennis court to be built within the legal setbacks. :He added that a letter dated June 12, 1974 had been received requesting the application for Use Permit be witRdrawn. Commissioner Belanger asked for an explanation of why a Use Permit was needed for tennis court applications. Commissioner Smith explained that a Use Permit was required if the tennis court fence was over 6-feet high. Mr. Rowe further explained that if the tennis court .fencln~'zfell within the building envelope, a Use Permit or a Variance was not required, and that the fencing under the Accessory Structure Ordinance would allow a 12-foot fence without.Cit.y review. Commissioner Belanger pointed out that in UP-243 the tennis court fell within the property setbacks but that a Use'Permit was still required. Mr. Rowe ex- plained that in the matter of UP-242, because of the 2~ acre parcel, the appli- cant was able to step back 50-feet from the rear property line, 20-feet from the side yards, and 30-feet from the front yard. He contended that with this build- ing envelope, the applicant could construct a tennis court 12-feet high without City review.. He explained that in the UP-243 matter, the applicant was only able to move back from the rear property line 23-feet, where Code required 50-feet. He stated that under the Accessory Structure Conditions of the Code, however, if the applicant could setback 25-feet from the rear property line, the applicant was eligib%~ for Use Permit. Also UP-243 would be required to have a variance because the applicant was within 23-feet of the rear property line. Mr. Rowe stated that now the applicant on UP-243 had moved the fence to the 25-foot mark and was a~k~ng solely for a Use Permit. He staged that there was ambiguity in the Accessory Structures Code relative to tennis court fences, and that interpre- tations had to be made. Commissioner Belanger reiterated that most applications for tennis courts would require a Use Permit since they would in most cases fall within the setbacks for an accessory structure but would not be within the building envelope. Chairman Marshall pointed out that there was a conflict in NS-3, Section 3.7 and Section 3.7-1~ .He stated .that it seemed that on a large parcel of property a tennis court co~'ld"be built at the rear of the house under Section 3.7, but that most people owned an acre or less and would fall within Section 3.7-1 which would require a tennis-court Use Permit depending on whether the rear was 25-feet. He stated he would consider the fence limitation of 6-feet a breaking point, and anything over 6-feet would require a Use Permit. He concluded that by definition, the Commission could require a Use Permit (and thereby control) on any fenced, paved area which was by definition an accessory structure.- Chairman Marshall requested Staff to~ review NS-3, Section 3.7-1 and make recom- mendations for any clarifying language relative to tennis court fencing. 'Commis- sioner Smith further requested the City Attorney look at this. Commissioner Matteoni moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the Commission accept the letter dated June 12, 1974 withdrawing the request for Use Permit on Application UP-242. The motion was ~arried unanimously. .. -2- MINUTES OF JUNE 26 UP-243 - Sam Sells, Taos Drive (Trac6 B327, Lot 21) - Request for Use Permit to Allow Tennis Court Fencing Within Required Setbacks (Ordinance NS-3, Section 3.7-1); Continued from June 12~ 1974 Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing on UP-243 at 7:58 p.m. Mr. Rowe stated that the Variance Cor~nittee and the Subdivision Committee had reviewed this request in the field. He explained that the applicant was request- ing a Use Permit to allow a tennis court with a 7-foot high fence with the excep- tion of a small area which opens to the house. He stated that the issue occurred where the rear property on the initial application fell within 23-feet of the rear property line. He added that in order to ascertain this statistic correctly, the Building Department measured the area with the following results: the distance from the rear property line.to the edge of the blacktop was 23~-0'' at the left rear corner, and 22~-8'' at the right rear corner. He stated that the applicant had indicated in a letter dated June 21, 1974 that the fencing would be 2 feet back from the Building Department measurement, and that fencing would occur at the 25-foot line parallel to the rear property line, which would obviate the need for a Variance. He stated that the applicant was now request- ing a Use Permit as provided for in NS-3, Section 3.7-1, and that a Staff Report had been prepared re'C0mm~ndi~ .a~pro~al be granted. It