HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-10-1974 Planning Commission Minutes OF SARATOGA PLANNING
MINUTES
TIME: Wednesday, July 10, 1974 '~'.""~7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 FruitSale Avenue~ Saratoga, California
TYPE: Regular Meeting
ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
· '~h~'rm~n Marshall opened the meeting of~July 10, 1974 at 7:30 p.m.
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Callon, Marshall, Matteoni, Smith and Woodward
Absent: Commissioners Belanger ahd Martin
B. MINUTES
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded ~y Commissioner Matteoni, that the reading of
the minutes of June 26, 1974 be waived, and that they be approved as distributed
to the Commission. The motion was not passed for lack of a quorum: 3 ayes,
Commissioner Woodward ~bstained~ in ~hat she was not present at the June.26, 1974
.~.~ee.t~g~i~ia~..~n~.i~.s.f~~I~a~.~-a{~7....~.?7dh-a~m~-~M~a~.~ ~ef~rred
· %%f these,',minhte~7. to~t.he ,J.u,lyj24th..zme~ff~g--~f'the-PI~ii~Tng-~ommission~"- ............ '
C. CITY COUNCIL REPORT
Commissioner Smith gave an oral presentation of the City Council meeting of
July 3, 1974. Of special interest ~o t~e Commission were the following items:
(1) Ms. Linda Callon, 12598 Fredericksburg Drive, waS~aR~pinted_bX_t~_~.U~n.~l
as the new ~em~__e_r_Of the Planning Commissi0~.~ '../~.~ ~.c~"'.... L '~.~'.'
(2) Pride's Cr_o_~si~g..p~meowners ASeoc~a~n '_s..p~.~ti~n__~ .n~-Ra~g
,A~'~Dri~ ~aur'~-~ F~iT:'.chu~H'~' of ASce~bion~s ~ma~ s zhour§~was .= granted.
· .~-no~parkihg7 'sign' for 7~he ~soht~ Sid~ '6f?AScef~siOn D~ive with' the. followi~-~
~ H~ur' ~res tric~ ions ~will. be .?u~ed :~-'~o =~'a~king C0B 7Sa~u~d~. fro~'~6~7': 00 -~'=~i,
", apd.' S~nday :frbm.D8: 00ra. m;.d.tO-~ :. O0 p .m. ~'~'d""5-6 :-00'pT~.' ...................................
(3) A de-novo hearing on the Pride~s Crossing Homeowners' Association's appeal
of the Planning Cormmission approval of design review for Church of
Ascension (A-429) was scheduled,.for the July 17th City Council meeting.
(4) The City Manager was authorized to obtain bids for the traffic circulation
pattern study in the northwest!bl}l~fde area of the City.
A copy of these minutes is on file &t the City Administration Office.
D. Chairman Marshall welcomed Ms. Linda Callon.as the new Planning Commissioner.
He also welcomed Mr. Faber Johnston, City Attorney, as a new'.g'~'ff?'iG~b.~r [~. ~he
Planning Commission meetings.
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. V-409 - Hortense Rozman, Chateau Drive - Request for Variance to Allow Accessory
Structure in Rear Yard in Excess of 250 Square Feet (Ord. NS-3~ Sec.3.7-1)
Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing on V-409 at 7:38 p.m.
The Staff Report was read into the record which recommended denial of the variance
request for the following reasons: :(1) no exceptional topography exists on
this property; (2) strict enforcement oPlTthe Ordinance would not deprive the
applicant of.privileges enjoyed by ~eighboring homeowners; and (3) the granting
of a variance would constitute a grant of special privilege.
-1-
MINUTES OF JULY 10 ~4
A. V-409 - Hortense Rozman - Continued
Ms. Rozman, applicant, submitted aZ7-page document which showed in her opinion
ways in which she met the requirements of the Variance Ordinance. She further
,a Variance. She stated, "I would prefer my 6~igihal design bd~ause it is my ..... "
own creative self," and she asked the Commission to consider the new informa-
tion she submitted.
-~-.-...~.'~L,~_i ..... ' ..... - ..... l...~ .......
