HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-26-1975 Planning Commission Minutes=- OF SARATOGA PLAN~ING CO~riS .
~riNUTES
DATE: Wednesday, February 26, 1975 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California
TYPE: Regular Meeting
I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
A. ROLL CALL
Present:Commissioners Belanger, Callon, Lustig, Marshall, Martin, Woodward
and Zambetti
Absent: None
B. NEW CO~IISSIONERS
Chairman Marshall welcomed to the Planning Commission MesSrs. Fred Lustig and
Gene Zambetti, new Commissioners appointed by the City Council at its meeting
of Fe~uarl~J_, 1975. Chairman Marshall pointed out that Commissioner Zambetti
was a: tone=time [~'~h'~'~'~e City, as well as a d~nto~-m Village merchant. He added
that Commissioner Z~mbetti was past president 8f the City's dhamber of Commerce,
and had served 3 years on the City'S Parks and Recreation Commission. In
regards to Commissioner Lustig, Chairman Marshall noted that he had been a
resident of Saratoga for 9 years, had 3 children, and was president and chief
engineer of a Sunnyvale-based engineering firm.
C. ~RNUTES
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the read-
ing of the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of February 12, 1975 be
waived, and that they be approved as distributed to the Commission subject to
changing Ms. McDaniel's name to Mr. McDaniel on page 8, Item VII-C. The motion
was carried; Commissioner Callon abstained.
D. CITY COUNCIL REPORT
Co~f~issioner Martin gave an oral presentation of the City Council meeting of
February 19, 1975, noting of special interest to the Cornmission the following
items: (1) the appointment by the City Council of Messrs. Lustig and Zambetti
to the City Planning Commission; ~C~'~p~F~" on a County PlagRin&pepartment referral
with respect to two agricultural ~preServesy !9c~ed c~t~%'de ~Fa_t.p. ga Ci.~l_l~m~p;"
and (3) referral to the Commission by the Council for its-review a proposed
Slope Conservation Zoning Ordinance submitted ~y John Weir, president of the
Arguello Homeowners Association.
II. PL~LIC HEARINGS
A. C-172 - Blackwell Homes (Parker Ranch), Prospect and Stelling Roads, Change of
Zoning Request. from "A" (Agricultural) and "R-1-40,O00 (Single-Family
Residential) to "R-I-40,000 PC" (Single-Family Residential, Planned
Co~f~f~unity); a 218-acre parcel~ Continued from January 22~ 1975
The Secretary pointed out that due ~o on-going review of this application, Staff
~would not have a recommendation on this matter at this point; however, it would
recommend that a status report be given by the Subdivision Committee and the
applicant in an attempt to update the remaining Commissioners and the public on
the progress of this application.
Chairman ~rshall pointed out that the Subdivision Committee had been discussing
this matter with the applicant's representative, Mr. William Heiss, over a 2-month
period; and that it had requested the applicant provide information'_'relative to
comparing a conventional development of the property to that of a Planned Community
development, as well as providing a scal~ model of the-"PC" concept. He added
that the Committee felt at this point an explanation of the progress to-date
~-. ' ~. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY O1975
II. A. C-172 - Blackwell Homes (Parker Ranch) - Continued
would be appropriate, and had consequently requested the applicant's representa-
tive to give same. At this point, Chairman Marshall reopened the public hearing
on C-172 at 7:42 p.m.
PRESENTATION BY ~. HEISS
Mr. Heiss gave a brief slide presentation comparing four development plans: the
original plan submitted with the application, the mitigation plan which resulted
from a recommendation made in the revised EI~__a_h. MpJthetical conventional sub-
.division plan zoned R-i-40,000 which conformed with the City's Slope Conserva-
tion O~'dinance, and a revi~d'~l~'~ derived at as a result of further study. The
-following is a recap of this ~omparative explanation:
Conventional
Original Plan Mitigation Plan R-I-40,000 Revised Plan
Zoning "PC" "PC" "R-i-40,000" "PC"
Unit Count 135 units 127 units 105 units 109 units
Avg. Lot Size 1.61 acres 1.72 acres .2.08 acres 2.00 acres
Street Length lf~700.'feet 11,600 feet 15,000 feet 10,500 feet
Street Area 18 acres 18 acres 20 acres 16 acres
Lot Area 43 acres 41 acres i98~acres- 39 acres
Open Space 157 acres 159 acres 0 162 acres
Tree Loss* 254 trees 182 trees 250-275 trees 182 trees
Grading 190,000 cu.yds. 178,000 cu.yd~.~ 280,000 cu.yds. 160,000 cu.yds.
*Mr. Heiss pointed out that these figures reflected the amount of loss of trees
12" in diameter and over, adding that there was an estimated 4,000+ tree count
of 12" diameter and over trees on the site.
Mr. Heiss pointed out that the Subdivision Committee requested the developer to
create a hypothetical subdivision of~the property which would not utilize the
.~'Eq~'~.~R~p.t~bU~ woulj_~tilize the exi'~i~g Slope Density Ordinance. In addi-
.tion to the above chart, he explained that insomuch as the avera~"~ope of [he
property was 28.5~, the result was 105 dwelling units with a density of loes
varying from 1-4 acres and with an average size of approximately 2 acres per indi-
vidual site. He pointed out that a s~raight R-i-40,000 zone would not necessi-
tate a public hearing, but would only require a tentative and final subdivision
approval; further that there would be no public or preserved open space and
that all land would lie'.~within the homeowners' lots.