was noted that there would still be a mini-V~i~nce on'the right corner of the tennis court. The applicant, Mr. Sells, was present and stated that the tennis court would not be a standard tennis court size in that the side lines would lose some of its room; he added that there were proper court markings and sufficient room in the playing room itself. Commissioner Martin suggested the applicant lower the fence to 6 feet in order to have a regulation-size tennis court, but Mr. Sells stated that he would rather have a smaller tennis court than a lower fence. Concern was expressed that if Mr. Sells sold his home and the'neW'owner wished to make the tennis court standard size, future Commissioners would not under- stand the reasons for allowing a substandard court now. Mr. Rowe explained that ~h~."Use,-Permit would be revocable if the conditions were not followed, and he cited NS-3, Section 16.14 as follows: "Upon any changes of ownership Of a site subject to a use permit 'such,. use permit shall continue in effect for a period of not to exceed thirty days from date of change of ownership, during which period such new owners must secure a new use permit in accord with this article order to continue such use." Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the 'Commission close the public hearing on Application UP-243. The motion was carried unanimously. The public hearing was closed at 8:47 p.m. After further discussion, Commissioner Matteoni moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Commission approve the Use Permit for Application UP-243 subject to the Staff Report dated June 26, 1974 including Conditions (1) through (5), and adding Condition (6) as follows: "Fencing shall not enclose more than 15% lot coverage, and a 7-foot height limitation was designed to conform with the requirements of the Planned Community conditions and restrictions for Tract 5327." The motion was carried unanimously. .F. UP-245 - Steve J. Stevens, Quito Road - Request for Use Permit to Allow Tennis Court Fencing within Required Setbacks ~(Or~. NS-3, Sec. 3.7-1); Continued from June 12, 1974 Chairman Marshall recommended this m~tter be defer'red ~ntil after discussion of Item A, under Miscellaneous (SDR-935). There was' n~ objection to this. :~. T'- MINUTES OF JUNE 26 SDR-935 - John L. Richardson, Quito Road'- 1 Lot; Amendment to Tentative Map; Continued from June 12~ 1974 Mr. Rowe stated that this had been forwarded to the City Council for final building site approval indicating that the applicant had met all conditions. Mr. Stevens, applicant, stated that he wished to withdraw his request for amendment to SDR-935, and submitted a letter dated June 26, 1974 stating same. Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Commission grant the withdrawal request of the amendment to Application SDR-935 and further deliberations be discontinued. The motion was carried unanimously. F. UP-245 - Steve Stevens, Quito Road -.Request for Use Permit to Allow Tennis Court Fencing within Required Setbacks (Ordinance NS-3, Section·3.7-1); Continued from June 12~ 1974 Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing on this matter at 8:27 p.m. .. The applicant explained that he wished to alter the 1972 house location as depicted on the exhibit of SDR-935 in order to make room for a tennis court. He stated that he was not trying to change any lot lines. It was noted.that the 1972 map did not reflect the tennis Court location nor the desired hous~ loca- tion change, and was consequently not acceptable to the Commission. It was requested that the applicant submit a revised map depicting the desired house location in relationship to the proposed tennis cgurt, and that this matter be continued to the Planning Commission. meeting of July 10, 1974. Chairman Marshall C'{~S~d the public hearing for the evening at UP-245 at 8:45 p.m., and continued. the matter to July 10, 1974. Commissioner Belanger ~pcouraged the Staff to review the conditions of SDR-935 to insure that this ten~'is court change did not create problems of access in terms of grading. Mr. Trinidad stated that the site should stand by itself in that building site approval did not lock in the house location, and what went on on the site would be a matter of the Use Permit. He stated that the Use Permit would automatically allow the Commission to use conditions which could include input from Public Works Department a~ ~ell as design review which controls house location. In summary, Chairman Marshall stated:the amendment to SDR-935 request for house location change had been withdrawn,'and the withdrawal accepted by the Commission; the previous 1972 map still applied and would be presented to the City Council for final map approval; the applicant had been requested to prepare (on the basis that he was within the framework of the property lines and within the conditions of the tentative site approval) a revised map which reflected the desired house location: ! in retationsh~pt~ ~h'e~o~o~a~enhfS':"c0~r~'cprior'~o. ~heyJffI.