........................ ~.~-'~f ~.- .... ;...;-~..,.-
Chairman Marshall explained'~ehat' the::old .structure had.been in ~.~'~t'~hee'before
the incorporation of the Cit~('and!h'ad~'BYeh g"'aon=~6htb'hning-'s'~ructure before
it was partially destroyed He stated that upon".~uilding the building con-
tractor had neglected to obtain a ~uilding permit; a neighbor complained, and
upon inspection by the City, it was discovered that City Codes had not been
met and that a Variance would be r~quired. He further stated that in review-
ing the newly-submitted material, the primary reasons given for granting a
Variance were: (1) the applicant had a very strong desire to have the proposed'
new structure; and (2) there was allair amount of cost involved in transplanting
the camellias. He pointed out that the Commission tried not to consider cost
value to the applicant, and stated:that in th'fp case, most of the money
involved would be .{h~.'ih. the structure itself rather than in the trans-
planting of flower.~.' ~d~Stated that it was his opinion the applicant:~uld
construct a shade structure at a reasonable cost, and that the basic reason for
requesting a Variance was for "what you want, not necessarily what you need."
In answer to a question regarding ~on-conforming uses, Chairman Marshall ex-
plained that the Zoning Ordinance does permit legal non-conforming uses, but
that further in the Ordinance "City ~olicy is to cause the cessation of legal
non-conforming uses wherever possible. The words are to prohibit a hardship,
but the intent is to gradually cause the City to come to conformity with the
Ordinances"
Mr. Nick Trapanese, 20321 Chateau Drive, stated he recommended the Commission
not grant this ~ariance. He explained that he had "lived with the old structur~
for three years, and I and several'of ray neighbors were actually cheering when .
the old one came down, primarily because it was in a continual state of
disrepair." He stated that he fel~ there were no real reasons advanced in
justifying the granting of a Variance, and that he would like to see the appli-
cant pursue the alternative structure which would meet the City Codes.
Mr. Bob Weiss, 20342 Pierce Road, ~tated he lived directly behind the appli-
cant, and stated, "I find it hard to believe how the contractor failed to.
obtain a permit. But I just want to say that it just looks lousy the way it
is now, and I hope it will not be allowed to be constructed."
A letter'dated July 5, 1974 from W;st Steinacker, 19969 Garnett Court, a former'
neighbor of the applicant was read. into the record. The letter pointed out
"the party at that address now haalsometimea had an excess amount of barnyard
foul and has rented out portions o~ her home to rentera. I believe both of
these violate Argonaut restrictions ~g~well as Saratoga laws. Therefore, I
think that it would be safer not to allow expansion of buildings that could'
· ~rther aggrevate the past problem!areas." In response to this letter, Chair-
man Marshall pointed out that it. was against City Ordinance NS-3.15 to have
chickens on the property.
Commissioner Woodward stated that She was not.present when the Variance
Committee inspected the site, but ~fter hurri.~'dly reviewing the submitted
material, she did not feel the applicant had sufficient reason for granting
a Variance.
Commissioner Smith moved, secondedZby Commissioner Woodward, that the public
hearing on V-409 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously. The public
hearing was closed at 8:04 p.m.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Smith, that the Commission
accept the Staff Report dated July 10, 1974 relative to V-409, and that the
request for Variance be denied. The motion was passed unanimously.
MINUTES OF JULY 10
B. V-410 - Frank Ryder, Richelieu court - Request for Variance to Allow an
Addition to a Residence at 13733 Richelieu Court to be Constructed
within 15-Feet of the Front Property Line in Lieu of the Required
25-Feet (Ordinance NS-3~ Section 3.7)
Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing on V-410 at 8:06 p.m. It was noted
that a Staff Report had been prepared on this which recommended approval be
granted.
Mr. Dave Ryder, the applicant's representative, submitted a series of photographs
which depicted the partial state of completion of the subject construction. It
was noted that this situation was caused when the applicant erroneously~"~
i'~0~ed~his property line, and the:City issued a building permit on the premise
that the map depicting said property lines was correct. It was further noted
that prior to the applicant submitting his plans, he was told by the City that
the sideyard setback requirements Were 25-feet; however, it was not pointed
out to him that the setback was to:a 10-foot easement and not to the curb.
Chairman Marshall asked the City A~torney if expenditures of a large amount of
money would help to mitigate a problem. Mr. Johnston replied that in this
case, that the Variance procedure had been selected by the applicant, but had
been recommended by the City as a method to help mitigate this problem. He
stated that ~'~'~Bd'ilding Inspectorihad actually.'~'~c~'d~'h'~P:~"~a.r:approved
the as-built c0~struction, then later discovered R~f~"'~i~!~ihspect'ibn had been
in error. Mr. Johnston explained that this had been approved in the field as
well as being signed off in the office before the error was found.
It was noted that the structure was 1D-feet closer to the street than adjacent
homes, and Commissioner Smith stated, "Tit is a well-known fact that if a house
sticks out th~'t much, it is ob.l~rusive to the rest of the neighborhood."
Mr. Ryder stated that the structur~ was presently and will be further surrounded
by shrubbery lwhich would help to ipsure this was unobtrusive.
