Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-12-1975 Planning Commission Minutes OF SARATOGA PLANNING CO}~fISS MINUTES TIME: Wednesday, March 12, 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, lLustig, }~rtin, ~rr,. Woodward and Zambetti Absent: None B. MINUTES Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the reading of the minutes of February 26, 1975 be waived, and that they be approved as distributed to the Commission subject to the following corrections: (1) on page 1, second sentence of Item I-B should read "wa~ a long-time resident" instead of "was a residentV'; (2) on page 7, fourth line of the fifth paragraph should read "Staff and members of the Commissionv instead of "Staff and the Planning Commission"; (3) on page 8, second line of the ~ixth paragraph should read "Staff and members of the Commission" instead of "Staff and the Planning Commission"; (4) on page 9, second paragraph of Item II-D the spelling of the word "aggressive" should be corrected; and (5) on page 10, the third paragraph of Item II-F the spelling of the wor~ "}~nor" should be corrected. The motion to approve the minutes of February 26, 1975 was carried unanimously. C. CITY COUNCIL REPORT Commissioner Zambetti gave a brief report of the City Council meeting of March 5, noting of special interest to the Commission the following item: The City Council upheld the Commission's conditions on SDR-1162, a matter appealed by Mr. Cantacessi, subject to reevaluation of the trail.proposed through his property. A copy of these minutes is on file at the Administration Office. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. C-172 - Blackwell Homes (Parker Ranch), Prospect and Stelling Roads, Change of Zoning Request from "A" (Agriculture) and "R-i-40,000" (Single-Family Residential) to "R-l~40,000 PC" (Single-Family Residential, Planned Community); a%218-acre parcel]' Continued from February 26~ 1975 Chairman Marshall'r~opened the public hearing on C-172 at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Burt, Acting Secretary, .stated that Staff recommended this matter be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 23, 1975 pending receipt and review of a scale model of the site being prepared by the developer. CO}PlISSION AND CITIZEN RESPONSE · Gary Stephenson, 22505 Rolling Hills Road, read a letter into the record dated March 10, 1975 from the Friends of Painless Parker requesting a written response to the following questions: "(1) I~en will the exact number of homes to be built be decided? (2) If the PlanniBg Commission approves the change of zoning to PC, will there be additional public hearings between then and tentative map approval? (3) How binding is the project plan, and what variety and magnitude of changes could take place between then and tentative map approval? (4) How will the Slope Conservation ordinance, when it is finally agreed upon, be factored into the project plan? (5) What types of variances are being considered as part of the project plan, and how numerous are they? ~RNUTES OF }~RCH 12~ 1975 II. A. C-172 - Blac~ell Homes (Parker Ranch) ~ Cont'd (6) We understand that more detailed geologic studies are going to have to be made, but will they be done before tentative map approval? (7) Have the recommendations made by the Flood Control district been made part of the project plan?" Chairman ~rshall stated that the Commission recognized the concerns expressed in the letter, and added that he wished to respond to the questions orally with the written response to be handled via transmission of the recorded minutes of the meeting: (1) To Question #1, Chairman ~rshall stated: "In answer to your question, the exact number of houses will be decided upon at the time of the site development plan." (2) To Question #2, Chairman Marshall stated: "The answer to that is yes, since public hearings relative to the change of zoning must be held by the City Council. Once we get to the point that we have voted upon a change of zoning, then the next set of public hearings will be conducted by the City Council." (3) To Question #3, Chairman M~rshall stated: "The project plan becomes the guiding document to the entire activity associated with construction as opposed to R-i-40,000 which, once you have a site development plan, may or may not show the houses and may not have as many features." In answer to the question of whether there was a gap between the tentative site map and the project plan, Chairman Marshall replied: "I would suspect in this case that we will put the project plan and the tentative map together and it will be a very thick package which comprehensively describes the entire project." (4) To Question #4, Chairman Marshall stated: "The slope conservation ordi- nance, when finally put into play, would be factored into the project plan on the basis of time. If the zoning is approved before the~slope conservation ordinance has been passed, the new ordinance would not apply. If the slope conservation ordinance were enacted before the approval on the site, then development would be subject to that ordi- nance. There is an ordinance being developed, and there is a meeting tomorrow night to discuss the residential hillside ordinance." (5) To Question #5, Chairman ~rshall stated: "There are no variance~ being considered at this time. Within the general framework of the ordinances as presently structured for slope conservation, there would not be variances. There is an entirely different approach to house location on hillside development." (6) To Question #6, Chairman Marshall stated: "Geological studies will progress as the plans progress. If there is an approval, it could be contingent upon conducting additional studies, or it could require