~ '107il9X~L:P. la~ning .... . . ..~-,. - , Commi~Si0n ·meeting. IIIo BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS A. SD-1112 - Alan Chadwick, Pierce Road:, Subdivision Approval - 8 Lots; Continued from June 12, 1974 Mr. Rowe stated that Staff was not prepared to report on this matter, and that the applicant had submitted a letter' granting an extension to the July 10, 1974 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Van Duyn noted· that under the proposed 1974-75 Capital Improvement Badg~ City Council had requested that an engineering study be made on the traffic circulation pattern of the hillside area north of Prospect Road. He further added that Staff was reserving comments on SD-1112 pending the completion of that study; he stated that if the Capital Improvement Budget was approved, the engineering study would be a priority item which should take place within the next few months. Chairman Marshall continued this matter to the Planning Commission meeting of July 10, 1974 and referred this matter to Staff for further ~eview. He directed -4- MINUTES OF JUNE 26, A. SD-1112 - Alan Chadwick - Continued Staff to notify the applicant of the:proposed hills.~d~ study, to point out the timeframe involved relative to same,:and at the July 10th meeting request the applicant to grant an extension in accordance with the completed hillside study. B. SDR-1115 - Marvin Kirkeby, Saratoga-~unnyvale Road, Building Site Approval - 3 Lots; Continued from June 12~ 1974 Mr. Rowe stated that the applicant had submitted a letter granting the Commission an extension to the Planning Commission meeting of July 24, 1974. It was noted the basis of this request was to allow the applicant time to derive better access to the adjacent property. Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1115 Be continued to the Planning Commission · meeting of July 24, 1974, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee for further review. C. SDR-1116 - Roger Ross, Saratoga Hills Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot; Continued from June 12~ 1974 Mr. Rowe stated that the SubdivisionSCommittee had reviewed this in the field, and that the applicant had met with Chief Kraule regarding access and turnaround. He further stated that pending revised comments from Chief Kraul~.~as to the determination of the means to best serve the property relative to fire protection, this matter should be continued. He~added that a letter had been received from the applicant granting the Commissioh an extension to the Planning Commission meeting of July 10, 1974. Chairman Marshall expressed concern ~hat there was a 40% slope involved which was sufficiently steep to raise questions as to approval being granted without engineered improvement plans. Commissioner Smith voiced an objection that the hillside was presently covered with greenery which would have to be torn out, and would result in a "terrific scar which would be seen miles away." '~°g'r~n'f~loner .... ~B'~'~er asked if an EIR would be required, and it was noted that a Nega~'i~e ' DeClaration had been filed on this matter. The Chairman requested that the applicant be notified that the Commission desired engineered improvement plans, and that it be provided with a better visual dis- play as to what the applicant wants to do on this property. He further continued. SDR-1116 to the Planning Commission meeting of July 10, 1974, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee for further review. D. SDR-1119 - John Constantin, Norton Rgad, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot; Continued from June 12~ 1974 Mr. Rowe stated that this had been coptinued pending comments from the Fire Dis- trict and Saratoga Heights Mutual Water Company regarding domestic water supply (letters dated June 21 and June 22 r&spectively). He reported that both letters indicated the water supply was adequate, and he stated that a Staff Report had been prepared on this matter which recommended approval be granted. Commissioner Belanger asked Mr. Trinidad if the driveway at 21% grade could be reduced to 15%, and she asked if a 6"' base rock would be adequate for the drive- way paving. It was noted that the ~Fire Department had asked that the roadway be reduced to 19% grade, and be constructed of concrete, serrated and reinforced to withstand a vehicular weight of 35,000 pounds. Mr. Trinidad explained'that a 6" base rock pavement would support the building requirements. Commissioner Belanger expressed concern over the "impact of this on the environ- ment and the accumulation of lots li~e this being developed piecemeal on the environment." She stated that she would vote no on this matter, and' explained that her reasons were excessive grading, there would be a horrendous cut on the land, and that design review on the slopes would be a "moot point." -5- MINUTES OF JUNE 26 Do SDR-1119 - John Constantin '!