HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-08-1975 Planning Commission Minutes.... -
OF SARATOGA PLANNING CO}~fiS
MINU-TES
DATE: Wednesday, January 8, 1975 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California
TYPE: Regular Meeting
I. ROUTINt ORGANIZATION
A. ROlL CALL
Present: Commissioners Belanger, Callon, Marshall and Woodward
Absent: Commissioners Martin and Smith
Conmissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the read-
ing of the minutes of December 11, 1974 be waived, and that they be approved as
distributed to the Commission subject to the following corrections: (1) page 2,
second line of the second paragraph: "Commissioner Woodward recommended" in
lieu of Chairman Marshall recommended; and (2) page 7, second line of Item ~qI-C:
misspelling of word "role." The motion was carried unanimously.
Conmissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the read-
ing of the minutes of the Special Meeting of December 16, 1974 be waived, and
that they be approved as distributed to the Commission subject to the following
cozrections: (1) page 9, sixth line of second paragraph of Item I(1): "between
the hour of 5-6:00 p.m." in lieu of 4-6:00 p.m.; and (2) page 10, third line of
fizst paragraph: "sound level" in lieu of second level. The motion was carried
unanimously.
C. CItY COUNCIL REPORT
The Secretary gave an oral presentation of the City Council meeting of January 7,
1975. Of special interest to the Commission were the following items:
(1) R.J. Hunter!s appeal of the Commission's denial for an extension on
SDR-1037 was granted by the Council with the condition that a revised
tentative map be submitted to the Commission within 3 months for
Cit '
approval, incorporating as much as possible adherence to the y s pro-
posed Slope Conservation Ordinance, and with the further stipulation that
final map be submitted to the City Council for approval within 6 months.
(2) The second public hearing on the Housing Community Development Act was held
with Staff presenting a brief analysis of possible recommended programs.
The Secretary reported that public testimony was given by ~eople within
the community, and no official action was taken by the Council. He added
that the public hearing was continued to the.City Councfl~eetiRg of
January 15, 1975.
D. REGULAR ORGANIZATIONAL ~ETING
Chairman ~rshall reminded the Commissioners that January 22, 1975 Planning
Commission meeting was the'regular organizational meeting of the Commission,
!at ~hich time a new chairman, vice chairman and secretary were to be elected.
iHe added that Committee reorganization should also occur at that time, and
~asked the Commissioners to give consideration as to which Committees they
would be interested in serving upon.
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. UP-259 - Saratoga Rotary Club, Saratoga Plaza, 14440 Big Basin Way, Use Permit
to Allow an Outdoor, One-Day, Once-a-Year, Non-Profit Art Show;
Continued from December 11~ 1974
Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing on UP-259 at 7:47 p.m.
-1-
·-MINUTES OF JANUARY 8~ PLANNING CO~IISSION
A. .UP-259 - Saratoga Rotary Club - Continued
It was noted that a Staff Report had been prepared on this which recommended
approval; further that the Use Permit would be i'~Ii~l~6nC:a yearly basis,
making it necessary for the applicant to reapply each year.
Dr. Accornero, the applicant's representative, was present and requested
Condition (4) of the Staff Report be modified to read the hours of sales from
9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. After discussion of this request, it was recommended
Item (4) be modified as follows: "Limit hours of sales from 9:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m., with one hour before and after for preparation and clean-up."
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by CommissiOner Callon, that UP-259 be
approved subject to the Staff Report, as amended, dated January 8, 1975. The
motion was carried unanimously.
B. C-178 - City of Saratoga, Change of Zoning of Certain Parcels to be Consistent
with the:. 1974 General Plan for the City of Saratoga, Zones #1 through
#51 Continued from December 11, 1974
Chairman ~rshall explained that for organizational purposes, Staff had agendized
the zoning hearings into 5 meetings, adding that Zones #1 through ~5 would be
heard this evening. It was noted that Staff Reports had been prepared on these
five zones recommending approval by the Planning Commission, with the further
recommendation that the Reports be fon-~arded to the City Council with the Commission's
recommendation for rezoning.
ZONE 2
Chairman ~rshall opened the public hearing on C-178, Zone #2 at 7:54 p.m.
Mr. Loewke, Planner I, explained that Zone #2 was a 2.05-acre parcel o~ned by
John Lyngso located on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and adjacent to the Southern
Pacific railroad tracks. He explained that the property was presently being
used as a commercial rockery, and that its present zoning was "C-V (R-1-12,500)"
(Conditional Visitor-Commercial from Single-Family Residential, Medium Density).
He indicated that the 1974 General Plan designated a medium-density ~:land use ~
in this area, explaining that the surrounding area was zoned R-1-12,500; and
consequently Staff proposed Zone #2 be rezoned in order to comply with the
1974 General Plan designation. The Secretary cited page 28 of the 1974 General
Plan as it related to this property and its landuse designation.