Mr. Heiss pointed out the major differences, other than those reflected on the
above chart, between the mitigation plan and the revised plan:
(1) Removal of the ridge-top. road, and the saving of "profile trees" on the
ridge. He pointed out that this would mean a lost to the developer of the
best locations for homesites in that these sites would have afforded the
best view.
(2) Permanent open space would be under a scenic easement which would prohibit
construction of this area in the future.
(3) The revised plan contemplated satisfying elements of the recently-completed
Northwest Saratoga Circulation Plan:
(a) Bridge, not existing on mitigation plan, be included which would
hel~ relieve traffic pressure on Prospect Road; and
(b) Connecting Prospect Road to either Comer Drive or Surrey Lane. The
revised plan proposed a connecting road between Prospect Road and
Comer Drive by way of extending Comer Drive.
(4) ~o trails on the property similar to the ones considered in the mitigation
Cit '
plan. Mr. Heiss announced that he would be taking the y s Trails and
Pathways Task Force on an on-site inspection of these proposed trails on
~rch 8, 1975
(5) j'Kl'nd of trees proposed for removal would be Slightly different from that
~roposed in the mitigation plan although the number would remain the same.
(6) Eliminated pole-type houses completely, and replaced them with down-slope
split-level houses? He added that the applicant proposed 77 down-slope
split-level houses, 16 side-slope split-level houses, and 16 level houses.
-2-
)~INUTES OF FEBRUARY 26 1975
II. A. C-172 - Blac~ell Homes (Parker Ranch) - Continued
CO~RSSION..RESPONSE
· Commissioner ~rtin asked if the street nearing the Fremont High School
District would either meet another street or would be a cul-de-sac. Mr.
Heiss stated that it could go either way pepending upon what the City's
improvement plans required. He added that there were 12 lots proposed on
that street, which met the City's requirement for the maximum number of
houses allowed on a cul-de-sac.
· Commissioner Lustig pointed out that from the initial plan to 'the r~vised
plan, the applicant had dropped the number of trees to be removed from 254
down to 180. He asked what could be done to reduce the number even lower.
Mr. Heiss ~tated that it would be difficult to reduce this figure in that
many of the~trees__p!_o. posed to be removed were part of the circulation studI~
He .stated that most of the trees proposed to be removed would come ~ut of :
..__~ .. heavily-wooded areas.
· Commissioner Lus~'ig ~Ske~ what responsibility the City would'~e required
to take in regards to the maintenance of the permanent open space. Mr.
Heiss explained that the 162 acres of permanent open space proposed would
be owned, maintained and controlled by the homeowners association with
certain reservations: scenic easements and the trails system w~aich would
be dedicated to the City. He added that the enabling ordinances of this
homeowners association (CC&Rs) would come under review Of the City as part
of this project.
· Commissioner Zambetti asked what bridges were proposed and their-.intended
span. Mr. Heiss stated that there were two existing bridges on Prospect
Road which were proposed to be widened for safety reasons. He added that
the other proposed bridge~had been recommended ~'y the City's traffic
engineer as part of the overall City's Circulation Study in order to relieve
traffic pressure on Prospect Road. He explained that this bridge was pro-
posed to be a clear-span bridge which would probably be 100-feet wide and
30-feet deep. He added that the site of this bridge was at a wide spot in
;-the road, and was basically free of trees.
· Commissioner Belanger, as Chairman of the Subdivision Committee, added to
the status reports given, the fact that geological problems had not been
addressed was not because the Committee was not considering them, but
rather "because they are engineering problems which will occur later on
in the planning process and they will be dealt with when it is time for
them to be dealt with."
· Chairman Marshall explained that the circulation pattern of this proposed
plan had been agreed upon by the Planning Staff, Subdivision Committee and
the Department of Public Works in an attempt to try to solidify the proba-
ble location of a road to secure the next step f~r ~d~'~lopment of a~ model
of the site.
CITIZEN RESPONSE
· Mr. Cliff Crane, member of the Board of Directors of the Good Government
Group, read into the record a letter which Stated that the Good Government
Group was in favor of the Planned Community zoning of the Parker Ranch
property "inasmuch as we are satisfied that the City can ultimately reach
agreement with the developer in achieving an attractive and satisfactory
use of the property."
CO~SSION ACTION
Chairman Marshall closed the public hearing on C-172 at 8:22 p.m., continued
same to the Planning Commission meeting of March 12, 1975, and referred the
matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review.
-3-
! ., · MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 1975
II. 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, Zone #7; Continued
'from January 22~ 1975
Chairman Marshall reopened C-178, Zone 7 public hearing at 8:23 p.m. The
Secretary stated that this matter had been continued pending further review of
Tract 1318~s existing non-conforming structures, noting that Staff~s conclusions
were based on a study of aerial photographs, a study of maps submitted with
building site applications, and an on-site inspection from streets approxima-
ting setbacks without actual measurements thereof. The Secretary reported that
a revised Staff Report had been prepared recommending the 64 lots within
Tract 1318 be rezoned from R-I-40,000 to R-i-20,000. He pointed out that after
reconsideration, however, Staff's recommendation relative to ~e three undeveloped
parcels comprising 13.83 acres would be to retain the present R-i-40,000 zoning
and change the General Plan to reflect same.
Mr. Loewke, Planning Staff, gave a brief explanation of Zone 7 explaining that
it was comprised of 64 lots in Tract 1318, bound on the north and west by pro-
perties zoned R-I-40,000, on the south by properties zoned R-i-40,000 PD and
R-M-4,000x, and on the east by properties zoned R-l-10,000. Mr. Loewke pointed
out that of the 64 lots proposed for rezoning, 57 were presently conforming in
area in that most of the structures presently complied with setbacks.established
for non-conforming lots as specified in Article 14 of the City's Zoning Ordinance.
He explained that setbacks for houses were determined as a percentage of site
width and depth, ~o~ile the setbacks for conforming lots were established in
the City's Zoning Ordinance per zoning district. It was pointed out that an
advantage of complying with the setback~ _of the zoning.__d~§~i__c_t would be that
in the event of a house being damaged over 50%, the homeowner could legally ~_~
rebuild his ~ouse up to the prescrib'ed setbacks; however, if the homeowners'
lot was non-cBnforming and 50% of his house was destroyed, he would only be
allowed to rebuild the house up to the prescribed setbacks of the zoning district.
Mr. Loewke added that by rezoning this area, there would be two advantages:
(1) a majority of the lots would become conforming, in that most of the lots
were pres'ently undersized for the R-I-40,000 zone~ and (2) the City would be
complying with the State ~p Act which stipulated a City's zoning map and ~
General Plan must be consistent. He added that in Staff's opinion, there would
be no disadvantages accrued to the subject 64 lots if the rezoning occurred.
In answer to a question raised by Commissioner Lustig as to why the entire area
was not being changed for total conformance rather than only a portion, it was
pointed out that insomuhh as many of the lots were only one-fourth acre in size,
the zone would have to be R-l-10,000.
WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE
The following correspondence was read into the record:
· A petition containing 141 names of residents in Tract 1318 opposing the
change of zoning of Zone 7. Attached to-this petition was a cartoon, 2-
page newspaper article concerning Petaluma, and a 2-page letter making
the following points:
(1) The rezoning t~ R-i-20,000 would result in setting a "dangerous prece-
dent" for surrounding undeveloped areas.
(2) The rezoning to R-I-20,000 would result in setting a "legal precedent
for an attorney to take a case to court to further down-grade from
R-I-20,000 to R-l-15,000 or lower."
(3)The rezoning to R~l-20,000 would weaken the property value.
(4) The results of rezoning to R-1-20,O00 would result in congested traffic
problems, the extension of Canyon View Drive to Pierce Road, further
slippage of clay and shale soil, cluster housing, water and sewer
problems, and the costly extension of limited fire- and police-protection.
The letter recapped the Commissioner's reasons for changing the area as
being: (1) complying with the State law which required conformance of the
Cit '
City's zoning map with the y s general plan; and (2) rebuilding to set-
backs in case of a 50%+ destruction of a structure.
~. MINUTES' OF FEBRUARY 1975 "'
T
II. B. C-178 - City of SararoSa, ChanSe of Zoning - Continued
· ~o-page letter from James Hendry, 21305 Canyon View Drive, suggesting that
a new concept of hillside zoning be established which would be an "R-1
Slope/Density Controlled, Minimum 1-5 Acres Site" zone.
· One-page letter from R.E. and Helen Abascal opposing the rezoning of Zone 7.
CITIZEN AND COMMISSION RESPONSE
· Russell Cr~.~ther, 20788 N0rada Court, stated that although he was not a
resident of this area, he opposed rezoning Zone 7 for the reasons contained
within the petitions's letter. "
(1) He asked how the R-I-20,000 zoning designation had been interpreted
with regards to the General Plan, pointing out that the General Plan
Map indicated 1~ density being an average of 1.3 units per acre. It
was explained that this 1.3 figure represented a gross acreage which
took into account 30% use of streets. It was also pointed out that
the use of the terms of very low density, low density and medium
density were broad compared to the specifics of R-I-40,000, R-I-20,000,
R-l-15,000, R-1-12,500 and R-l-10,000 zones, and that one must go back
to the public hearings held on the General Plan to determin~ what was
intended by the use of these terms. Chairman ~rshall added to this
that in order to achieve a map between those specifics and generalities
of very low, low and medium densities, Staff felt it necessary to make
some interpretative judgments relative to the zoning categories.
(2) Mr. Crowther further asked what was meant by "average" amount of units.
Chairman Marshall explained that it was an average of the parcel start-
ing with raw acreage and computing the gross. He added that it was a
matter of application of the City's Ordinance which had specifics as
to what items could be included in the computation of the net yield of
lots. Mr. Crowther contended that the General Plan set the stage for
future development and was-not intended to revise past developments.
He stated that he felt there was a potential alternative interpretation
of the General Plan which would be based on the average of all of the
properties zoned a particular way in the City, irregardless of whether
the properties were developed or undeveloped.
· Lois Cockshaw, 20095 Canyon View Drive, stated that she could see no reason
for rezoning this area; expressing concern that the undeveloped parcels con-
tained within this Zone may be subdivided, and further pointing out that
in her opinion the Commission was "extremely interested in coming in line
with a State plan for no ~ther better reason than coming in line." Chair-
man Marshall pointed out that there were two reasons for the change of
zoning: (1) The City was mandated by State law to have compliance between
its zoning map and its general plan; and (2) the General Plan contained a
policy therein which stated that "the City shall cause to cease all non-
conforming uses wherever possible," adding that this was an excellent oppor-
tunity for the City to reduce the number of non-conforming sites and non-
conforming dwellings by approximately 50% in this area.
· Marlerie Duffin, 21241 Canyon View Drive, stated that her husband and herself
were on the General Plan Citizens Committee, and stated that neither of them
had been aware -~tha~ we were downgrading this property." She stated that
insomuch as the General Plan stated that vacant parcels should conform with
the surrounding area's density, that a developer could argue in favor of
rezoning undeveloped adjacent properties to R-I-20,000. Chairman }~rshall
pointed out that a change of zoning could not occur without a public hearing;
and further pointed out that the proposed Slope Conservation Zone would
start at the edge of this zone and would thus prohibit the type of change
of which Ms. Duffin was speaking. Ms. Duffin asked how the Saratoga Oaks
Development had been allowed to develop on hillside property, to ~-~ich
Chairman Marshall explained that this development was within an area zoned
"R-M" and that slope density would not apply to this in the same sense as
it would apply to an "R-I'zone insomuch as this was a total pre-planned
development and not a series of individual entities.
-5-
~ : ~[INUTES OF FEBRUARY 1975
II. B. C-178 - City of Sarato~a~ Change of Zonin~--Zone 7 - Continued
· Bill Cunningham, 21070 Canyon View Drive, made the following comments:
(1) He asked if the proposed rezoning included conforming lots as well as
non-conforming lots, to which Chairman ~rshall explained that it in-
cluded 64 lots within Tract 1318. Mr. Cunningham then asked for an
explanation as to the reason why the City wished to rezone lots 53,
54 and 86 as they were presently conforming with R-i-40,000 require-
ments. Chairman ~rshall explained that all three parcels were presently
undersized under the present zoning, pointing out that: (a) Lot 53
comprised 1.29 acres with a minimum lot size of 2.14 acres using the
slope density ordinance; (b) that Lot 54 comprising 1.02 acres, had
an'laverage slope of 38% and would have a minimum lot size of 2.6 acres
using the slope density ordinance; and (c) that Lot 86 comprised 1.09
acres in size ~ith a minimum lot size of 2.6"'~acres using the slope
density ordinance.
(2) Mr. Cunningham contended that by rezoning this area to R-I-20,000, the
City would be misleading potential property buyers into thinking they
could subdivide their lots. Discussion followed on this point, with
Commissioner Belanger pointing out that if a"~0'~'tial buye~ in~p~d
the property on-site and could realize its slope was great, she did
not see "how by putting an R-I-20,000 number on a lot would make it
any more appealing to a buyer than an R-I-40,000 designation."
Commissioner Lustig added that there was a legal terminology applica-
ble to this, which was "buyer beware."
(3) Mr. Cunningham pointed out that the rezoning would alter the setbacks.
Chairman Marshall noted that generally speaking the larger number of
lots would become conforming under R-i-20,000, and would consequently
be subject to the setbacks of that zone. Discussion followed on the
actual number of vacant lots in the zone, and contrary to Staff's
figure of 3, the number was actually 5 vacant lots. ~. Cunningham
expressed a concern with the setbacks on these vacant lots, pointing
~u.~_ ~_h_a~_~_e_o~.med Lot 87~"~ the sideyard setbacks of the vacant
lot next to his would adverse~=a~f.~F~t him. He objected to t~"~e~Bni~g
of Zone 7 on this basis, and on the basis that he wanted to preserve
open space.
Bill Martin, 21327 Canyon View Drive, stated that if this was r ezoned,
development .of the 46 acres behind Canyon View Drive could be effected by
this change of zoning in that a developer would have a strong argument in
favor of rezoning this area to R-I-20,000. Chairman }~rshall pointed out
that Zone 7 would be ~he border line whereby the proposed Slope Conservation
Zone would start, pointing out that the minimum lot size/allowed under this .....
Zone would be one-ac~e. '
=' Discussion followed on these points, and i['~ls' [~e Commission's consensus that
"~alid arguments given for not ~eZonin~ Were: (1) decreased setbacks might
affect the vacant parcels in Zone 7,. and (2) the fact that the citizens simply
did not want the zone changed.
In answer to the arguments raised in the petition's letter, it was pointed out
that: (1) to argument 1 regarding setting a precedent for other surrounding
undeveloped areas, that the adjacent'property would fall under the requirements
of the Slope Conservation Zone; (2) to argument 2 regarding setting a legal
precedent, that this argument was not really applicable; (3) to argumenti'3~
regarding decreased property value, rezoning would not affect this area in that
the change of zoning would reflect what the majority of the lots actually were
at present; and (4) to argument 4 regarding increased traffic, etc., there were
only 5 vacant lots of'the 64 undeveloped, and that these lots could not be
developed to any greater extent under the proposed zoning than under the present
zoning.
Commissioner }~rtin stated that he felt the sideyard setbacks would not actually
be decreased in that "this zone is already in an area in which, in order to be
-6-
· ..~ MINUTE~ OF FEBRUARY~19Z5 ~
II. B. C-178 - City of Saratoga, Change of Zoning, Zone 7 - Continued
conforming, the setbacks have to be smaller than what is allowed in the R-I-40,000
zone." He added that there would be a possibility that the-rearya~d'~bidks=
may be decreased slightly, but that ehe front-yard setbacks would not be effected
in that they would remain the same under either zoning. He concluded his state-
ments by contending that the only valid argument regarding setbacks would be a
possibility that some people could extend their structures in the rear by an
additional 15,~feet.
It was pointed out that the setback differences of the two zones were:
R-i-40,000: front yard = 30 feet; side yard = 20 feet; rear yard = 50 feet
R-i-20,000: front yard = 30 feet;' side yard = 15 feet; rear yard = 35 feet
It was further pointed out that the maximum site areas covered by structures
and setbacks as stipulated by City OrdinanceS-were: R-i-40,000 = 25% and
R-i-20,000 = 30%.
· Joe Escobar, 21030 Canyon View Drive, stated that he did not know what the
purpose of public hearings were if not to listen to the citizens, and the
residents of Zone 7 were, in his opinion, telling the Commission they did
not want change. He stated: "We have driven Chevrolets for the last 20
years and you are telling us we have to drive Fords. You say there really
is no change but we are not sure that is .~rue." He asked who was responsi-
ble for the original R-I-40,000 .designation; and it was pointed out that
typically when most cities took over an area, they zoned it the most restric-
tive zone possible in order to prohibit any further development until, with
time and further study, they can rezone it appropriately. Mr. Escobar
stated that he felt that if the City felt it must change something, it should
change the General Plan, adding that by not rezoning this area it would
" ive
g us the satisfaction of leaving things the way they are. The people
are telling you, there is no reason to change. Even though it may not
effect us 5-10 years from now, we think it might. We have lived in this
zoning and you have given us variances in the past, so why not continue
in that vein?"
James Hendry, 21305 Canyon View Drive, stated "since we are put on the de-
fensive as to trying to defend why we want to retain our present zoning,
I think my letter will probably tell you better that there is nothing that
you have in the ordinances of Saratoga that-would provide proper zoning for
Canyon View Drive. .~nat you are doing is perpetuating a position and mak-
ing half of the lots possible conforming." He pointed out that the City
did have a slope conservation ordinance which overroad any zoning within
the City, and that he felt the City should adopt a new zone designation
using slope conservation as the base. Discussion followed on this, and
it was pointed out that the Slope Density Ordinance was a recent ordinance
and would not apply retroactively to an ar~a ~ahich was already built.
At this time Commissioner Martin requested Staff contact interested citizens
with specific details on h~ this zoning would effect their individual lots.
Consideration?.was given to hol~di~g a special study ~eSsi. gp between..tb.e residents
of this zone, the Staff and membets-..lof.the Commission._in order. to'allow S~aff-oppor-
tunity to obtain details on how the vacant lots in this area wohld be affected
by the proposed zone.
· Judge Panelli, 21051 Bank Mill Lane, stated that his primary concern had
been with the 13.83 acres of undeveloped property ~ich had been taken out
of Zone 7. He added, however, that his sympathies were with the other
problems and that he felt the residents of this area were very sincere in
their objectives. He further stated that he felt the proposed study ses-
sion was a very fair action to take.
Chairman Marshall called a brief recess in order for Staff and the residents
of this area to meet and discuss an appropriate time to hold this study session.
RECESS: 10:05 - 10:25 p.m.
-7-
-~ ~ MI~UTES OF FEBRUARY 1975
II. B. C-178 -°dity of Saratoga~ Change of Zoning, Zone 7 - Continued
Chairman Marshall stated that two members of the Planning Commission had indi-
cated a desire to take action this evening, and that if there was an affirma-
tive vote to close the public hearing, action could be taken. He further/~ded__
'~'_=fh'~t~f~r~fn~'t'i~t~l'd~l~'~l~'~h'is matter b~f~~ City Council,
the body with the authority to make the ultimate decision on Zone 7. He stated,
however, that the study session would still take place.
CO~R~ISSION ACTION
Commissioner Callon moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the public
hearing on C-178, Zone 7 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and
the public hearing on C-178, Zone 7 was closed at 10:30 p.m.
Commissioner Callon moved~that the Planning Commission recommend to the City
Counsil a change of zoning on C-178, Zone 7 from R-I-40,000 to R-I-20,000.
This motion was amended to:
Commissioner Callon moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Planning
Commission recommend to the City Council a change of zoning on C-178, Zone 7
fromR-i-40,000 to R-I-20,000 per the Staff Report dated February 26, 1975. The
motion was carried; Commissioner Lustig voted no.
Chairman Marshall directed the three undeveloped parcels comprising 13.83 acres
be agendized for the next General Plan review hearing.
After discussion, it was agreed that the study session between the residents of
Zone 7, ~emb~s.Z~fa~h~=.C~mmissi~nn~nd~S~ff~w~d~.d~beihe~d.~.in~th~-C~ty`rC~unci~.
Chambers o~ March 6, 1975, at 7:30 p.m.
C. GF-300 Amendments to Articles and/or Sections of Ordinance NS-3, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Saratoga; Continued from February 12~ 1975
The Secretary noted that after the last Planning Commission meeting, a brief
study session had been held to discuss this proposed Ordinance. He stated that
amendments had been made by the City Attorney as recommended at this session;
and that Staff recommended this Ordinance be approved by the Planning Commission
and forwarded to the City Council with the recommendation that it be adopted.
Chairman ~rshall opened the public hearing on GF-300 at 10:35 p.m.
Commissioner Martin recommended that Section 15.1, Purposes, be modified as
follows:
""Se'~ion 15.1 PURPOSES
This Article is intended to limit the number and extent of non-
conforming uses by prohibiting expansion, ~nlargement or intensification,
by prohibiting reestablishment after abandonment, by prohibiting the al-
teration of the structures they occupy, by prohibiting restoration after
destruction and after reasonable periods of amortization, or by requiring
their termination. Eventually all non-conforming uses are to be eliminated.
This Article is further intended to limit the number and extent
of non-conforming structures by prohibiting their being moved, altered
or enlarged so as to increase the discrepancy between existing conditions
and the standards prescribed in this Ordinance, by prohibiting their
restoration after destruction, and by requiring their removal or con-
formance after abandonment. Eventually all non-conforming structures
are to be eliminated or altered to conform to the district regulations
in which they are located.
In addition, it is intended that certain non-conforming uses in "R"
(residential) districts that are of such a nature as to be easily suscep-
tible of generating noxious nuisance factors without reasonable regulation,
shall be permitted to continue only under Use Permit until termination under
other provisions of this Article."
-8-
~ ~. ~NUTES OF FEBRUAt 1975
II. C. GF-300 Amendments to Articles and/or Sections of Ordinance NS-3 - Continued
Commissioner Lustig asked how this would effect historical buildings, and
Chairman Marshall explained that 'the Gene~'~l'P'li~ s'~eH"'~"H~¥i~e'to retain
certain historical structures, but that the City did not presently have an
historical preservation ordinance. He pointed, however, that Staff was presently
working on drafting an ordinance of this nature. Chairman Marshall stated that
GF-300 did not preclude the saving of any structure or use, but that it did
streng~hen~L the abili.ty for the City to cause a cessation of non-conforming
uses and/or structures, particularly where non-conforming uses and/or structures
in an "R" zone were capable of causing noxious nuisances.'
The City Attorney recommended the Ordinance's title be modified as follows:
"ORDINANCE NO. NS-3.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
A~NDING ORDINANCE NS-3, THE ZONING ORDINANCE,
BY AMENDING SECTION 1.5 AND ARTICLE 15 THEREOF
RELATING TO NON-CONFODIING USES AND STRUCTURES,
THEIR DEFINITIO~S,'CONTINUATION AND TERMINATION"
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the public
hearing on GF-300 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the
public hearing on GF-300 was closed at 10:55 p.m.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Planning
Commission approve changes and amendments to Zoning Ordinance NS-3, Section 1.5
and Article 15, as above-amended, and that they be ~9~warded to the City Council
with the Commission's-recommendation for adoption. The motion was carried
unanimously.
D. V-413 - Betty J. Rudd, 13387 Christie Drive, Request for Variance to Allow a
7-foot Sideyard Setback in Lieu of the Required 10-foot Setback and to
Allow a 7-foot Rearyard Setback in Lieu of the Required 25-foot Setback
(Ordinance NS-3~ Section 3.7)~ Continued from January 22~ 1975
Chairman Marshall opened the public'hearing on V-413 at 10:56 p.m. Mr. Burt of
the Planning Staff stated that a Staff Report had been prepared on this which
recommended denial of the request for variance on the hasis that: (1) the hard-
ship which was caused by the past garage conversion~ would not constitute an
unnecessary hardship in that it was self-imposed; (2) the hardship attached to
this site was not uhique but occurred throughout the neighborhood; and (3) ac-
cording to-~rticIe 3, Section 3.7 of the Zoning Ordinance, denial of this
variance would not deprive the applicant of privileges received by others in
the neighborhood, but would constitute granting a special privilege to the
applicant if the request for variance was approved.
Mr. Burt stated that the Staff Report dated October 9, 1974 on V-413 had sug-
gested that a neighborhood study be conducted recommending possibly a zoning
amendment to rectify neighboring problems. He added, however, that Staff's
conclusions of this study had been that unless an extensive and very thorough
landuse study was made of the area on conjunction with an agressive code en-
forcement program, there would be little advantage in deviating from the exist-
ing zoning regulations.
Commissioner Martin reported that the Variance Committee had inspected this
property on-site, and that the'p~Sgnt~prSperty owner was aware of the Staff
Report's reco~,~endation. He added that he would be in favor of denying this
request for variance without prejudice, so that after further study was made
.by the Staff of the neighborhood and it was determined that a variance could
be granted, the applicant could reapply for said variance.
Discussion followed on the general problems of the neighborhood, and Staff and
the Variance Committee were requested to continue studying the problems of this
area and report to the Planning Commission on same at the Commission's
May 14, 1975 meeting.
-9-
~ ~. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 1975
II. D. V-4Y3"~'~66~y J. Rudd - Con'[inued
Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the public
hearing on V-413 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public
hearing on V-413 was closed at 11:12 p.m.
Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning
Commission deny without prejudice the request for variance on application V-413
per the Staff Report dated February 26, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously.
E. V-418 - Western Federal Savings and Loan Association, Big Basin Way - Request
for Variance to Allow a Free-Standing Sign Measuring 5' x 6' to be
Located at 14411 Big Basin Way (Ordinance NS-3, Section 10.5); Continued
from February 12 ~ 1975
The Secretary reported that the applicant had presented a new proposal for a
larger sign at the Design Review Committee meeting of February 18, 1975, and
that the Committee had requested the applicant submit new drawings pertaining to
same. Insomuch as these plans had not yet been submitted, Chairman Marshall
directed V-418 be continued to the Planning CC~L-~LiSSiOn meeting .of March 12, 1975,
and referred same to the Design Review Committee and Staff for further review
and report.
F. UP-261 - Saratoga Cable Television, Inc., Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - Request for
Conditional Use Permit to Allow the Storage of Construction Equipment
and Supplies and a Signal Processing Antenna Site to be Located at
12299 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road (Ordinance NS-3, Section 7.3); Continued
from February 12~ 1975
Chairman Marshall reported that a meeting had been held On February 25, 1975
between the applicant, the City ~ianager, the Subdivision Committee, the Staff
and two members from the Saratoga Manor Homeowners Association on this matter.
He stated that there were conflicting statements as to what the stated intent
of the City Council had been in regards to cable television within the City, and
that it was his recommendation that this matter be continued pending a statement
of intent from the City Council ~eh'i~ matter. He added that it was the City
Manager's understanding that the City Council wanted the cable television system
to be a primary system, whereas the applicant had stated in his application that
it was the Council's intent that the Saratoga antenna system be a secondary
system.
At this time, Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing on UP-261 at 11:16 p.m.
Mr. Hathaway, president of the Northwest Saratoga Homeowners Association, stated
that he wished to make a policy statemen.t__e_ndo_r_Si_n_g' _o_ppo_s~_i_o_n._of t_b_i_s_._a_n_ten_n_a
site as~previously presented by the Saratoga Manor~ Homeowners Association. Mr.,
' Hathaway pointed out that the Northwest Saratoga Homeowners Association repre-
sented 190 families, was an incorporated association, and was bound on the west
by Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, on the east by West Valley Freeway, on the north by
Prospect Road and on the south by Knollwood Drive. He explained that Knollwood
-.~ Drive contained 44 houses which~were ali_gn. ed with Hubbard-Johnson; and
added that each of these homes could see the Hubbard Johnson roof line, and
._w_9_U_l.d._cons.e_quen_.tly._be able to see ~"~y array ~bove and beyond this roof line
which will be additionally obtrusive." ~ ......
Discussion followed on what had been the intended use of cable television in
Saratoga, and it was the Commission's consensus that'UPr2B'i~"~6htinued to the
Planning Commission meeting of April 9, 1975 pending a statement from the City
Council as to whether the cable antenna system was to be a primary or secondary
.system. Chairman Marshall ~losed the public hearing on UP-261 at 11:24 p.m.,
directed this matter be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of
April 9, 1975, and referred same to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for
further review and report.
MINUTES OF FEBRL~ARY [975
II. G. UP-262 - The Saratoga United Presbyterian Church, 20455 Herriman Avenue ~
Request for Use Permit to Allow the Siting of a Temporary Portable
Office Building Measuring 8' x 20' x 10' in Height Inside the Court-
yard Walls at the North Side of the Saratoga United Presbyterian
Church on Herriman Avenue (Ordinance NS-3~ Section 3.3)
Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing on UP-262 at 11:25 p.m. The Secre-
tary reported that a Staff Report had,not been prepare~'~'[~f~"m~er, and
that Staff recommended this be continued. ~here were no further comments.
Chairman Marshall closed the public hearing on UP-262 at 11:26 p.m., directed
this be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 12, 1975, and re-
ferred same to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report.
III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS
A. SD-1112 - Alan Chadwick, Pierce Road, Subdivision Approval - 8 lots; (Expira-
tion extended to February 26~ 1975); Continued from January 22~ 1975
The Secretary stated that this matter should be continued to the Commission meet-
ing of March 26, 1975 pending further study of the Northwest Saratoga Circulation
Study, adding that the applicant had submitted a letter granting an extension to
this date. Chairman Marshall directed SD-1112 be continu&d to the Planning
Commission meeting of March 26, 1975, and referred same to the Subdivision
COmmittee and Staff for further review and report.