~ontinued The Chairman asked if there was "anything in the application which would consti- tude something beyond what the CommiSsion should be obliged to give by ordinance." Mr. Rowe stated that the application went through the normal procedures of the City, it had been reviewed and the plans were in order. He ~ointed out that the accumulation of piecemeal development might be damaging, but that if a lot was existing in the City, had urban Services, and assessments had been made for taxes, the lot was considered developable. Chairman Marshall stated that the only difference between this application and the Stanley R. Lee appeal to the County was that the Lee matter asked for the subdivision of land. He pointed out that the Commission was being asked to approve SDR-1119 because prior to the incorporation of the City, subdivision of land in this area had been approved.. He complained that "we are being asked to approve what we were against in the Stanley R~ Lee case." Mr. Constantin stated that he would like to reduce the plateau below the origi- nal level which would result in a shorter and straighter driveway, as well as a 15% grade. He asked if this could be done at this meeting without submitting revised plans. It was noted that revised maps would be required reflecting this change. Commissioner Martin stated that he felt the applicant should submit better land use plans, and it was suggested that the Commission make an on-site inspection on July 2, 1974. Mr. Constantin stated that at the June 12 meeting the drive-way issue had not been addressed, and complained that this was the first time the Commission had expressed their feelings on the matter. He stated that this had been continued for a long period of time, andspointed out that the costs of building had tripled since he first bought ..the lo~. Chairman Marshall explained that ~"~ applicant wished to build a house on~a location which had been a problem to the City because it ~ on a hillside, and that the Commission was only trying to insure that what the applicant built was good for himself as well as for the City. Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1119 Be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of July 10, 1974, referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee for further review and an on-site inspection on July 2, 1974, and requested the applicant submit a letter g'~anting an extension to the July 10, 1974 meeting. E. SDR-1126 - Paul Getring, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Building Site Approval - 4 Lots; Continued from June 12, 1974 Mr. Rowe explained that this matter required annexation to the Cupertino Sanitary District, which would not be able to'take place until AUgust. He also pointed out that input from the Department o~ Transportation had not been received, and recommended this matter be continued~ Mr. Gerring, the applicant, stated that Mr. McBee of the Sanitary District had indicated there would be no problems.involved relative to ~e annexation, and requested the application be approve~ prior to the annexation of the sewer. Chairman Marshall ~tated that if the.applicant could obtain a letter soliciting comments from the Sanitary District ~elative to annexation prior to the next meeting of the Planning Commission, approval could possibly be granted at that time. Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1126 be continued to the Planning Commission meet- ing of July 10, 1974, referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee for further review, and requested the applicant obtain input from the Cupertino Sanitary District regarding sewer annexation. F. SDR-1127 - David Zappacosta, Paul Avenue, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot; ~ontinued from June 12, 1974 Mr. Rowe stated that the Subdivision Committee had reviewed revised plans sub- mitted by the applicant, and that a Staff Report had been prepared which recommended approval be granted. -6- MINUTES FOR JUNE 26~ F. SDR-1127 - David Zappacosta - ContinUed Questions were raised as to the turning radius of the driveway and to the driveway access. Mr. Trinidad