Mr. Lyle McCarty, 19235 Harleigh Drive, stated that he and his wife strongly
protested this action. He stated,"'~'.!z~'all"face Harleigh Drive whereas this
property has its side on Harleigh'~Drive. The side setback is less than the
front setback, and this addition is actually sticking out 15-feet more than the
adjacent properties. It is not a minor encroachment, but a very serious one."
He further added, "I am rather surprised to see this occur when we have a Code
and Inspection Department to preveDt this. Rather than looking at this as the
expenditure being a mitigating circumstance, if the City is involved in this
circumstance, the City should help.defray the cost. Otherwise, you make the
neighbors bear the penalty."
Mr. Ryder stated that because of i[s color contrast in..its present state of
construction, the structure was presently very obvious'.. He added that the
applicant would have the same brown siding as other houses in the area,_ and
stated that this was in an.:R.1-20,000 zone and the sideyard setback on.a corner
lot was 15 feet. "Instead of sticking out 15-feet, the house is actually
sticking out 10-feet more than allowed by City Ordinance."
Commissioner Smith stated he did not agree with Items 2 and 3 of the Staff
Report in that they stated by granting this Variance it would not be in'j'urious
to the other properties in the vicinity, and would not constitute a granting of
special privilege. He stated he felt this should be "sent to the City Council
and if they want to make a monetary adjustment with the applicant, it would
be up to them. It is not within the realm of the Commission's jurisdiction...~o
make monetary adjustments but just to enforce the City Ordinances.;-"' 17'Y~i we .......
should deny this application." Chairman Marshall~'~dorsed Commissioner'-S~i'th:~"'s.'
feelings, and stated, "at this time it is my feeling that the Commission"~ .....
this application, defer the matter. to the City Council with the suggestion that
the City is partially ~ipancially ~esponsible for this situation. ,- .--
· - .......~.~
~f~r-furth~-.-di. scussion-~-it-was~'d'e~ded that--.-~he~Va~i'~C6hnnittee would take
an on-site inspection on Saturday,'July 13, 1974 at 9:00 a.m. Chairman Marshall
closed the public hearing on V-410!at 8:30 p.m., continued this to the Planning
Commission meeting of July 24, 1974, and referred this matter to the Variance
Committee for an on-site inspection.
MINUTES OF JULY 10
c. ~'~P-245 - Steve J. Stevens, Quito R6ad - Request for Use Permit to Allow Tennis
Court Fencing within Required Setbacks (Ordinance NS-3, Section 3.7-1);
Continued from June 26~ 1974
The Secretary stated that the Subdivision Committee had recommended the appli-
cant revise his plans to conform w~th City Ordinances, or seek an ~pplication
for Variance. He stated that Staff recommended this matter be continued to the
August 14, 1974 Planning commission meeting, and that the Use Permit and
Variance be handled at the same time.
Chairman Marshall continued UP-245'to the Planning Commission meeting of
August 14, 1974, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee for
further review.
III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS
A. SD-1112 - Alan Chadwick, Pierce Road, Subdivision Approval - 8 Lots; Continued
from June 26~ 1974 (Expiration extended to July 10~ 1974)
The Secretary stated that a circulation pattern study for the hillside area of
the northwest portion of the City had been authorized by the City Council. He
stated that Staff recommended this~matter be continued until the study was in
a stage of review, and introduced eo the record a letter (~i'R'_m'~he applicant
granting an extension to the Planning Commission meeting of October 9, 1974.
Chairman Marshall continued SD-1112 to the Planning Commission meeting of
October 9, 1974, and referred this~matter to the Staff for further review.
B. SDR-1115 - Marvin Kirkeby, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Building Site Approval -
3 Lots; Continued from june 26, 1974 (Expiration extended to
July 24, 1974)
The Secretary stated the applicant had submitted a letter extending this matter
to the Planning Commission meeting of July 24, 1974 pending resolution of the
access problem.
Chairman Marshall continued SDR-11i5 to the Planning Commission meeting of
July 24, 1974, and referred this m~tter to the Subdivision Committee for review.
C. SDR-11'i6 - Roger Ross, Saratoga Hills Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot;
:1974 (Expiration extended to July 10, 1974)
Continued from June 26~z
The Secretary stated that a letterShad been submitted ~rom the applicant ex--
tending this matter to the Plannin~ Commission meeting of August 14, 1974. He
noted that the Commission had requested an engineered improvement plan, and
the applicant had requested more time in which to comply with this request.
Chairman Marshall continued SDR-1116 to the Planning Commission meeting of
August 14, 1974, and referred this'matter to the Subdivision Committee for
further review.