B. SDR-1159 - John Carey, Fruitvale Avenue, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expira-
tion extended to February 26~ 1975); Continued from February 12~ 1975
The Secretary'stated that a Staff Report had been prepared on this matter
recommending approval.
The applicant was present and stated that he wished to appeal Conditions (J)
and (L) of the Staff Report. Commissioner Belanger pointed out that with
regard to Condition (J), the driveway requirement was a minimum-width require-
ment of the Fire Department to allow access of fire trucks. With regard to
Condition (L), she noted that a sanitary sewage ran very close to the front of
the applicant's property, and that it was the Sanitation District's policy as
well as the Planning Commission's policy to phase out septic tanks in favor of
sanitary sewers whenever possible.
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the
Planning Commission approve application SDR-1159 and the tentative map
(Exhibit A) subject to the Staff Report dated February 26, 1975. The motion
was carried unanimously.
Chairman ,_Marshall advised the applicant that he could appeal the Commission's
decision to the City Council within 10 days of said decision.
C. SDR-1160 - Jerome Gilmore, Austin Way, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expira-
tion extended to February 26~ 1975); Continued from February 12~ 1975
The Secretary stated that the file was incomplete due to the Water District~s
request for cross-section~ of the creek, and that a letter had been received
from the applicant granting an extention to the Commission meeting of ~rch 12.
Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1160 be continued to the Planning Commission
meeting of March 12, 1975, and referred same to the Subdivision Committee and
Staff for further review and report.
D. SDR-1161 - ~rgolis, Chatzky & Dunne~t, APC, 4th Street and Big Basin Way,
Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expl-ration extended to February 26,
1975); Continued from February 12~ 1975
The Secretary stated that this matter had been discussed at the Committee-of-the-
Whole meeting on February 25, 1975 relative to Santa Clara Valley Water District
!e_~q_~_rements~ and that this matter needed further review by the Subdivision
Committee. He noted that the applicant had been requested to provide a letter
of extension to the next Commission meeting, but had not as yet submitted same.
-il -
~ ~INUTES OF FEBRUARY 1975
III. D. SDR-1161 - Margolis~ Chatzky & Dunnett - Continued
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that the Planning
Commission deny application SDR-1161 subject to receipt of a letter granting
extension to the Planning Commission meeting of March 12, 1975. The motion was
carried unanimously.
E. SDR-1163 - Albert Dutton, La Paloma Way, Building Site Approval - 2 Lots (Expires
March 4~ 1975); Continued from February 12~ 1975
The Secretary stated that a Staff Report had been prepared on this matter which
recommended approval.
The applicant was present and indicated a desire for additional time in which to
review the conditions of the Staff Report. ~hairrnan Marshall requested he submit
'to the Planning Commission a letter granting an extension to the Co~mf~ission meet-
ing of March 12, 1975, and the applicant submitted same.
Chairman ~rshall directed SDR-1163 be continued to the Planning Commission
meeting of ~rch 12, 1975, and referred same to the Subdivision Committee and
Staff for further review and report.
The Secretary noted that the files were not complete on the following items, and
reco~m~ended they be continued:
F. SDR-1164 - Frank C. Shepherd, Douglass Lane and Taos Drive, Building Site
Approval - 4 Lots (Expires March 18, 1975); Continued from
February 12~ 1975
G. SD-1165 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation, Marion Road, Subdivision
Approval 5 Lots (Expires April 3~ 1975)
Chairman ~rshall directed SDR-1164 and SD-1165 be continued to the Planning Commission
meet'fng of March 12, 1975, and referred same to the Subdivision Committee and Staff
for further review and report.
IV. DESIGN REVIEW
A. A-462 - Dividend Industries, Saratoga Avenue and Christie Drive, Final Design
Review Approval - 14 Lots; Continued from January 22~ 1975
Mr. Loewke explained that the applicant had submitted revised plans which were
scheduled to be reviewed by the Design Review Committee on ~rch 4, 1975.
Chairman Marshall directed A-462 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting
of March 12, 1975, and referred same to the Design Review Committee and Staff
for further review and report.
B. A-465 - Anthony R. Cocciardi~ Mr. Eden Road~ Final Design ReView Approval - 1 Lot
Mr. Loewke explained that the applicant had submitted revised plans which were
scheduled to be reviewed by the Design Review Committee on ~rch 4, 1975.
Chairman ~rshall directed A-465 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting
of March 12, 1975, and referred same to the Design Review Committee and Staff
for further review and report.
V. ENVIROnmeNTAL I~ACT DETEP~IINATIONS
The following Negative Declaration was filed between the period of February 12 and
February 26, 1975:
SD-1165 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation, Marion Road, Subdivision
Approval - 5 Lots
VI. CO~fONICATIONS - WRITTEN
A. Petition containing 141 signatures of residents in Tract 1318, with letter,
opposing rezoning of Zone 7, C-178. Staff was directed to make this part of
C-178, Zone 7 file.
-12-