stated that th& normal inside radius generally required 15-16 feet, and that 10-feet should be a minimum width for the driveway. Chair- man Marshall stated that a situationlexisted where the garage was in the rear and the turning radius and driveway access substandard. He asked the applicant to submit another plan which would provide for a two-car garage with a means of accessing with at least a 10-foot driveway, and sufficient room for a large car to make a turnaround. Mrs. Zappacosta stated that she would be willing to come in and discuss this matter with the City Engineer. She asked in regards to Condition (b) of the Staff Report how much land they would. be required to dedicate on Paul Avenue; Mr. Trinidad replied th'at not more than 5-feet should be required. Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1127 be conti~nued to the Planning Commission meeting Of July 10, 1974, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee for further review. G. SDR-1128 - Colleen Kamber~ Park Drive~ Building Site Approval - 1 Lot Mr. Rowe explained that this matter was an extension of an existing residence in excess of 50% value increase, that this was a routine matter, and a Staff Report had been prepared which recommended ~pproval be granted. A question of the sewage system was raised as to the closest system being on Three Oaks Way or Hume Drive. Mr. Steiber, the applicant's representative was present and pointed out that the Health Department and the Sanitation District #4 in their letters of June 26 and June.20 respectively had indicated the present ~'~'~!?tank was acceptable. Commissioner Belanger and Commissioner Smith req~[ed this matter be continued pending a further check on the..s~r ~system, and insomuch as the Subdivision Committee had not reviewed this ma~ter. Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1128 be continued to the Planning Commission meet- ing of July 10, 1974, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee for review. H. SDR-1129 - Christine Pace, La PalomaiAvenue~ BUilding Site Approval - 1 Lot Mr. Rowe stated that the file was not complete on this matter, and recommended this be continued. Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1129 be continued to the Planning Commission meet- ing of July 10, 1974, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee for review. IV. DESIGN REVIEW A. A-391 - George W. Day Construction Company, Fruitvale Avenue, Final Design Review; Single-Family Residence (Tract 5327~ Lot Mr. Rowe stated that a Staff Report had been prepared on this which recommended approval be granted. Mr. Van Duyn informed the Commission that bonds had been posted for landscaping on the commonzgreen areas of Tracts 5150, 5327 and 5408 per discussions with Mr. Leto, Mr. Beyer, the City Attorney and himself. Insomuch as the City Planner and the'applicant~s representative were not present to answer questions on the Staff RepOrt, Commission Belanger requested this matter be continued. Chairman Marshall directed A-~91 be continued to the Planning Commission meet- ing of July 10, 1974, and referred this matter to the Design Review Committee for further review. -7- MINUTES OF JUNE 26~ B. A-434 - Geraldine Gamaunt~ quito Roa~ - Final Design Review; Identification Sign Mr. Rowe stated that Staff was not prepared to report on this matter, and recommended this be continued. Chairman Marshall directed A-434 be ~ontinued to the Planning Conmission meeting of July 10, 1974, and referred this matter to the Design Review Committee for further review. C. A-435 - Alberto Perez, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Final Design Review - Identifi- cation Sign Mr. Rowe stated that a Staff Report had been prepared on this matter which recommended approval be granted. Commissioner Belanger stated that the applicant had already purchased the sign, and the Staff Report was an'attempt to bring this sign u~.to City standards. She stated that this was "not a Saratoga-type sign,-,'~'i~"~"~d~g'~'~[~d'~hat'~ master plan for signs for the Blue Hills Shopping Cen~'r'{n"['~'{~n~ of~ a"c0mprehen- sive scheme might be advisable. She requested this be continued, and requested Staff look into the matter of a signZscheme. Chairman Marshall directed A-435 be ~ontinued to the Planning Commission meeting of July 10~ 1974, and referred this matter to the Design Review Committee for further review. D. A-437 - Prospect High School, '~ospe~t ~Venue, Final Design Review - School Activities SiSn Mr. Rowe stated that Staff was not prepared.