D. SDR-1119 - John Constantin, Norton~Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot;
Continued from June 26~!1974 (Expiration extended to July 10, 1974)
The Secretary stated that the Subdivision Committee had met on-site with the
applicant July 5, and that they requested a condition be added to the Staff
Report which provided building sit~ and drivewa~ location as
· ~7"~"~-r-b-~'~.~' a~i~a~'~iis .~'."~'~';-.'.-~d~Y ~i~' fi~'~=~'~"'ha'~i~'-.,
Staff modified Condition (q) of the Staff Report as follows:
(.q.) Tree removal shall not be undertaken until such time as the building
site plans and grading plans ~re reviewed and approved.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded:by Commissioner Woodward, that the Commission
approve the Staff Report dated July 10, 1974 relative to SDR-1119 subject to
General Conditions I and Specific Conditions II (a) through (y). The motion
MINUTES OF JULY 10. 4
D. SDR-1119 - John Constantin - Continued
was carried: 4 ayes; Commissioner'Matteoni abstained because he did not hear
all of the discussion. It was noted that only the Staff Report on SDR-1119 had
been approved, not the tentative map (Exhibit A filed April 29, 1974).
E. SDR-1126 - Paul Gerring, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Building Site Approval -
4 Lots; Continued from June 26~ 1974 (Expires July 16~ 1974)
The Secretary stated a Staff Repor[ had been prepared on this which recommended
approval be granted. Mr. Gerring, the applicant, was present and indicated
acceptance of the Staff Report.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded'by Commissioner Woodward, that the
Commission approve SDR-1126 tentative map (Exhibit A filed May 28, 1974),
subject to the Staff Report dated July 10, 1974 including General Conditions I
and Specific Conditions II (a) thrSugh (w). The motion was carried unanimously.
F. SDR-1127 - David Zappacosta, Paul Avenue, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot;
Continued from June 26~.1974
The Secretary stated that a Staff Report had been prepared which recommended
approval be granted.
Mr. Zappacosta, the applicant, was!present and asked for permission to maintain
a storage shed on the premises to Shelter tools, etc. while he constructed his
home. The Commission found this a~ceptable, and stated that the shed would be
required to be removed prior to obtaining final site approval and a Certificate
of Occupancy.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded.by Commissioner Woodward, that the Commission
approve SDR-1126 tentative map (Exhibit A filed June 24, 1974) subject to the
Staff Report dated July 10, 1974, including General Conditions I and Specific
Conditions II (a) through (m). The motion was carried unanimously.
G. SDR-1128 - Colleen Kamber, Park Dr{ve, Building Si, te Approval - 1 Lot;
Continued from June 26~ 1974 (Expires July 25~ 1974)
The Secretary stated that a S~·aff Report had been prepared on this which
recommended approval be granted. It was noted that the applicant had submitted
a supplementary map which was a clarification of Exhibit A filed June 5, 1974.
Mr. Steiber, the applicant's representative, questioned Condition (h) of the
Staff Report relative to the Sanitation District #4's letter of June 20, 1974.
~"'~ After discussion of same, ·~[~ff modified the Staff Report as follows:
(h)Per ·.~hettetfe~mfrbm~the Sanitation District #4 dated June 20, 1974,
the ~S~'=~'~se'~"{d' tank is acceptable.
.
Cormnissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Commiss~?h
approve SDR-1128 tentative map (Exhibit A filed June 5, 1974), subject to the
Staff Report dated July 10, 1974 including General Conditions I and Specific
COnditions II (a) through (h). The motion was carried unanimously.
H. SDR-1129 - Christine Pace La Paloma Avenue, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot;
'
Continued from June 26, 1974 (Expires July 27, 1974)
The Secretary stated the file was not complete on this matter, and recommended
this be continued.
Chairman Marshall continued SDR-1129 to the Planning Commission meeting of
July 2~, 1974, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee for
further review.
I. SDR-1130 - Donald Perata, Pike Road, Building Site Approval - i Lot
(Expires August 10~ 1974)
The Secretary stated that the file.was not complete on this matter, and
recommended this be continued.
.... MINUTES OF JULY 10.
I. SDR-1130 - Donald Perata/'L~ Continued
Chairman Marshall continued SDR-11j0 to the Planning Commission meeting of
July 24, 1974 and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee for further
review.
BREAK: 8:50 p.m.
REOPEN: 9:15 p.m.
IV. DESIGN REVIEW
A. A-391 - George W. Day Construction Company, Fruitvale Avenue ~ Final Design
Review; Single-Fs~ily Residence (Tract 5327, Lot 7); ~ontinued from
June..26~ 1974
Mr. Burt, City Planner, stated a Staff Report had been prepared on this which
recommended approval be granted subject to the receipt of a landscaping bond
as required by A-391 Staff Report dated June 12, 1974 on landscaping of
Tracts 5327, 5408 and 5150, and th&-initiation of landscaping for the same
tracts. Mr. Butt stated a maintenance bond had been received, and that Mr. Day
would be replacing the shrubbery of Tract 5150. He pointed out that landscaping
would be delayed 60 days on Tracts15327 and 5408 due to PG&E requirements for
underground wiring. He further noted that prior to releasing Mr. Day from
this bond, he must turn the landscaping over to the homeowners who must be
willing to accept it.
Chairman Marshall pointed out that: the City desired to have a perman~['~prinkler
"~Stem on these tracts, and asked if the bond money could be used for"~His
~'~rpose. Mr. Johnston stated%~'at~Mr. Leto, the representative of the appli-
cant, had agreed that the present ~prinkler system was not a permanent system
and that he had said he would do what he could to rectify the situation.
Chairman Marshall requested Staff to contact Mr. Day and ask what his inten,~ions
and time span were for repairing the tracts, what his planting techniques were
to be, would he be providing a permanent sprinkler system, and what he would
be doing in regards to a pathway.
Chairman Marshall stated that he h~d previously stated he would not vote in
favor of any George Day design review matter until the conditions of the
June 12 Staff Report had been complied with. Commissioner Matteoni pointed
out that the Design Review Committee was satisfied with the design a~d place-
ment of Lot 7, Tract 5327.
Commissioner Matteoni moved, seconded by Commiss~n~...W_.~p_~F~,..__~at the
Cormnission grant final design appr6val on A-391 '~B~ehtttB. j~th~i.S~ff Report
dated July 10, 1974, including Condition (1). Th~ibn~was.-carr~ed;
Chairman Marshall voted no.
B. A-430 - Almaden Development, Oak Street - Final Design Review - Fourth Street
Stairway
Mr. Burt stated a Staff Report hadlbeen prepared on this matter which recommended
approval be granted, but that the Staff Report was in longhand form. He noted
that per the request of the Design:Review Committee, Staff had made revisions
.,~ to the ¥~irway design which built~up the sides~Of.lthe~,.~all,~andr,~n~luded?~
!.'/ benching ~nd planters.
Mr. Franklin, applicant, stated that he had reviewed the revised plans, and
stated he would be willing to accept Staff's suggest~. He added, however,
that the original idea of a stairway was in lieu of a half-street. He stated
that he would be willing to go along with whatever the Commission decided but
if the costs of the revisions werehigher than the'~"~0st of a half-street, he
would ask the City to share in the. excess cost.
Commissioner Smith '~.~'~ed that he felt the applicant should submit a firm
des ign on A-430 before =.Ta~'~i ~g'~ ~B~['~'~~=H~d~h~Eet,~.~ the matter
should be continued. Cha~£~n~n~'Mar~h'all.-.-agreed-;ahd~-o~je~.tled t~ ~ojt~h~"on the
matter insomuch as the Commission did not have in proper fdrm"a firm exhibit
nor a wri'~ten Staff Report.
-6-
MINUTES OF JULY 10
B. A-430 - Almaden Development - Continued
Per Commissioner~l/LMa~[eoni's request, Mr. Burt .~ad the following Staff Report
into the minutesF' " :
CITY OF SARATOGA ~ JULY 10, 1974
STAFF REPORT
FILE NO~!~: A-430
APPLICANT: Almaden Development
LOCATION: Fourth Street and Oak'Street
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applican6 proposes to cons6ruct a pedestrial walkway/
stairway within the Fourth Street right-of-way, connecting Oak Street with the
commercial district along Big Basi~ Way.
The walkway/stairway will be constructed of reinforced concrete throughout
with exposed aggregate on the land{ngs. The exterior of.~d interior sides
will be left natural after removal!of forms. Hard rail will consist of 2"
diameter galvanized pipe painted black.
Typical stair rise will be 6" with a treat of 14". Seating will be integrated
into the walkway/stairway design.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Final Design Approval as per Staff Report and Exhibit "A-i".
CONCLUDING COMMENTS: (1) Reviewed by Design Review Committee 6-23-74 and
7-9-74.
Commissioner Matteoni explained that the Design Review Committee had r~quested
Mr. Burt submit a revised plan on ~uly 9, and consequently Mr. Burt had'had
li]ttle time to comply with the FeqUest as well as prepare a written Staff Report.
H~ stated that the Committee ha~. asked for redesign on nume~0us occas~'~i,~'~nd
that Staff, the Design Review Committee and Mr. Franklin were in agreement with
the revised pla~! and Staff Report.' He stated, "I would like to move on that
note of agreement tonight."
It was suggested that as a condition of granting final design approval, the
applicant submit to the Staff a revised design consistent with the one prepared
by the Staff on July 10, 1974.
Commissioner Matteoni moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the
Commission grant final design approval on A-430 subject to the Staff Repory
read into the minutes on July 10, i974, and upon the condition that the appli-
cant submit a revised exhibit consistent in every respect with the map pre-
pared by Staff on July 10, 1974 wh£ch will be required to be reviewed and
approved by the Design Review Commi. ttee. The motion was carried; Commissioner
Smith voted no.
C. A-431 - Fred Marburg, Saratoga-Sunnyvale 'Road - Final Design Re~lew -
Mr. Burt stated a Staff Report had :been prepared on this which recommended
approval be granted.
A question was raised as to the color of the proposed columns, and objection
~'~.~0.7~"~0~.~"stark white color" proposed insomuch as it afforded too much
~n~Ff"t~o"'lh'e'remainder of the building. Mr. Marburg indicated he would sub-
mit samples of other shades of whi~e to the Design Review Committee for their
consideration.
Chairman Marshall read Item (3)i~Yf'~:the Staff Report relative to a separate
a~plication for approval of signs, ~and requested that the applicant consider
that integrated, cohesive relationship of signs be incorporated with the
entire shopping cent.7~.'~ The applicant indicated acceptance of this request, but
'~;' "~ MINUTES OF JULY 10
C. A-431 - Fred Marburg - Continued
stated he would like to take this matter up when he applied for the sign appli-
cation. He indicated that the objective had been to make all of the signs in
the shopping center the same.
Mr. Marburg asked if Condition (1)'of the Staff Report referred to the land-
scape plans and the irrigation system. Chairman Marshall stated the plans
requested in Condition (1) should reflect what landscaping was presently
there, what was proposed to go in, and how the applicant planned to water it.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Matteoni, that the
Commission grant final design approval to A-431 subject to the Staff Report
dated July 10, 1974, and including Conditions (1) through (4). The motion
was carried unanimously.
D. A-434 - Geralding Gamaunt, Quito ROad - Final Design Review - Identification
Sign; Continued from June 26, 1974
Mr. Burt stated a Staff Report had ~been prepared on this matten. which recommended
approval be granted.
Commissioner Woodward asked if theiair-conditioning unit on the top of the
building would be adequately screened, and was assured by Mr. Burt it would be.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Matteoni, that the
Commission grant final design review approval on A-434 subject to the Staff
Report dated July 10, 1974 including Conditions (1) through (3). The motion
was carried unanimously.
E. A-435 - Alberto Perez, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - Final Design Reivew -
Identification Sign; Continued from June 26~ 1974
Mr. Burt stated that Staff recomme~ded this matter be continued pending receipt
of a revised plan.
Chai~.man Marshall continued A-435 So the Planning Commission meeting of
July 24, 1974, and referred this matter to the Design Review Committee for
further review.
F. A-437 - Prospect High School, Prospect Avenue - Final Design Review - School
Activities Sign; Continued'from June 26~ 1974
Mr. Burt stated a Staff Report had;been prepared on this matter which recommended
approval be granted.
Chairman Marshall stated that at the Jun:. 2~.. 1974 meeting, a question had been
raised as to the reason this matter had not been previously acted upon in that
the application had been filed in March. He explained that at the time the
application had been filed, Mr. Hover, the applicant's representative, had been
told by Staff the sign design would not be acceptable and w~s requested that the
school improve upon the design. He added that the reason for the delay was
1~8~' of response from the school and not the fault of the City.
After discussion Condition (2) of the Staff Report was modified as follows
by Staff:
(2) Post and sign trim to be of natural-o~.[[~tained redwood, and that the
final design is to be approvea by Staff.
Commissioner Matteoni moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the
Commission grant final design approval on A-437 subject to the Staff Report
dated July 10, 1974, and including. Conditions (1) through (4). The motion
was carried unanimg~sly.
-8-
MINUTES OF JULY 10
G. A-438 - Lanoie, Inc., Canyon View Drive - Final Design Review - Single-Family
Residence; 1 Lot
Mr. Burt stated a Staff Report had been prepared on this matter which recommended
approval be granted.
Chairman Marshall stated that Commissioner Belanger had requested a condition
be added to the Staff Report whichZprovided that a landscape plan be submitted
for screening to "break-up" the side of the building visually. Staff modified
its Staff Report Condition (1) as ~ollows:
(1) Submit landscape plans for slope control and screening to be
approved by Staff.
The applicant was present and indicated acceptance of the Staff Report.
Cormnissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Matteoni, that the
Commission grant final design approval to A-438 subject to the Staff Report
dated July 10, 1974 including Condition (1). The motion was carried unanimously.
H. A-439 - Julian P. Henry~ quito Road - Final Design Review - Identification Sign
Mr. Burt stated a Staff Report had~been prepared on this ~tter which recommended
approva~ be granted.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Matteoni, that the
Commission grant final design approval to A-439 subject to the Staff Report
dated July 10, 1974 including Condition (1). The motion was carried unanimously.
I. A-442 - Robert Johnson, Oriole Road - Final Design Review - Single-Family
Residence - 1 Lot
Mr. Burt stated a Staff Report had%been prepared on this matter which recommended
approval be granted.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Matteoni, that the
Commission grant final design apprpval to A-442 subject to the Staff Report
dated July 10, 1974. The motion was carried unanimously.
V.' MISCELLANEOUS
A. SDR-1061 - Robert ~r~eze, HerrimanAvenue - Request fD r Extension of Tentative
Building Site Approval !- 1 Lot
The Secretary stated this was a rehuest for extension of the tentative building
site approval which was granted.'~ July'-'l'8~.~I974.
Commissioner Smith moved, seconded: by Commissioner Matteoni, that the Commission
grant a one-year extension to SDR-1061 for tentative building site approval.
The motion was carried unanimously'.
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DETERMINATIONS
The following Negative Declarations were filed between June 24 and July 5, 1974:
(1) SDR-1130: Donald Perata, Pike Road - Building Site Approval - 1 Lot
(2) C-176: Eugene Zambetti, Oak Street - Change of Zoning - "R-M-3,000" to "C-C"
(3) C-177: Mary Jane Brown, Third ~-~{eet - Change of Zoning -~UR-M-3,000" to "C-C"
VII. COMMIINICATIONS - WRITTEN
A. Letter dated July 1, 1974 from Faber Johnston, City Attorney, to Mr. Zettler
Greely in response to his letter oZf June 11, 1974. Also a letter dated
July ~i'~.~ 1974 from Mr. Greely to the Commission in rebuttal to the City
Attorney's letter.
B. Letter dated June 18, 1974 from L~u Leto, representative of George Day Con-
struction Company, appealing Item ~ of the Staff Report of SS-75. This matter
was continued from June 26, 1974.
B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - G,~'~"~ay .COnS't~ion .C0mpany~.~etter of June 18
After discussion of this matter, COmmissioner Smith moved, seconded by
Commissioner Woodward, that the Commission reaffirm all of the conditions of
the Staff Report dated June 12, 19~4 relative to SS-75, and notify the appli-
cant if he wished to further appeal this matter he should contact the City
Council. The motion was carried unanimously.
C. Letter dated June 30, 1974 from A.L. Hanson, 13751 Dolphin Drive, to the City
Council requesting a revision to the General Plan. It was noted that this
letter was referred to the Commission by the Council at their July 3rd meetingS3,
The letter requested that "our property lying to the west of Dolphin Drive" be
included in the area of higher-planned density as reflected on the 1974
General Plan map.
It was noted that zoning had not been changed in the immediate area of Mr.
Hanson's property, and the consensus of the Planning Commission was to notify
the City Council and Mr. Hanson that there was no basis for considering a
change to the General Plan relative to this parcel.
D. Letter dated July 4, 1974 from Virginia Upton, 14280 Lutheria Way, requesting
the City change its ordinance to allow for chickens in a residential zone.
It was noted that Ordinance NS-3.15 (Small Animal Ordinance) had been~~·~y°"j~7
adopted by the City Council on August 21, 1958, and that Mrs. Upton sh~ui~~'' .... n..~ ......-='
address her request to the Councilj Chairman Marshall directed Staff to
,,rT'D notify Mrs. Upton of this decision and to enclose a copy of Ordinance NS-3.15
After further discussion, the consensus of the Commission was that they would
be favorable to a slight modification to the Ordinance to allow for chickens
on "certain large-size lots."
E. Open Space Action Program from the.Planning Policy Committee of Santa Clara
County dated July 1, 1974. The cover letter solicited comments from the
Planning Commission prior to September 30, 1974, and requested the Commission
hold a public heaKing on this matter for public response. The Secretary stated
that a public hea~ing on the same could be held in August.