Two pieces of correspondence were introduced into the record: (1) service by
mail request from Mr. John Lyngso requesting a copy of the procedural rules ~f
donduct and a record of the proceedings; and (2) letter dated January 2, 1975
from~fr. and Mrs. Carreia, 12999 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, indicating they were
in favor of retaining the present zoning.
Citizen Response
· Mr. Richard Gardella, attorney representing Mr. Lyngso, stated that they
~ opposed any change of zoning on this property on the basis that: (1) the
: rockery had been in existence since 1959 and was condusive to the location
· :i~ that it was on a busy.street, power lines crossed the property and in'
:.that it abutted railroad tracks; (2) Mr. Lyngso had made numerous improve-
:ments on the property, as requested by the City, when Tract 3822 was con-
i struct~d in 1968; and (3) Mr. Lyn_.g~o had received correspondence from
~ Mayor Gtefinon/in 1968 indicating that the rockery could continue its
~ commercial use for an indefinite period of time regardless of what the
~.General Plan stipulated, as well as a letter from the Planning Director
in 1968 indicating___~ha~ the..~p~y would be on a 35-year amortization__
;schedule. He raised a question as to whether this was sh~n to be a
!2- or 3-acre parcel. Mr. Gardella contended that h~%y~e~ a copy of the
rules of conduct nor a copy of the Staff Report had been received, as
requested by Mr. L so~
yng s service by mail request, and he stated that he
felt.'Jgamesmanship" was being played by the neighborhood~ ....
-2-
.... ~=~[INUTES OF JANUARY 8 5
B. C-178 - City of Saratoga: Zone 2 - Continued
® Mr. Sam HernandeZ, 14626 Big Basin Way, stated that as this property had
been existing as a commercial venture for a number of years, he felt it
would be wrong torezone it to residential.
· Mr. Fred Tator, 20577 Manor DriVe, stated that he had participated in the
General Plan hearings last year, and added 'We all support, in the neigh-
borhood, the action being asked for here tonight."
Staff Reponse
In answer to Mr. Gardella's inquiry-as to the correct acreage of the property,
it was pointed out that the County Assessor's Parcel Book reflected the
property to consist$~of 2.05 acres, as was sho~-m on the notice of public
hearing. It was noted that"residential zoning (R-1-12,500) had been d~ignated for
:this area in the 1968, 1972 and 1974 General Plans; further, that the basic change
at this time was that there was now a State law which made it mandatory for
City zoning to be consistent with the General Plan. Mr. Johnston, City Attorney,
stated that he did not feel that what the City was obliged to do by State law
could be construed as gamesmanship, pointing out that the City only had two
choices: either modify the General Plan to be consistent with the zoning, or
modify the zoning to be consistent with the General Plan.
In reply to Mr. Gardella's statement concerning rules of conduct, Mr. Johnston
contended that a booklet containing procedural rules of conduct had been for-
warded to Mr. Gardella'~s requested, as well as a notice of public hearing.
FurtheF, a Staff Report was presented to Mr. Gardella=
Commission Response
Commissioner Callon asked the City Attorney how long the property could exist
under the present zoning as a non-conforming use, and further, how long it could
exist if the proposed Non-Conforming Use Ordinance was adopted. Mr. Johnston
replied that under the non-conforming use provisions of the present Ordinance,
there were some areas which were relatively vague and ambiguous, which'
made it difficult for him to answer her first question. He pointed ou[ that
under a separate item on this evening's agenda, there were some suggested modi-
fications to the Zoning Ordinance on non-conforming uses and periods of amorti-
zation to help clarify the Ordinance. He explained that one of the suggestions
in'this proposed Ordinance was that a non-conforming use in an "R" or "A" district
which was not completely housed in an enclosed building, would be required to
either discontinue its use within one-year or be completely enclosed in a building
or structure within that period of time. He added that even if it were com-
pletely ~'~7~d~ there would be an amortization scheduled applied to the
structure that was used depending upon the type of structure used to house
the ~se.
Commissioner Belanger indicated that She felt a residential 'land use for this~
property had been affirmed many times over since 1968 in the ~eneral Plans, and
that she felt it would be appropriate. to change the zoning to be consistent
with the General Plan at this time.
Commission Action
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the public
hearing on C-178, Zone #2 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and
the public hearing on C-178, Zone #2 was closed at 8:23 p.m.
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Plan-
ning Commission approve the Staff Report dated January 8, 1975 on C-178, Zone #2
and fon~ard same to the City Council with its recommendation that Zone ~2 be
rezoned from C-V(R-I-12,500) to R-1-12,500. The motion was carried unanimously.
It was noted that a court recorder had recorded the Zone #2 public hearing, and
that a transcript could be obtained by Mr. Gardella from the offices of Olga
Kaye in San Jose. ~
-3-
MINUTES OF JANUARY 8 5
B. C-178 - City of Saratoga - Change of Zonings - Continued
Zone 1
Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing on C-178, Zone #1, at 8:25 p.m. Mr.
Loewke explained that Zone 1 was a single 47.39-acre parcel bounded on the north
by Prospect Road and the Southern Pacific railroad tracks, on the east by Tracts
4508 and 4536 (both zoned R-1-12,500, medium density), on the west by the Parker
Ranch site-(zoned "A" and R-I-40,000, agriculture and very low density), and on
the south by Tract 4886 and Tract 4887 (zoned R-1-12,500, medium density). He
pointed out that Zone 1 was presently zoned both R-1-12,500 and R-l-15,000
(medium density~, and that in order to provide a transitional zone between
surrounding properties and in order to bring the zoning into consistency with
the General Plan, Staff had pr__oposed Zone 1 be rezoned to R-i-20,000 PC. (low
~density, Planned Community). It was indicated that in taking the slope charac-
' teristics of'~'e property into consideration, the "PC" designa[ion was recommended'
~in order to allow more flexibility in development. It was further noted that if
this property was sold by_the school district, there would be a potential of
approximately 69 homesites on the property under the proposed zone, whereas under
:the present zone there would be a potential of approximately 104 homesites.
Three pieces of correspondence were introduced into the record concerning Zone 1:
(1) Resolution concerning the use'of surplus school sites in San Mateo and Santa
Clara Counties from the Loma Frieta Chapter in Palo Alto of the Sierra Club;
(2) letter dated January 6, 1975 from Robert P. ,Ymndal, 12472 Arroyo de Arguello,
protesting development of Zone ~1 on the basis that'it would create additional
flooding problems to adjacent property owners; and (3) letter dated January 8,
1975 from Fremont Union High School District requesting this item be continued
to the next Commission meeting in order to allow the District additional time
in which to review this matter. It was noted that representatives of the
school district had met with Planning Staff to discuss this matter,.on January 8.
Citizen Response
Russell Crowther, 20788 Norada Court, drew the Corf~fLission's attention to
a letter previously submitted to the Commission dated November 5, 1974
from John Weir which requested the Commission consider the following
problems with regard to.rezoning the school site:
(1) Traffic problems in the area
(2) Scenic effects development .and grading would have on surrounding area
(3) Increased flooding problems to residents in the area
(4) Soil stability and geology. Mr. Crowther referenced two sources of
information on this subject: (a) Relative Seismic Activity Map pre-
pared by Williams and Rogers in 1974 which indicated the area as
having a high potential for earthquake-induced landslides, as well
as being an area of high potential for liquefaction, lurching and
lateral spreading. (b) Robert McLaughlin of the U.S. Geological
Survey hypothesized that the Shannon Fault followed the front of the
foothills, thereby placing the Fault down the entire length of the
property.
(5) All the above-mentioned matters should be considered with regard to
the cost benefit effect on the City.
(6) Other areas in the City presently zoned R-I-40,000 did not have, in
his opinion, as difficult problems with the above-mentioned points,
and he suggested the Commission consider this with regard to zoning.
Mr. Cr~ther contended that the 1974 General Plan was ambiguous with regard
to whether the school site was within the slope conservation zone, and cited
portions of the General Plan (pages 22 and 24) relative to this. Mr
-Crowther further pointed out an inconsistency between the public notice
~ and attached map on this Zone, asking if the proposed zone was intended
7t0'b~"P~"'~ "P~." He pointed out that regarding the requirements for
~ an EIR, an EIR would be required if there was a change of zoning from "R"
~ to "PC," whereas if the zone was initially "R-PC," no EIR would be required.
Consequently, he requested the Commission attach a stipulatiok that an
' be required on this property if·developed.
-4-
~MINUTES OF JANUARY 8~ 1-~5
B. C-178 - City of Saratoga: Zone 1 - Continued
· Mr. John Weir, 12343 Arroyo de Arguello, expressed concern with the proposed
"PC" designation explaining that an "R-PC" zone would eliminate public hear-
ings on any future development on the school site, thereby creating what he
felt to be a "blank check arrangementlV He explained that the Arguello
Homeo~-mers felt the school site property had a "sphere of consequence" on
them, and consequently they wished an opportunity to participate in dis-
cussions on future development. He pointed out that he had taken a survey
of the Association with regards to rezoning this property, and that the
homeowners had indicated a first preference for open space (which was how
the neighboring residents,-were now using the property), and secondly a
preference fbr one-acre zoning. He pointed out that most of the homesites
in the Arguello area ran 14,000-18,000 square feet, so that effectively,
the proposed zoning would just "equalize" what was already there instead
of providing a transitional zone.
· Tom Sa~yer, 20790 Norada Court, asked, in regards to :the potential 69 ~homes
in the area, if the City had taken streets into consideration during their
calculations. ;In addition to this, a gentleman in the audience asked if the
City had taken the potential park into consideration. To these questions,
it was explained that the City makes its calculations,based on the maximum
yield allowed within the zone, then applies the "[C'~ designation. Fur~he'~
that streets had been calculated in deriving this 69-home figure, but that
,the potential park had not been appiiFd.
Commission and Staff Response
® Relative to Mr. Crowther's statements concerning the slope conservation zone
in the General Plan, the secretary cited a portion of the 1974 General Plan
(page 23) Concern.~g the school property! It was explained that the City
Council had requested the Planning Commission in November of' last year to
reconsider discussions had during public hearings on the General Plan rela-
tive to this. It was noted that on two occassions the Planning Commission
unanimously reaffirmed its position that the Fremont High School District
.property was intended not to be included in the Slope Conservation Zone. It
was suggested that Mr.'C'r0wther place his complaint of General Plan ambiguity
.before the City Council.
· With regard to comments made concerning an EIR requirement, it was noted that
the Planning Commission did not have jurisdiction to require an EIR. The
Secretary explained that the present City Resolution provided that the Plan-
ning Director had the authority to determine whether an EIR was needed,
or, in the case of the Director considering the developmentJot having ~--
negative impact, o'f--filing a Negative Declaration with the ~County. The
Secretary pointed out, however, that decisions made on environmental impact
determinations could be appealed to the City Council by either the Commission
or citizens. He added that considering the extenuating circumstances dis-
.- covered during the Parker Ranch EIR discussions, it probably may be in the
City's best interest to require an EIR on the site if developed.
· To comments concerning the "PC" designation, Commissioner Belanger pointed
out that if "PC" was not predesignated on the zoning, a developer might not
be willing to develop the property "PC" inasmuch as it was a more difficult
and more costly planning process. It was pointed out that at the time of
tentative map approval, the Planning Commission could direct the Planning
Staff to send public notices to the residents immediately adjacent to the
school site in order to allow them an opportunity to express their opinions.
· With regards to a potential park site on this property, it was noted that
the City's }~ster Plan designated a small segment of the property as a park.
A further notation was m~de, however, that the park would only comprise
approximately 1/5 the total size of the property.
Commission Action
In light of the Fremont School District's request for continuation, Chairman
Marshall closed the public hearing on C-178, Zone ~1 at 9:20 p.m., continued
same to the Planning Commission meeting-of January 22, 1975, and referred this
matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review.
-5-
'i~ilNUTES OF JAI~
B. C-178 - City of Saratoga - Change of Zoning - Continued
ZONE 3
Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing on C-178,~Zone #3, at 9:21 p.m. Mr.
~i Loewke explained that Zone #3 was comprised of 8 lots in Tract 4279, one lot in
~'~ Tract ~.~j, and 7 parcels comprising 8.22 acres bounded on the north by Tract
4886, on the west by Arroyo de Argqello, on the south by Tract 4828, and on the
west by Williamson Act Preserve Lands, Mr. Loewke explained that the present
zoning of these lots was R-l-15,000 (medium density), and that in order to be
consistent with the General Plan, Staff recommended they be rezoned to R-1-40,O00
!(very low density).
Public and Staff Response
· Mr. Ron Khapp, 20885 Wardell Road, stated that he was generally in favor
!of changing this zone in that he felt it did fit with the hillside area.
He asked, however, after'deVelopment o2 most of the area had already
'-occurred, why the City was not rezoning this property. He further asked
--j... what the home~wn~rs should know abOut'legal non-conf~mi~g lots,'a~d ~ked
if the boundaries sho~,m on the General Plan Map had been drawn in the most
reasonable manner.
To Mr. Knapp's first question, it was explained that the City was~e-
Cit '
zoning this area because the State law mandated the y s zoning ma~ and ~
General Plan be consistent. Relative to legal non-conforming lots, it was
pointed out that the proposed zoning would make all but 5 of the parcels
involved substandard, thereby making them legal non-conforming but which
would not effect the continuation of their present residential use. It was ~
~pointed out, however, that legal non-conforming uses would not be beyond ~
~setbacks specified under their zones. Relative to Mr. Knapp~s last question,
~ Chairman Marshall noted that the boundaries had not necessarily been drax,m:
~ in the most reasonable manner insomuch as they were designed by a large · ~
~ General Plan Committee.
/
· ~. Steve Pecsar, 20880 Wardell Road, stated that he had~ for 20 years, o~med
a 4.7-acre parcel which was being proposed for rezoning. Mr. Pecsar stated
that it was disturbing to him that this property might be rezoned, adding:
"we are on the hill and no one wants our property developed, so we are
supposed to assume the heavy tax burden without the opportunity of some
returns." He complained of not having been considered when the proposed
zoning maps were dra~.m up, and contended that the slope on his property
was very minimal thereby allowing a greater lot:yield than the proposed
zoning would allow.
It was pointed out that the 1974 General Plan hearings had been publicly
noticed in the newspaper,.and the General'~l~'~fle'~d'~h~'ults of
the public input. 'To Mr. Pecsar~ latter.point, it was noted that the change
of zoning would not effect his 1Bt yield. The Secretary explained that in
applying the Slope Density Formula to Mr. Pecsar's property, the average
slope was calculated to be 15%, which would require 1.216 acres per lot.
~C3nsequently, the maximum lot yield at the present zoning would be 3 lots,
/ and the maximum lot yield under the proposed zoning would be 3 lots.
Commission Action
Mr. Pecsar requested this item be continued to allow him additional review
time. In light of this request, Chairman MarShall closed the public
he'ari~g on C-1~8, zone #3 at 9:42 p.m., continued same to the Planning Commission
meeting of January 22, 197~ and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee
and Staff for further review. Mr. Pecsar was invited to meet with Staff before
the next meeting to discuss his property.
ZONE 4
Chairman ~rshall opened the public hearing on C-178, Zone 4, at 10:01 p.m.
Mr. Loewke explained that Zone #4 was a single 0.72-acre parcel located near
Calabazas Creek and having access off Foothill Lane. He pointed out that the
-6-
LNflNUTES OF JANUARY 8
B. C-178 - City of Saratoga Chan~e of ZoninS: Zone 4 - Continued
present zoning of this parcel was R-I-20,000 (low density), and that the area to
the north of the property was zoned R-1-12,500 (medium density), to the south
the zone was R-i-40,000 (very low density), and on the east and west the zoning
was R-i-40,000 (very low density). Staff recommended, in order to bring this
area into consistency with the General Plan, that this property be rezoned to
R-I-40,000 (very low density).
Citizen and Commission Response
A representative for Mr. Paul Walter, the owner of the parcel in question, was
present and asked the Commission for assurance that the dwelling presently under
construction would not be effected.
Chairman ~rshall cited a section of a staff memorandum relative to this as
follows: "A rezoning t~ the proposed one-acre zoning would render the house
setbacks as non-conforming since he had followed the R-i-20,000 zone setbacks
in The planning of his house. Thus, the owner could finish building the house
at R-l~20,000 setbacks, however, he would not be allowed to further expand the
structure at a future date because of its non-conforming status. No subdivision
of this parcel would be possible under either zoning classificatibns."
The owner's representative indicated they had no objections to the change of
zoning.
Commission Action
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the public
hearing on C-178, Zone 4 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and
the public hearing on C-178, Zone 4 was closed at 10:05 p.m.
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the~Planning
Commission approve the Staff Report on C-178, Zone 4 dated January 8, 1975, and
lombard same to the City Council with its recommendation that Zone.,?~be rezoned
from R-I-20,000 to R-i-40,000. The motion was carried unanimously.
ZONE 5
Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing on C-178, Zone 5 at 10:06 p.m. Mr.
Loewke explained that Zone 5 comprised 2 lots measuring. one acre and .198 acre
respectively, in Tract 604 located between Pierce Road and Tract 3475. He re-
ported that the areas to the north, west and south were'all designated R-1-12,500,
and that Staff recommended, in order to bring this zone into consistency with the
General Plan, that Zone 5 be rezoned from R-I-20,000 (low density) to R-1-12,500
(medium density). It was further not__e~_tha~__onelh~.use_p~esently_.exis.t~d-on-one--
end of the larger lot, and that the smaller parcel was vacant; further, it was
~ explained that the larger lot would be potentially dividable under either the
proposed zoning or the present zoning, and that ~e present non-conforming status
of the smaller lot would not be changed by the proposed zoning.
i
Citizen and C0mmisS'~Response
Mr. Bross, 12849 Ashley Court, stated that he o~.med the .198-acre parcel and
stated that he felt the property o~.mers involved would prefer to have a lower
density. He explained that he purchased the land in order to keep it open
space, and indicated that he hoped fewer houses would be ~l%o'~d'~b~b~'flY
7b'~h~ his property. "'
It was noted that even though the zoning was to he changed on Zone 5, the lot-
yield would not be changed. Chairman Marshall pointed out that the .198-acre
· parcel was not presently developable under the present zoning nor would be
z developable under the proposed zoning. It was further explained that on the
ions-acre parcel the maximum number of houses which could be built under the
/'presen~'~ing would be two, and that the maximun number of houses~ich could'
be built under the proposed zoning would be two primarily because of the pla~...
-~ ment of the existing house.
B. C-178 - City of Saratoga Change of Zoning: Zone 5 - Continued
Commission Action
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by CormfLissioner Belanger, that the public
hearing on C-178, Zone 5 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and
the public hearing on C-178, Zone 5 was closed at 10:16 p.m.
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward,'j'eh'~F~ Plan-
ning Commission approve the Staff Report dated January 8, 1975 on C-178, Zone 5,
and that it fon~ard same to the City Council with its recommendation that Zone 5
be rezoned from R-i-20,000 to R-1-12,500. The motion was carried unanimously.
C. GF-300 - Amendments to Articles and/or Sections of Ordinance NS-3, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Saratoga
Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing on GF-300 at 10:17 p.m. The
Secretary explained that this proposed Ordinance addressed several amendments to
the existing Ordinance in response to problems with the existing non-conforming
use section of Ordinance NS-3, as well as other changes made in conformance to
recent legislative action, as follows:
Article 15: Non-Conforming Uses and Structures. The Secretary explained
that the proposed ordinance would change some of the rules pertaining to
time restrictions on non-conforming uses and structures, amortization
schedules, and the requirement that any non-conforming use would be requ~ed
to obtain a Use Permit within 30-days of adoption of this Ordinance. The
Secretary explained that the lattersprovision had benefits to the City
toward mitigating some of the problems a non-conforming use structure
might have.-~y affording ~he Commission an opportunity to place certain
/mitigation conditions on the.prcperty.
Section 18.11: Conditional Reclassifications. The Secretary explained
that the proposed~'di~ance would proVide'for a time limit on conditional
reclassifications, and had resulted from existing problems the City now
had whereby certain conditional uses had no time limits specified and
consequently could continue ad infinitum.
Section 18.4: Public Hearing - Notices and Procedure. The Secretary
explained that a recent bill had been passed in the legislature changing
the procedure and timing of public notices to all properties within
300-feet of the property subject to public hearing; with the further
stipulation that public notices should be mailed within a period of not
less than 5 days.
'S~b'~'~ions (gg) ~nd (hh) of Section 1.5 - Definitions. The Secretary
explained that this applied to the definitions of non-conforming uses
and non-conforming structures.
Citizen and Commission Response
Article 15. The Commission raised questions relative to amortization schedules
and abandoned structures as they applied to specific non-conforming uses within
the City. Further, Mr. Crowther requested more time in which to review this
Ordinance modification in more detail. In light of these things, it was the
consensus of the Commission that Staff schedule a study session on Article 15
between Staff, Commission and citizens, and to provide at the session examples
of existing non-conforming uses and structures as they applied to this Ordinance.
The Secretary noted that a date for this session would be announced at the
January 22, 1975 Commission meeting, and he further stated that notices would
be sent to interested homeowner associations.
Mr. Johnston pointed out that Section. 4 of the proposed Ordinance pertaining
to definitions should be continUed'along with Article 15 inasmuch as it related
to Article 15.
-8-
.- ~INUTES OF ~
C. GF-300 - Amendments to Articles and/or Sections of Ordinance NS-3 - Continued
Section 18.4. Mr. John Weir asked if the State-law text pertaining to public
noticing and procedure stipulated the 5-day, 300-foot changes as a minimum re-
quirement or as an exact requirement. He pointed out that in the case of send-
ing notices in the mail 5 days before a public hearing, the mail service might
not be timely enough for those residents involved. He further pointed out that
a 300-foot radius requirement might only effect immediately adjacent property
owners if the parcel subject to public hearing was w~ hin an R-i-40,000 zone.
Mr. Weir concluded by stating that he felt it would be a disservice to the
community to reduce the 10-day mailing requirement and the 500-foot radius re-
quirement the City presently had.
Mr. Johnston gave a brief history of the zoning regulations pertaining to these
requirements. He stated that his office felt these changes were appropriate
in order to make Saratoga r~quirements consistent with requirements other cities
had within the County and State.
Commissioners Callon and Belanger agreed with Mr. Weir's suggestion, indicating
they felt that it would not be in the City's best interest to lessened-these requirements
Section 18.11. Mr. Crowther pointed .out that the proposed Ordinance had left
out two items which were contained in the present Ordinance:
(a) In the first paragraph of the proposed Ordinance, the district reclassi-
fications of "PA" and "PC" were omitted. Mr. Johnston stated that it had
not been the intention to delete these classifications, and suggested they
be included in the proposed Ordinance text.
(b) In the first paragraph of the existing Ordinance, a phrase was left out ';
'relative to the automatic reverting back to an existing zone on failure 'L'
'of meeting conditions. Mr.' jBhnston expl~f~d'~hat automatically re- ~
verting back to an existing zone was now held to be illegal in that a
rezoning could not occur without a public hearing. He explained that under
the proposed Ordinance, a person would be given special permission to build,
but that the property would not be rezoned until building had been completed~
within a specified period of time; if the building!was not completed, the
zoning would not be changed.
Cormnission Action
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the public
hearing on Sections 2 and 4 of GF-300 be closed. The motion was carried
unanimously, and the public hearing was closed at 11:00 p.m.
Chairman ~rshall moved, seconded by C~f~issioner Callon, that the Planning
Commission: (1) approve SectiOn 18.11 of ~d~f~'O~dinance NS-3 as modified to
include the "PC" and "PA" districts in th~ first paragraph; (2) approve~'~
Section 18.4 of draft Ordinance NS-3~as modified to change the noticing time
to be not less than 10 days and the radius of sending notices to property
owners to be within 500 feet; an~d_(~)__f~rward same to the City Council with
the recommendation that ~Ordinance_NS-3, Sections 18.11 and 18.4 be adopted.
The motion was carried unanimously.
Chairman Marshall directed that Sections 1 and 4 of the proposed Ordinance
change, GF-300, be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of January 22,
1975, at which time a Study Session/date would be announced.
III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS
A. SDR-1150 - Donald Holly, Kittridge Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot
(Expiration extended to January 8~ 1975); Continued from Dec. 11, 1974
Mr. Don Burt,:~Assistant Planner, stated that the Subdivision Committee had~.~e-'~
viewed this matter on several occasions, and that a Staff Report had been pre-
pared recommending approval on this. He added that this had been held up pend-
ing resolution between the Health Department and the applic~ht on a require-
ment for sewers. Mr. Burr noted that the Health Department would not allow a
~ s e~t'i~'t~kY~h'i~ property ~
-9-
~" ' "--'~fiNUTES OF JANUARY 8,
A. SDR-1150 - Donald Holly - Continued
'The a~l'fc"~t--was present and indicated he had no comment.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning
Commission approve application SDR-1150 per Exhibit "A", and subject to the
Staff Report dated January 8, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously.
B. SDR-1154 - Beck Enterprises, Walnut Avenue, Building Site Approval - 3 Lots;
(Expiration ~xtended to January 8~ 1975); Continued from Dec. 11~ 1974
Mr. Burt stated that problems had not been r~lV~d between the applicant and
'the Water District, and the applicant had submitted a letter granting an exten-
: sion to the Planning Commissi~"~e~'t'{n~'of January '%2~ 1975. Chairman MarS~l'l~
-. directed SDR-1154 be continued'"~o'~he Planning C'~mmission meeting of January 22,
'1975~ and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for__
/further r~view and__repo~t. ..
C. SDR-1155 - ~ayne Richards, Palomino Way, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot
(Expires January 14~ 1975); Continued from December 11~ 1974
Mr. Burt stated that a Staff Report had been prepared which recommended approval
on this matter. The applicant was nQt present for comment.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Planning
Commission approve application SDR-1155 per Exhibit "A," and subject to the
Staff Report dated January 8, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously.
D. SDR-1157 - Eldon Hoffman, Bank Mill Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot
(Expires January 1~ 1975)~ Continued from December 11~ 1974
Mr. Burt state~ that a Staff Report had been prepared which recommended approval
on this matter. The applicant was present and indicated he had no comments.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning
Commission approve application SDR-1157 per Exhibit "A," and subject to the
Staff Report dated January 8, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously.
-'~ee'~ecretary noted that the files were not complete on the following applications,
and that Staff recommended these items be continued to the next Planning Commission
meeting:
E. SDR-1158 - Matt Voros, Pierce Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expires
February 4~ 1975)
F. SDR-1159 - John Carey, Fruitvale Avenue, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot
(Expires February 8~ 1975)
G. SDR-1160 - Jerome Gilmore, Austin Way, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot
(Expires February 14~ 1975)
H. SDR-1161 = Margolis, Chatsky and Dunnett, APC, 4th Street and Big Basin Way,
Buildin~ Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expires February 15~ 1975)
Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1158, SDR-1159, SDR-1160 and SDR-1161 be continued to
the Planning Commission meeting of January 22, 1975, and referred these matters to
the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report.
IV. DESIGN REVIEW
A. A-425 - Osterlund Enterprises, Fruitvale and Allendale Avenues, Final Design
Review - Tract #4768~ Lot #1
Mr. Loewke stated that this matter had been reviewed by t~Design Review Committee
on December 31, 1974, and that a Staff Report had been prepared which recommended
"approval on this matter. He added that the proposed single-story house conformed
with all applicable ordinances and met all setbacks.
A question_was~raised as to whether Tract #4768's CC&Rs contained a condition in
-10-
;MINUTES OF JANUARY 8 "
_~'
A. A-425 - Osterlund Enterprises - Continued
the Subdivision's Deed Restrictions~stafih'~'that the design and location of all
interior fencing and/or pools for each tot be submitted to Design Review., After
· brief discussion of this, Staff was directed to obtain a copy of the CC&Rs for
the nat Meeting.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Planning
Commission grant ~l'd~sign review approval to application A-425, Tract ~4768,
Lot 1 per ExhiBit "H" and subject to the Staff Report dated January 8, 1975.
The motion was carried unanimously.
B. A-458 - Theod6re Picard, Canyon View D~±ve, Final Design Review - Single-Family
Residence; Continued from December 11~ 1974
.Mr. Loewke stated that revised plans had been submitted by the applicant as re-
· quested by the De§~_gn Review Committee. He added that the Committee reviewed
!such plans on December 3i'~""197'~"'a'n~' that a staff Report had b~en prepared w~i~"'
recommended approval be granted.
Commissioner. Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning
Commission grant final design review approval to application A-458 per Exhibit
"D" and/subject to '~h?S'~'f~'R~ort dated January 8, 1975. The motion was
carried unanimously.
C. A-461 - John A. Cook, Cox Avenue, Final Design Review - Commercial Building
Addition; Continued from December 11~ 1974
Mr. Loewke stated that revised drawings had been submitted by the applicant as
requested by the DeSign Review Committee. He added that the Committee had re-
viewed these revis'~d'plans, and that a Staff Report had been prepared which
recommended approval be granted.
Commissioner,-'W~'~dw'~'~d':moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning
Commission grant final design review approval to application A-461 per Exhibit
"B" and subject to the Staff Report dated January 8, 1975. The motion was
carried unanimously.
D. A-462 - Dividend Industries, Saratoga Avenue and Christie Drive, Final Design
Review - 14 Lots
Mr. Loewke reported that the applicant would not be able to attend this evening's
meeting, and had consequently requested this item be continued. Chairman
Marshall directed A-462 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of
January 22, 1975, and referred this matter to the Design Review Committee and
Staff for further review and report.
E. A-463 - Western Federal Savings and Loan Association, Big Basin Way, Final
Design Review
'Mr. LoewkefsY~d~hY~'~Si~ matter had been reviewed by the Design Review Commit-
. tee and that a Staff Report had been prepared which recommended approval.
He addea that the 'only advertis{~g ~i~n being approved.With '~his application
was the insignia to be affixed to the' chimney on the Big BaSin Way side of the
building. The applicant's representative was present and indicated acceptance
of the Staff Report.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commission~LCallon, that the Planning
Commission grant final design review approval to application A-463 per Exhibit
"A" and subject to the Staff Report dated January B, 1975..- The motion was
carried unanimously.
V. EN~zIRON~NTAL I~ACT DETEIMINATIONS
The following Negative Declarations were filed by the Planning Department between
December 12, 1974 and January 8, 1975:
A. SDR-1158 - ~tt Voros, Pierce Road, Building Site Approval.- 1 Lot
B. SDR-1159 - John Carey, Fruitvale Avenue, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot
C. SDR-1160 -'Jerome Gilmore, Austin Way, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot
-11-
=. ~NUTES OF JANUARY 8~ 1975
V. ~E~IRO~NT~L"I~T'DE N~DNS - Continued
D. SDR-1161 - Margolis, Chatsky and Dunnett, APC, 4th Street and Big Basin Way,
Building Site ApprDva! - 1 Lot
E. SDR-1162 - Vincent Cantacessi, Ten Acres Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot
VI. MISCELLANEOUS
A. SDR-1062 - Elgann Jacksen, Sperry Lane and E1 Camino Grande, 1 Lot - Request
for One-Year Extension
The Secretary stated that this was the first request for an extension, and
added that Staff recommended the request~be granted.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning
~ Conmission grant a one-year extension to ap~l%~'~ib'~"SDR-1062. The ~oti6n was
carried unanimously.
VII. COM~fU[ICATIONS -~fWRITTEN
The following pieces of correspondence received between December 12, 1974 and January
8, 1975 were introduced into the record:
A. Letter dated December 18, 1974 from John H. Powers, 13376 Ronnie Way, expressing
appreciation to the Co~xm~issioners for. work done during 1974.
B. Memorandum dated December 24, 1974 from City ~nager regarding the City Attorney's
comments on the Subdivision Ordinance and the 1975 Subdivision Map Act. It was
noted that there would be a Joint City Couacil/Planning Commission meeting on
this matter on Tuesday, JanUary 14th at 7:30 p.m. in the Crisp Conference Room.
C. Notice dated December 26, 1974 from John Lyngso, Box 667, Belmont, requesting
the City provide him with a copy of the procedural rules of conduct and a
record of proceedings in the matter of C-178, Zone #2. Staff was directed
to place this letter in File C-178, Zone #2.
-D. Resolution concerning the use of surplus school sites in San ~teo and Santa
Clara Counties from the Sierra Club. Staff was directed to place this in
File C-178, Zone #1.
E. Letter dated January 2, 1975 from A.M. and Leilla Carreia, 12299 Saratoga-
Sunnyvale Road, indicating they were in favor of retaining the current zoning
on Zone ~2 of C~178. Staff was directed to place this letter in File C-178,Zone 2.
F. Letter dated January 6, 1975 from Robert ~ndal, 12472 Arroyo de Arguello,
protesting potential development of Zone ~1, C-178, on the basis that it would
create additional flooding problems in the area. Staff was directed to place
this letter in File C-1~8, Zone #1.
G. Letter dated January 8, 1975 from the Fremont Union High School District,
P.O. Box F, Sunnyvale, requesting continuance of C-178, Zone #1 to the next
Planning Commission meeting. Staff was directed to place this letter in
File C-178, Zone ~1.
VII. CO>~RINICATIONS - ORAL
A. The Secretary reported that City funds would be made available to interested
-Commissioners to attend the Planning Policy Committee-sponsored wsrkshop
! ~ntitled "The Role of the Planning Commissioner," scheduled for January 18, 1975 !
in the Berger Auditorium in San Jose. Commissioners Belanger, Woodward and
Marshall indicated they were interested in attending this workshop, and Staff
was requested to make the appropriate reservations for same.
B. Chairman ~rshall expressed appreciation to Mrs. Aberle of the Good Government
Group for serving coffee.
VIII.ADJOURNmeNT
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Planning
Commission meeting of January 8, 1975 be adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously,
and the meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
Marty Van Duyn, Secre~tary
-12-