-~"rep8~t on this matter, and recommended this be continued. Mr. Wade Hover, representative of the applicant, stated he was not in favor of a postponement. He stated that he had filed the application for design review approval the end of March, and complained that he had not been given notice of the June 26th meeting. He stated that they were asking for approval by the Planning Commission of a permanent, standard school activities sign. He stated this was a simple matter which could'be decided~Bpon within two minutes. Mr. Rowe indicated that this was a problem sign, and it was recommended this be continued pending review by the Design Review Committee. Mr. Hover stat~ that the Prospect sign was the same as those at Camden, Branham, Leigh~ and Blackford High Schools, and he stated that they were trying to make the sign as palatable as possible. He stated that he did not think the Commission could approach this on the basis of what City Ordinances might be in that it was not commercial but only ~or the purpose of advertising school activities. He added, "we may have to move forward to do this anyway, but I would rather not do that." Commissioner Belanger requested Mr. Hover be present at the Design Review Committee meeting regarding this matter. Chairman Marshall directed A-437 be continued to the July 10, 1974 ~lanning Commission meeting, and referred this matter to the .Design Review Committee for further review. V. MISCELLANEOUS A. SDR-935 - John L. Richardson, Quito Road - 1 Lot; Amendment to Tentative Map; Continued from June 12~ 1974 See ITEM II-PUBLIC HEARINGS. B. SDR-iO07 - Ralph Pearson, E1Quito way - 1 Lot; Approval of Revised Tentative Map; Continued from June 12, 1974. Mr. Rowe stated that the applicant w{shed to move the property line 40-feet due north. He stated that as a parcel map had been recorded, approval should be tied B. SDR-1007 - Ralph Pearson - Continued to the refiling of a new parcel map.. Mr. Trinidad stated that this would have to be surveyed again and the parcel map.recorded in accordance with the State Map Act. He further noted that this wasZa simple change of the lot lines, and that the lot~_~'~'f~i~'~d '~.~t'~'.'~'~'t~ted that the previous conditions stated in the Staff' R~p'o~t"on SDR~I007'~0uld'remain in full force. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Matteoni, that the Commission approve the request for approval of a revised tentative map on SDR-1007 subject to the condition that the previous conditions of the Staff Report on SDR-1007 be reaffirmed. The motion was carried unanimously. VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DETERMINATIONS - WRITTEN A.It was noted that the following Negative Declarations had been filed between June 11, 1974 and June 21, 1974: (1) SDR-1128 - Colleen Kamber, 1 Lot on Park Drive~. Building Site ApprOval (2) SDR-1129 - Christine Pace, 1 Lot on La Paloma"~enue, Building Site Approval (3) Public Project #14 - Bay Tree Removal, Old Oak Way and Pierce Road, Tree Removal Permit B. It was noted that sixty EIR's on the Painless Parker matter (C-172) had been distributed to various agencies within the area. VII. COMMUNICATIONS A. Commissioner Belanger stated that a package had been submitted to the Commission from Mrs. Lydia Norcia of Nutwood Drive who has been doing citizen-type nego- tiations with West Valley College regarding the impact of the college and its actions on the community. She stated that "every time West Valley College makes a promise to us, it tends to go back'on it and we tend to say there is nothing we can do about it. I keep getting ~he impression that the whole thing is almost built out anyway and what mor~ could they do to bother us." She explained that Items 13 and 14 of Mrs. Norcf'a's communications with the college dealt with the fact that the neighbors, as'well as the Planning Commission, would prefer that no lighting or grandstand facilities be provided for the sports facilities at the college. She stated "this has already been addressed in our review of the college Master Plan, and has been included every time we have addressed athletic facilities." She.pointed out that the college reply was that they could not do anything about thi~,.