F. Letter dated July 3, 1974 from A. H. Dutton, 20200 La Paloma Drive, opposing
a proposed equestrian/pedestrian trail along Wildcat Creet relative to the
development of SD-1110. Etmemorandum dated July 10, 1974 from the Parks &
Recreation Commission was also introduced to the record relative to the proposed
trail easement on SD-1110.
It was noted that this matter was presently under advisement·!b~the City Council,
and that this letter should be forwarded to the Council for tR~ir consideration.
Chairman Marshall pointed out thatMr. Dutton was not willing to allow the
proposed trail to go through ~h%·s..~property, and consequently the proposed trail
would not have a defini~%.~i~ or end. He suggested a response be forwarded
to the Parks & Recreatio~°C'g~'f~Si6n with a carbon copy to the City Council
that until a complete trail can be.made in this area, no further consideration
be given to the trail easement on SD-1110.
Commissioner Woodward stated that ~he intent of the Trails Committee established
by the Mayor was to study the traiis situation and make their recommendation to
the Council in six months. She explained that until this recommendation was
made, the Trails Committee was trying to set aside easements for possible
trails so that the City would not iose the opportunity~'l'~te~l-fS.~'~'~Ui~.".
Chairman Marshall stated he would like the Parks & Recreation Commission know
the .~h~C'6~'i'~{~tl~~H~[vO~Y~hl-s~ matter.
VII. COMMUNICATIONS - ORAL ,
A.Mr. Greely, 21450 Prospect Road, stated that the reason for his letter of
July 8, 1974 was that the property~in the Parker Ranch was part of the
-10-
MINUTES OF JULY 10
A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Mr. Zettler Greely - Continued
Williamson Act, and that this sets the issue of how "we are going to treat the
Williamson Act in the future." He'stated that "common fairness says that if
you are going to do this, you shouid first go to the people who have juriSdic-
tion over the matter; i.e., the Planning Commission and the City Council."?My
letter is solely directed to that issue." He stated that what he desired from
the Commission.was a definitive answer. "I am asking for a letter from the
Planning Commission as to its feelings." He added, "there is a lot of work
going on on the assumption that what is happening is proper. I am trying to
get an answer to this question before a lot of people spend a lot of money."
Chairman Marshall stated that he felt this item was a sideline via dorrespondence
asking whether or not this matter was being handled properly because it was
under the Will~son Act. He explained that the Commission referred his
letter to the City Attorney for a reply, and that a reply had been received
which stated the procedure followed by the City was proper.
Commissioner Matteoni ,~d~'~[~thiS that he felt Mr. Greely had been given
an answer orally. He stated that When the Chairman gives direction to Staff
for a response and there is no cha-~e-'~B~'~n~i~n~'~"~i~a~ 'the
Chairman directs, this was an implied consent on the part of ~K~'E0mmission.
He added, "no one challenged that,.and we are going to hear the matters as
scheduled. So by that there is another indication that we have rejected the
position you have urged upon us. I think that does give you a definitive
answer, and we have chosen to go our way with<~[~.".~'d~{d'~"~""6~[~.Xt~~g~y.''
B. Commissioner Woodward stated she had received a phone call from.Maxine
McG{~i.'~..~'~complaining of excess parking in the law offices (Mr. Margolis)
next door to her. She stated that'the City had not responded to her protests,
and requested Commissioner Woodward look into the matter.
Mr. Johnson stated that the City had taken Mr. Margolis to court over this
issue once before,and the City had~received a capitulation from him. He
stated that Mr. Margolis had cleared everything up for a while, but that
the situation was again such that the City had asked the Code Enforcement
Officer to send one more final demand last week. He stated, "if this does
not work, we are taking him to court again."
c. Chairman Marshall asked the CommisSioners to give serious thought to the
possible reorganization of the Committee structure by the next Planning
Commission meeting. He further requested each member give consideration to
the idea of a Committee-of-the-Whole system on special matters.
D. Commissioner Matteoni stated that the City Council would be holding a hearing
de novo on the Church of Ascension!appeal, and stated that he felt "everyone
had been in step with the Commissi~n's decision but the City Council, and
the Council seems to have some reservation on this." He encouraged the
Commissioners to speak to the Councilmen regarding this matter.
E. Chairman Marshall expressed apprec{ation to Mrs. Stark of the Good Government
Group for serving coffee, and welcomed Commissioners Callon and Mr. Johnston
as new members to the Planning Commission meetings.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Smith, that the!T~Pi~i~
Commission meeting of July 10, 1974 be~ adjourned. The motion was carri~
unanimously. The meeting was adjourneH at 11:30 p.m.
R~spectfully submitted,
M~rty Van Duyn, Sec~.~ry
'11 -