that additional studies be conducted before approval is granted. It is an on-going process." In answer to a question of whether this would occur at tentative map approval time, Chairman ~rshall responded: "To usea simile: a developer :started to develop plans off Big Basin Way and he did some geologic studies. Based on the preliminary study, a tentative map approval was granted and the developer started with the development. When he started, that included more extensive geological studies, and it was found that approximately 10 acres of the land was unbuildable, and at that point he had to fall back and that became perma- nent open space. That is a risk the developer has to take. You should feel that at_ this point we are~approaching this very cautiously and thoroughly." (7) To Question #7, Chairman Marshall stated: "I believe that the recom- mendationS~d~'~y the Flo6d Control are well understood, but if not, there will be a ~ialogue on the subject. -2- ~}5NUTES OF }~RCH 12 II. A. C-172 - Blackwell Homes (Parker Ranch) - Cont'd · At this point Commissioner Lustig asked how the Friends of Painless Parker group was structured, and approximately how many members it represented. Mr. Stephenson responded that the group included the Greater Prospect Hills Homeowners Association, the Greater Arguello Homeowners Association, and a few other associations which were near Prospect Road. He explained that the group had two co-chairmen, himself and Mr. Charles Hunter; and that there was a Board which consisted of representatives from each of the home- owners associations. He added that the Greater Prospect Homeowners Associa- tion included approximately 50 families. · Johh W~ir, president of the Greater Arguello Homeo~.mers Association, further responded to Commissioner Lustig's question as follows: The Greater Arguello Homeowners Association was organized in January of 1974, comprises 94 familes with approximately 197 adults; further, that there were 20 members on the Board of Directors and an Executive Committee which consisted of Mr. Weir, ~. Sawyer and Mr. Crowther. He explained that there were two "block supervisors an every segment" who were responsible for meeting with the residents to gather and give out information. He stated that the represen- tatives of the association were'duly elected at a meeting held by the asso- ciation, and that he had been elected president, and Mr. Crowther and Mr. Sawyer had been elected vice-presidents. ~He added that the association ~was not incorporated, but had bee~ ~ormed on an informal basis; and further no[ed that Messrs. Crowther and Sawyer were both authorized to speak on certain issues for the association. Mr. Weir requested a copy of the minutes of this meeting. Further, he stated: "The purpose of getting up here tonight is that I want to make certain that the reason we are sitting by quietly and not making much in the way of comments on the current process is because we understand that both you and the developer are trying to come to final plans and design, and it is in a changing process. I do not want to construe in any way that the solution you have is the best one, or we like it, or we support it. We are just waiting until you have completed the task and are awaiting corf~fLents from the public." · Chairman Marshall pointed out that' the Friends' letter contained reference to the Williamson Act. He stated: "This Commission is not involved with the decision relative to the Williamson Act. That is a matter for the City Council and we do not want to hear. about it again." · Linda Stuckey, 22600 Prospect Road, asked for specifics on the meeting being held on March 13, 1975. Chairman Marshall explained that it was a special study session on the proposed draft ordinance of the residential hillside zone, and that it would be held at 7:30 p.m. in the Crisp Conference Room at City Hall. · Russell Crowther, 20788 Norada Court, made the following comments: He pointed out that according to the Subdivision Map Act it was required that new developments be in accordance with the General Plan. Chairman Marshall explained that-'one could not impose an ordinance that was not existing if a developer applied for and received approval of a development under existing ordinances. Mr. Crowther explained that it was their concern that the City was causing the developer expenses which were irre- placeable and which could be negated by ordinanceS. He added: "If the slo~'e'c0nservation ordinance does come in prior to change of zoning, and if it had a large impact on this development, don't you think things the City were requiring (scale model, etc.) would cause potential litigation with regards to the City?" Chairman Marshall stated that if there was a new ordinance at the time of approval, the new ordinance would be.r binding onethe development. He added, however, that he did not feel the City would be subject to litigation in this matter in that the direction of the Staff and the Subdivision Committee with regard to the Parker Ranch development was not much different from the proposed hillside district ordinance. -3- ~MINUTES OF 1~~ II. A. C-172 - Blackwell Homes (Parker Ranch) - Cont'd Mr. Crowther asked if the City had made a commitment to the developer. Chairman Marshall stated that the developer had assured the Subdivision Commit- tee that it could change the scale model, adding: 'We are merely trying to get to the point in the planning p~ocess where we have a three-dimensional model to work from, and we are trying to have sufficient detail on it that we can use it for the next step in the process. This would not constitute a commitment by the City or by any individual in the City to the developer for anything." Commissioner Lustig added: "Just because the developer is building a model does not mean we have to approve it." Mr. Cr~ther stated that it was their understanding relative to the discus- sions of the EIR, that a geological study of the site would be required prior to tentative map approval. Chairman Marshall pointed out that geological studies would be occurring throughout the course of development, and added: "These studies will be conducted depending upon the increasing degree of detailed design and depending upon what the preliminary studies show." Mr. Crowther cited a portion of Section 4(A)(5) of the Zoning Ordinance as follows: "Standards of site area and site coverage and so forth would in the aggregate be at least equivalent to the standards prescribed by the re- zonings for the district with which a planned community district is combined;" further: "the City Planning Commission may grant variances." He asked what variances would be granted relative to this development, and it was explained that at this point no variances were being considered. Mr. Crowther further cited the Zoning Ordinance, Section 4(A)(6) as follows: "That the entire site would be developed in accordance with a final site development plan previously approved by the City Planning Commission.~' He asked if approval of the "PC" zone meant approval of the final site develop- ment plan. Chairman ,.Marshall responded that in the case of the "PC," the site development plan and the tentative map were one and the same, the only difference being that the development plan usually contained more infor- mation than the tentative map would normally contain. · Commissioner Martin requested }~. Heiss to include as part df the scale model the relationship of adjacent properties, particularly the Arguello area. It was agreed that insomuch as the model had been started, that the developer would provide a two-dimensional map of this area. CO~SSSION ACTION Chairman ~rshall closed the public hearing on C-172 at 8:35 p.m., continued same to the Planning Commission meeting of April 23, 1975, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report. 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 19, 20 and 22; Continued from February 26~ 1975 ZONE 19 Mr. Loewke, Planner I, stated that Zone 19 consisted of two parcels with an approximate total acreage of .55 acres. He explained that there was a nursery school on the property operating under Use Permit ~UP-81, that the existing zoning was R-I-IO,000 and that in order to be consistent with the General Plan, Staff reco~fm~ended this zone be rezoned to "CN." Mr. Loewke further pointed out that the zoning of the properties to the north of the site was R-l-10,000, the property to the west of the site was zoned "PA," the property diredtly to the south of the site was zoned "CN" and was the Quito ~hopping Center,. and the properties to the east were zoned "CN." Mr. Loewke pointed out that the proposed rezoning would still make the nursery school non-conforming, but that the use would be permitted to continue indefinitely without being in vi61ation of City / Ordinances. / At this'time Chairman ~rshall opened the public hearing on C-178, Zone 19, at 8:37 p.m. -4- ~MINUTES OF MARCH 12 II. B. C-178 - Zone 19 - Cont'd One piece of correspondence was read into the record from Elizabeth Weller, resident of Saratoga, protesting the rezoning of Zone 19. Commission and Citizen Response · Commissioner Martin pointed out that the property to the east of the site was owned by the United Presbyterian Church of North America not "the site of the United Presbyterian Church of North America" as was reported in the Staff Report. He further pointed out that the property to the west of the site was owned by the Prince of Peace Evangelical'Lutheran Church not "occupied by the Prince of Peach Evangelical Lutheran Church'.' as was reported in the Staff Report. He suggested the Staff Report be amended to reflect these corrections. · Commissioner ~rtin expressed concern that by rezoning the smaller parcel, it might affect the current use of the driveway by the Church. It was pointed- out that the rezoning would not affect the ~ccess~used by the Church. · Commissioner Martin stated that he felt this zone should be '~CN" rather than "CN" in that the nursery school would be conforming under a ~'PA" zone; further, that by rezoning this zone to "PA"/it 'tween the Church, the agricultural area and'the "CN" area. He pointed out that the Commission would be violating its principles of trying to rid the City of as ~any non-conforming uses as possible if it rezoned this property to "CN." He added: "I am afraid that if we change the zoning from "R-l-10,000" to "CN rather than ~'R-I-10,O00" tO "PA" then we would be putting pressure on that nursery ~h'~ol disappearing, and that whole area being "CN" could be developed into a larger shopping area. I would propose that the .General Plan be changed to "PA" rather than changing the zoning to "CN"." Mr. Burt pointed out that throughout the history of this area there had been attempts to increase the "CN" area to intensify commercial development in the City; adding that the nursery school would remain legal non-conforming indefinitely unless the owner sold the school, in which case the new owner would h~Ve to !reapply for a use permit. He furthe~'d'd'~d~ that Staff would not recormnend this be rezoned'to "PA" in that "PA" was-more restrictive than "CN."' Com- missioner Callon added to this that the feelings during the General Plan review were that there was an "overage" of "PA" in the City, and that she felt another type of zoning would be more appropriate for Zone 19 than "PA." · Commissioner Woodward expressed concern that by rezoning this "CN," ~he City might be making available more empty office spaces in the area. Mr. Miller, ~ner of the Saratoga Music and Fine Arts Center, explained that 4 o~t of 6 of the office spaces behind the Quito Shopping Center were occupied by the Music Center as studios. rather than offices. · Mr. Robert Van der Toorren, 14555 Horseshoe Drive, asked if an environmental impact report had been submitted on the entire C-178 matter. He was informed that a Negative DeClaration had been filed by the head of the Planning De- partment relative to C-178. Mr. Van der Toorren stated that he felt very strongly that "flowing from this zone, as flowing from the Master Plan, could arise in the future certain parcels which could found themselves on the hearings and the zoning tonight, and then 'the proponents could say we had a negative report filed at that~time and we do not have to refile. I think at this time a study is warranted." Commission Action At this point Commissioner Belanger requested this matter be reviewed by the Subdivision Committee with regards to the sort of pressures that might be placed on the nursery school' if Zone 19 were rezoned to "CN." Chairman Marshall closed the public hearing on C-178, Zone 19 at 9:03 p.m., continued same to the Planning Commission-meeting of ~rch 26, 1975, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report. -5- · MINUTES OF ~~ II. Bo C-178 - Zones 19~ 20 and 22 - Cont'd ZONE 20 Mr. Loewke explained that Zone 20 comprised 4 parcels totaling approximately 12 acres, and was currently zoned o'~." He pointed out that the property to the north was zoned "PA" and was the Medical Village of Saratoga; that the property to the west was zoned '~" and "R-1-12,500 PD;" that the property to the south was zoned "R-M-3,000" and was the Vineyards of Saratoga; and the property to the east was zoned "R-l-10,000" and "PA." He noted that an application for rezoning of this area to "PA" had been approved by the Planning Commission in 1972; however, the property had reverted back to "A" in that it was a conditional zoning classification and had expired due to problems associated with it. He stated that in order to be consistent with the General Plan, Staff recommended Zone 20 be rezoned to "PA." Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing on C-178, Zone 19 at 9:0~ p.m. Commission and Citizen Respons~ · Questions arose as to the accuracy of a map presented reflecting the zoning classifications surrounding Zone 20. It was noted that although this map had not been published in the newspaper as part of the public notice, the map should be corrected prior to proceeding further with Zone 20. · Ms. Beulah Cox, resident for 44 years of t~e property located on the corner of Cox Avenue, stated 'that she would be in favor of the rezoning of Zone 20. She stated: "I think it would be a fine thing to have medical/dental offices extend along the east side of Saratoga Creek out to Saratoga Avenue. I am all for it because it is nothing but a mess now." Commission Action Chairman ~rshall closed the public hearing on C-178, Zone 20 at 9:16 p.m., continued same to the Planning Commission meeting of March 26, 1975, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report. ZONE 22 Mr. Loewke explained that Zone 22 was a single, .61-acre parcel located south of Prospect Road, bound on the north and south by the City of San Jose, and bound on the east and west by properties zoned '~CN." He pointed out that the property was presently used as a dirt parking lot by surrounding properties. He stated that the property was currently zoned "R-l-10,000" and in order to be consistent with the General Plan, Staff recommended ~one 22-.be~rezoned to "CN." Chairman ~rshall opened the public hearing on C-178, Zone 22 at 9:19 p.m. Commission and Citizen Response · Commissioner Martin pointed out that the Saratoga Baptist Church was located behind the property, and that it had a paved easement running along Zone 22 for access to the Church. Commissioner Martin expressed concern that this access would be changed if Zone 22 were changed to "CN." Mr. Burr pointed out,]however, that the access would not be affected. · Commissioner ~rtin contended that the Staff Report was-incorrect in stating that the property to the east of the site had been rezoned in October of 1970, and that the property to the west of the site had been rezoned in ~y of 1966. He added that he felt these dates had been reversed, and that the Staff Report should be corrected. · Mr. Kato, owner of property located near this zone, explained that a small part of his property was located within Saratoga City limits while the -6- · MINUTES OF ~L&RCH 12. II. B. C-178 - Zone 22 - Cont'd remainder was located within San Jose city limits. He asked the City to con- sider giving this small triangular piece of property to the City of San Jose. Discussion followed on this suggestion, and it was noted that the Saratoga 1974 General Plan directed this triangular piece of property be zoned "PA." It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that this matter be continued pending further review of Mr. Kato's request, and Staff was directed to re- view the possibility of changing the City-limit structure relative to this area. Commission Action Chairman Marshall closed the public hearing on C-178, Zone 22 at 9:29 p.m., con- tinued same to the Planning Commission meeting of March 26, 1975, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report. C. V-418 - Western Federal Savings and Loan Association, Big Basin Ways- Request 'tor 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 26~ 1975 Mr. Burr explained that this matter had been referred to the Design R~view Committee at the last Commission meeting for review, and that the applicant had been requested to submit revised plans which would meet the design criteria of the Design Review C~m~,ittee. He pointed out that the applicant had not met withi_th~,D~ign.!Review C~m~ittee, nor had Staff received any plans for this sign. It was pointed out that a request for variance had not been definitely established, and stated that Staff'rec0mmended~this' application be denied without prejudice per the Staff Report submitted at the February 26, 1975 Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Marshall reopened the public hearing on V-418 at 9:35 p.m. There were no comments made by me~bersi'of'~he~addience. After brief discussion of this/application, Commissioner Martin moved, seconded= by Commissioner Zambetti, that the 'p~blic hearing on V-418 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing on V-418 was closed _ at 9:40 p.m. Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission deny without prejudice application V-418. The motion was carried unanimously. D. UP-262 - T~eaSaratoga United Presbyterian Church, 20455 Herriman ~venue - Request for Use Permit to Allow the Siting of a Temporary Portable Office Build- ing Measuring 8' x 20' by 10' in Height Inside the Courtyard Walls at the North Side of the Saratoga United Presbyterian Church on Herriman Avenue (Ordinance NS-3~ Section 3.3); Continued from February 26~ 1975 Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing on UP-262 at 9:41 p.m. Mr. Burt stated that a Staff Report had been prepared on this recommending approval, and noted that the applicant was aware of. the conditions of this Report. There were no donm~entscmade by members of the audience. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the public hearing on UP-262 be closed. The motion was ~rri~d unanimously, and the public hearing on UP-262 was closed at 9:45 p.m. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning Commission approve aDplication UP-262 per the Staff .Report dated March 12, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously. E. UP-264 - Ellsworth and Jacqueline Welch, 20925 Jacks Road - Request for Use Permit to Allow the Reconstruction of an Existing Garden Tool Shed Located in the Rear Yard of 20925 Jacks Road (Ord. NS-3~ Sect. 3.7-1) Mr. Burt stated that this was the first appearance of this it~n before the Planning Commission, and noted that a Staff Report had not been prepared. He recommended UP-264 be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting. -7- ~RNUTES OF ~RCH 12~ 1975 II. E. UP-264 - Ellsworth and Jacqueline Welch - Cont'd The applicant was present and indicated a lack of knowledge as to the procedure involved of this Use Permit; she asked why a Use Permit was required for the rebuilding of her tool shed. Mr. Loewke explained that per Zoning Ordinance NS-3, the City required a Use Permit for all accessory structures. Commissioner Callon asked why the applicant had not been notified of the fact that this matter would be continued; and it was explained that insomuch as this was a public hearing, Staff felt it necessary that the applicant be present to hear any possible comments made or questions raised by neighboring residents. Chairman Marshall directed UP-264 be continued to the Planning Commission meet- ing of March 26, 1975, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report. RECESS: 10:00 - 10:20 p.m. III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS A. SDR-1154 - Beck Enterprises, Walnut Avenue, Building Site Approval - 4 Lots (Expiration Extended to March 12~ 1975); Continued from Feb. 12~ 1975 Mr. Butt explained that a Hold HarmleSs Agreement and CC&Rs were tO be submitted by the applicant.for..review. He stated that Staff recommended this matter be continued to the~next Commission meeting pending receipt and review of same. Note ~' was~d~'t~'letter of ~'~i~'h'a'd'been rece~d'~h~a~i~n~. Chair-' man Marshall directed SDR-1154 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of- 'M~h'2B'~'r975~n'd~r~d~h'i~ matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report. B. SDR-1160 - Jerome Gilmore, Austin Way, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expira- tion Extended to March 12, 1975); Continued from Feb. 26~ 1975 Mr. Butt recommended this matter be continued to the next Commission meeting pending receipt of Water District requirements. Note was ma~.tha__t. a let~e~ ~_ extension had been received from the applicant. Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1160 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 26, 1975, and .referred this matte~ to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review .......... and report. ~ C. SDR-1161 - Margolis, Chatzky & Dunnett, APC, 4th Street and Big Basin Way, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expiration Extended to March 12, 1975); Continued from February 26~ 1975 Mr. Burr recommended this matter be continued to the next Commissi~on meeting pending re~p~iof Water District re~uirements-_Note_~as_made_that_a.letter_of'ex_ tension had been received from ~e applicant. Chairman ~rshall directed SDR~ll61 ~ be continued tO_ ~he .planning Commission meeting of March 26, 1975,. and referred ~is matter to the S~bdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report. D. SDR-1163 - Albert Dutton, La Paloma Way, Building Site Approval -=2 Lots; (Expiration extended to March 12~ 1975); Continued from Feb. 26, 1975 Mr. Burt stated that a Staff Report had been prepared on this recommending approval. The applicant was present and asked for an explanation :of Condition "B" of the Staff Report. It was explained that insomuch as the applicant would be subdividing his property, the City required that a turn-around be:constructed on La PalomaWay to provide adequate access. ~h'~'~pplicant explained that he wa~inot~intending to develop one of the ~ajceis for some time. -It was pointed ou~fth'at the applicant could request from the City.Council within 10 days a ~eferred improvement agreement or either post bo~d for these improvements. It was further pointed out, however, that insomuchias this was tentative site approval, the applicant would have 18 months in which to com- plete the conditions of the Staff Report, and if at the expiratio~ of that time~the applicant had not met the conditions of the Staff Report~ he could request the Commission grant him an additional one-year extension. With this explanation, the applicant indicated acceptance of the conditions of the Staff Report. -8- = =~RNUTES OF MARCH 12. ~ III. D. SDR-1163 - Albert Dutton - Cont'd Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning Commission approve application SDR-1163 and Exhibit A per the Staff Report dated March 7, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously. E. SDR-1164 - Frank Shepherd, Douglass Lane and Taos Drive, Building Site Approval - 4 Lots (Expires March 18~ 1975); Continued from February 26~ 1975 Mr. Burt explained that the Subdivision Committee had requested additional information be submitted by the applicant, and recommended this matter be con- tinued to the next Commission meeting pending receipt of this information. It was noted that a letter of extension from the applicant had been submitted. Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1164 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 26, 1975, and referred this matte~' to the Subdivision Commission and Staff for further review and report. Mr. Burt explained that the files on the following applications were not complete, and that Staff recommended .~h~y be continued: F. SD-1165 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation, Marion Road, Subdivision Approval - ~ lots ~Expires April 3, 1975); Continued from Feb. 26~ 1975 G. SDR-1166 - Wayne Leposavic, Ver~e Vista Lane, Building Site Approval - 2 Lots (Expires April 16~ 1975) H. SDR-1167 - Dennis Bryan, Bella Vista Avenue, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot ~Expires April 17~ 1975) Chairman Marshall directed applications SD-1165, SDR-1166 and SDR-1167 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 26, 1976, and referred these matters to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for review and report. IV. DESIGN REVIEW A. A-391 - George Day Construction, Fruitvale and Douglass, Final Design Review Approval - Tract 5327, Lot #6 Mr. Loewke stated that this matter had been reviewed by the Design Review Committee on March 4, 1975, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommend- ing approval of this matter. Discussion followed on whether the rear windows had been required to be'wrapped with wood trim, and the last sentence under Project Description was amended as follows: "All windows have been designated to be wrapped with wood trim." The applicant's representative, Mr. Felice, was present and indicated acceptance of the conditions of the Staff Report, as amended. Commissioner Martin recommended the Staff Report be additionally amended by adding "PC" to the zone designation of "R-1-40,000.'_'~.' Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning Commission grant final design review approval to application A-391, Lot #6 of Tract 5327, per Exhibit "A-2" and subject to the Staff Report dated March 12, 1975, as' amended. The motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that Exhibit "A-2" be marked for rear-window wood wrapping by the Planning CommissiOn Chairman. The motion was carried unanimously, and Chairman Marshall so marked the exhibit. B. A-447 - George Day Construction, Fruitvale Avenue, Final Design Review Approval - Tract 5408~ Lot ~2 Mr. Loewke stated that the Design Review Committee reviewed this matter on March 4, 1975, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval be granted. He recommended the Staff Report be corrected by adding "PC" to the zone designation of "R~i-4O,O00.'!_. -9- ~IINUTES OF ~tARCH 12. IV. B. A-447 - George Day Construction - Lot #2 of Tract 5408 - Contend. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning Commission grant final design review approval to Application A-447, Lot #2 of Tract #5408, per Exhibit "E" and subject to the Staff Report dated ~rch 12, 1975, as amended. The motion was carried unanimously. C. A-462 - Dividend Industries, Saratoga Avenue and Christie Drive, Final Design Review Approval - 14 Lots; Continued from February 26~ 1975 Mr. Loewke explained that this was the first phase ofiDesign Review approval for Tract 5462, this application being for 14 lots with one-story, s{hgle-family homes as designated in Exhibit A-l, the revised site development plan for Tract 5462. He stated that the Design Review Committee had reviewed this matter on December 10, 1974~ and on ~rch 4, 1975, and that a Staff Report had been pre- pared recommending approval. Discussion followed on the exten~ to which changes could be made by the developer of the site development plan. Mr. Loewke explained that the intent was to have the City be in a position where it would not have to review minor color changes, but that any change in the house pi~c~ment would have to go back before the Design Review Committee. Discussion also followed on whether all of the 14 lots should be required to have wood wrapping on all doors and windows. It was noted that insomuch as the rears of some of the homes could not be seen by the public, that the Design Review Committee h~d only stipulated all doo~s and windows of all rear elevations of Lots 2, 3, 4, 7, 9 and 10 be fully wrapped with wood trim. Commissioner Belanger disagreed with this decision, stating that she felt all windows and doors of all rear elevations for all 14 ~mes should be wrapped with wood trim. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning Commission grant final design review approval to application A-462 per Exhibits "A" through "G" and subject to the Staff Report dated March 12, 1975. ~_~ ~'.C 1' C".' '7F ~ Commissioner'Belanger moved that this motion be modified by adding the further stipulation that all windows and doors be wrapped with wood trim. This motion died for lack of a second. The motion to grant final design review approval to application A-462 subject to the Staff Report was carried; Commissioner Belanger voted no. The applicant's representative was informed that if the applicant wished to modify the site development plan (Exhibit A-l), the applicant must come back before the Design Review Committee for review and approval. Do A-465 - Anthony T. Cocciardi, Mr. Eden Road, Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot; Continued from February 26~ 1975 Mr. Loewke stated that the Design Review Committee had reviewed this matter on March 4, 1975, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval be granted. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning Commission grant final building site approval to application A-465 per Exhibit "A" and subject to~the Staff Report dated ~rch 12, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously. V. ENVIRO~_ENTAL IMPACT DETE~RNATIONS The following Negative Declarations were filed between the period of February 26, 1975 and March 7, 1975: A. SDR-1166 - Wayne Leposavic, Verde Vista Lane, Building Site Approval for 2 Lots B. SDR-1167 - Dennis Bryan, Bella Vista Avenue, Building Site Approval for 1 Lot C. Public Project #17 - Moving Permit for Swanee Building, Big Basin Way D. Public Project #18 - Thoroughfare Street Lighting, Saratoga-Los Gatos Road at Horseshoe Drive (2 lights) and Fruitvale Avenue at Three Oaks Way (1 light) -10- VI. CO~RINICATIONS - WRITTEN The following written correspondence was introduced into the recordf A. Copy of a memorandum to the City Manager from the Planning Director dated }~rch 3, 1975 reconmending a 3-step procedure for handling applications for land develop- Cit ' ment approvals within the y s Sphere of Influence and Urban Service Area. B. Letter received March 6, 1975 from the League of California Cities regarding the 1975 Planning Officers' Institute to be held July230-AUgust 1 in Coronado. Discussion followed on whether a representative should be sent to this maeting, and it was determined that funds for such planning sessions would more appro- priately expended on sessions tbcat.edicl~ser~.t~aSaratoga. C. Letter dated ~rch 6, 1975 from Lorraine A. McLaughlin, 20640 Ritanna Court, opposing any change of zoning on the Parker Ranch or Hall properties. Staff was directed to make this part of the C-172 file. D. Draft of the proposed Hillside District Zoning Ordinance. It was again noted that a special study session would be held on Thursday,. March 13, 1975 at 7:30 p.m. in the Crisp Conference Room. z-_~ _.-~ ~f. tL=' ~.~_L -!~"~. E. Hand-written note from Jim Isaac, 18596 ~rtha Avenue, making suggestions for the City's attempt to identify homeowners associations. Staff was requested to give these suggestions consideration in drafting a letter to these associations. F. Memorandum from the Director of Public Works forwarding a copy of a ~rch 6th letter from Chuck DeLeuw, consultant who prepared the Northwest Saratoga Cir- culation Mas~er Plan Study, explaining arithmetic errors made in the Plan. Also, a memorandum from the City Manager dated ~rch 7, 1975 regarding the Northwest Saratoga Traffic Circulation Study which pointed out that the City Council at its meeting of March 5, 1975 had referred this Study to t~e Planning Commission for further review and determination. I~ further noted-that it-had b~e~ 'redommended the Plan be considered as an amendment to the Traffic Circula- tion Element'in the General Plan, and that the Planning Commission hold appro- priate public hearings to determine the various alternatives prior to makimg. a recommendation to the CitI Council as a General Plan amendment. _ ..... =~ It was felt that, with regard to the first memorandum, the E'i~lation StUdy should be updated to reflect correct answers as were pointed out and discussed at the Committee-of-the-Whole meeting of March 5, 1975. Note was made that the Parker Ranch application (C-172) and application SD-1112 were presently before the Commission pending completion of this Traffic Circulation Study relative to the circulation aspects of the applications. Discussion followed on the completeness of the Circulation Study with regard to the Prospect/Stelling Road area, and it was felt that the Study should be updated to contain more information with regards to traffic counts of this area so that the Commission could have ~ better means of determining the impact the hill traffic might have on'_the proposed Parker Ranch development. With respect to the City Council recommendation that this Traffic Circulation Study be made part of the Traffic Circulation Element of the General Plan, con- cern was expressed that the C-172 and SD-1112 matters might be additionally delayed if the Circulation Study were discussed at the General Plan review in May. The City Attorney pointed out that a precise circulation plan could be adopted relative to these applications prior to the May General Plan review, and that same would automatically become part of tthe General Plan Circulation Element. It was explained that approval of a tentative map would be a specific circulation plan for the area which would make that section of the Northwest Saratoga Circulation Study no longer effective as a general plan since there would an approved specific plan for the area. Chairman Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that rather than refer the Northwest Saratoga Traffic Circulation Study to General Plan review in May, 1975, that the Commission utilize the information contained therein in its studies on applications C-172 and SD-1112; further, that it should point out to the Cityo~?~n~i~.the number.0£..~naccurac~e.~ ~on.t~i~d_~_the Stud~ -11- VI. WRITTEN CO~ftrNICATIONS - Northwest Saratoga Traffic Circulation Study - Cont'd with the recommendation that these inacCUracies be corrected; and additionally, that the Study sh~ld be updated to contain information relative to traffic counts of Prospec~ Road/Stelling Road area as was discussed at the Committee-of- the-~ole meeting of March 5, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously. Staff was directed to transmit this decision to the City Council. Staff was further directed to determine the specific timetable for making improvements .......... on the Prospect Road/Stelling Road area, and report same to the Commission. G. PPC mini minutes of February 27, 1975. H. Letter from the Saratoga Chamber of Commerce dated March 12, 1975 requesting per- mission to erect a banner in Blaney Plaza for purposes of announcing the "Antique Exhibition and Sales" to be held at West Valley College on March 24, 25 and 26, 1975. It was noted that the Saratoga Chamber of Commerce had not been aware that a sign permit was required, and consequently had missed filing for same prior to this date. The question was raised that, insomuch as this event was being held at ~.- West Valley College, did the college~s Use Permit allow this type of event to be held. The City Attorney responded that he was not sure that the City had any jurisdiction over this matter, pointing out that the request before the Commission was.for a sign permit to erect a banner. Questions were raised as to traffic control, and Ms. Mahoney, representative of the Chamber of Commerce, explained that there would be ample parking provided at the West Valley College campus and that the Chamber of Commerce would be providing adequate security. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Plan- ning Commission permit the Chamber of Commerce to erect a banner advertising._. ~ the first annual "~ntique E~'fbition and'S~i~'i'~laney Plaza from the present date to March 26,. 1975 with the stipulation that the banner be taken dozen on ~rch 27, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously. Chairman Marshall requested Ms. Mahoney apply to the Planning Commission for a sign permit well in advance of next year's annual exhibition. VI. CO~f0NICATIONS - ORAL A. Commissioner Woodward gave a;_brief account of the Design Review Committee's meeting on March 4, 1975 with Mr. Tyler and ~. Franklin relative to the pro- posed staim~ay on Fourth Street. She stated that Mr. Franklin .~ad requested'L the City relieve them from ~he ~pproved design of this ~t~irway because of "financial burden," explaining that the cost of this stairway had risen from $12,000 (the amount bonded for) to $18,000. She explained that Mr. Franklin had submitted revised plans depicting a.straighter stairway for Design Review Committee review, that the Conmittee had inspected the site, and that it was the Committee~s consensus that the revised plans were unacceptable. She pointed out that Mr. Franklin's requested had be~n agendized for the City Council meeting of March 19, 1975, and that the Committee felt the Council should give direction on this matter. B. Chairman Marshall made the foll~¢ing Subcommittee Assignments: SUBDIVISION CO~RTTEE: Commissioner Belanger - Chairman Chairman Marshall Commissioner Callon Commissioner Lustig - Alternate DESIGN REVIEW COmmiTTEE: Co~f~f~issioner Woodward - Chairman Commissioner Zambetti Commissioner Lustig Commissioner Callon - Alternate VARIANCE COmmiTTEE: Commissioner Martin - Chairman Commissioner Woodward Commissioner Lustig Commissioner Zambetti - Alternate PPC: Commissioner Belanger Commissioner Woodward - Alternate ~frNUTES OF ~L~RCH 12, VI. ORAL CO~4UNICATIONS - Subcommittee Assignments - Cont'd He further directed that the tenure of these assignments would become effective immediately and would be effective through the end of July, 1975, at ~-~ich time Subdommi~tee-za~'signments would again be reconsidered· He explained that this would allow the Commissioners an opportunity to serve on as many Subcommittees as possible Commissioner Woodward requested Staff update the Subcommittee Schedule; further, she requested Staff obtain a list of members, with addresses and phone numbers, of the various commissions within the City. C. Commissioner Martin briefly~o.~ented..on the special information session held ~rch 13, 1975 with the residents of Wildwood Heights with regards to Zone 7. He reported that approximately 15 residents were present, and that a detailed presentation had been given by Staff in an effort to help clarify questions the residents had. D_.~'~C~a~.r~a_'n Marshall acknowledged the presence of Col. ~yfield of the Good Government Group and Ms. Joanne Runyan of the Association for the University of Women; further he expressed appreciation to Ms. Aberle of the Good Government Group for serving coffee. VII. ADJOUR1N}I~NT Commissioner Lustig=moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward,tthat the Planning Commission meeting of March 12, 1975 be adjourned· The motion was carried unanimously, and the meeting was' adjourned at 12:20 a.m. Respectfully submitted, .-~~_ , · , c tin~ S e~ret~y DRB / s kw -13-