~nd that in fact they had some demands from groups within the community th~'[ those kinds of facilities be installed. She added that she would like the Council and the Planning Commission to know "that once again the desires of the City are being flouted by the college." Councilman Diridon stated that the C~ty had no authority over the campus, and that until earlier this year the City had relationships~..Wftht~t~C~'~S'-~=. He pointed out that at that time the City "pushed too hard" a~d"~he'coilege has ."no longer bothered to come to the City for anything." He added that there had been a compromise to move the theater, but that relationships had broken down in regards to the parking lot. He reported that the City was presently attempt- ing to regain communications with the college, and that a joint session was being planned with the ,~Ollege Board'of Supervisors and the City Council. Commissioner Belanger requested that:-'~h~sa~htet~c{~-faci-~i.ti~s"matter be on the agenda of the joint session. Counciin~H'~'D'{~i~8~"~e~'~"[~'~'i[~ information sub- .mitted by Mrs. Norcia be included in!the City Council packets. B. A letter dated June 18, 1974 from GeOrge W. Day Construction Company appealing Item 4 of the Staff Report dated Jun~ 12, 1974 on SS-75. Chairman Marshall reported that there were two other signs erected which had not been removed, and questions were raised as to reducing the size of~the sign. Chairman Marshall directed this matter be continued to the July 10, 1974 meeting of Planning Commission, requested Staff contact Mr. Leto relative to solving the p~OBlems of reducing the present sign, and further requested Staff to introduce the"exact w6Yding"!of Item 4 for consideration at the July 10 Commission meeting. -9- MINUTES OF JUNE 26 C. A copy of the Deed Restrictions for George W. Day Construction Company was submitted to the Commission per the request of the Chairman at the June 12th meeting. VII. COMMUNICATIONS - ORAL A. Mr. Zettler Greeley, 21450 Prospect Road, stated he would like to comment on 'the following items: (1) He expressed appreciation to th& Planning Staff for forwarding the EIR's on C-172 as promised. He stated that the Greater Prospect Road·Homeowners' Association had received three copies of the EIR, one copy of the draft EIR and the draft of the ENVIROS report. (b) He asked if there was an answerl to his letter of June 11, 1974. Chairman Marshall stated that the City Attorney was reviewing this matter and that a response had not been received by the Commission. Mr. Greeley stated, "I specifically request that tonight's minutes show that I personally appeared and personally requested a response to my letter." (3)· Mr. Greeley asked if the July 16, 1974 EIR.ihformational meeting would be open-"·~'~iic comment. He wa~ informed that this would be a public hearing and that comments ~om the public would be recorded at that time. It was requested that the~'·~ubl~c make certain they ke~'their comments relative to the EIR only,and ~bat written communications are received by Staff well in advance of the~eting so that if special questions were to arise Staff would have time to answer them. Mr. Greeley asked if a slide presentation could be shown, and the Chairman stated that only if the presentation '~s relative to the EIR. Commissioner Belanger stated that the information she would like to receive on this was "those small bits of very valuable information that people in the neighbor- hood know because they live there. They are intimately acquainted with problems of topography or traffic circulation, that they know from their everyday experience which will add to our objective knowledge of the situation." (4) Mr. Greeley stated that the TaxZ·~'ssessor's Office did show Mr. Greeley's name on the Tax Rolls, and he again requested the Commission consider the notification procedure relative'to public hearings. B. Mr. Van Duyn stated that at the last~ meeting,,~·~i'~g~ionoh~ requested Staff to formulate a better policy 0f notifyi~""'the pd~ii~"~f"~nvironmental impact determinations. ·He stated that the Commission would be notified Via packets, and that the Staff was requ.esting an additional fee charge of $5.00 be added to application fees requiring an environmental assessment questionnaire. He stated these monies would be plac~d in a fund for advertising environmental impact determinations ·in the Saratoga News. He added that lists of same would be posted on the Planning Departmentbulletin board. C. Mr. Van Duyn stated that relative toJ C-171 Mel De Selle, a representative from Williams & Mocine would be on-site Saturday, June 29, 1974 to walk the Commission through the Village Plan.' He further suggested that a tentative date for the public hearing of the Village Plan be set for Tuesda~I' July at 7:30 p.m. in the City CoUncil Chambers. The consensus of the '~0mmission was acceptance of this date. D.Chairman Marshall expressed appreciation to Mrs. f·~!~&~of the Good Government Group for serving coffee, and welcomed Councilman Diridon to the meeting. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner ~rtin, that the Planning Commission meeting of June 26, 1974 be adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously. Chairman Marshall adjourned the meeting at 11:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted,