Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-26-1975 Planning Commission Minutes/ 4' ~' · OF SARATOGA PLANNING MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, March 26, 1 975 - 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, Lustig, Martin, Marshall, Woodward and Zambetti Absent: Commissioner Callon B. ~NUTES Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the reading of the minutes of March 12, 1~5 be waived, and that they be approved as dis- tributed to the Commission subject to the following corrections: (1) page 3, fifth sentence of last paragraph, delete the word "~ot;" (2) page 5, fourth subitem under Commission Response, change "CN" to "PA;" and (3), page 7, third paragraph of Item II-C, change word "suggestion" to "application." The motion to approve the minutes of March 12, 1975 was carried unanimously. C. CITY COUNCIL REPORT Chairman Marshall gave a brief oral presentation of the City Council meeting of March 19, 1975. Of special interest to the Commission were the following items: (1) The Council meeting started at the home of former Commissioner Charles H. Smith, for the purpose of presenting Mr. Smith with a special reso- lution of commendation. (2) A petition from residents of Wildwood Heights opposing the change of zoning of C-178, Zone 7 was referred to a special Council Committee-of-the-l~ole meeting to be scheduled in April. It was noted that Commission recommendations on C-178, Zones 1, 2 4 and 5 were also referred to this special meeting. (3) A resolution was adopted by the Council oppos- ing inclusion of the West Valley Freeway corridor as an expressway or freeway in the County Transit Plan. (4) A request for reconsideration of conditions on SDR-1071 was referred to the City Attorney for examination of the files relative to a fire hydrant requirement. (5) An appeal of conditions for build- ing site approval on SDR-1159 by Mr. Carey was denied. (6) An appeal by Mr. Dave Franklin of the Planning Commission's Design Review Committee's decision relative to the 4th Street stairway was refused to be considered by the Council in that the item was not an appealable matter. The Mayor recommended that any modified plans the applicant might have be submitted to the City's Planning Department for referral to the Commission's Design Review Committee. Discussion followed on the Franklin letter of appeal, and Commissioner Woodward advised the Commission that the Design Review Committee had referred Mr. Franklin to the City Council because it was under the impression Mr. Franklin was asking for' financial relief. It was pointed out that the matter presented to the Council was not a request for financial relief, but rather for an appeal of a design which had never been approved. Commissioner Woodward informed the Commission that she was presently drafting a letter to the City Council explaining the recent findings of the Design Review Committee on this matter. II.--- PUBLIC HEARINGS A. UP-265 - University Pre-School of Saratoga, 13560 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Request for Use Permit to All~ the Continuance of a Pre-School Located at 13560 Saratoga-Sunnyvale RoAd in the Name of Donna R. Blair (Ordinance NS-3~ Article 16~ Section 16.14) Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing on UP-265 at 7:48 p.m. The Secre- tary stated that he had a conflict of interest in this matter, and turned this portion of the meeting over to the Assistant Planner, Mr. Burt. Mr. Burt -1- ~INUTES OF MARCH 26 II. A. UP-265 - University Pre-School of SararoSa - Continued stated that the applicant, Mrs. Blair, was requesting the issuance of a Use Permit to allow for the continued use of the pre-school occupying the site. He pointed out that this pre-school Use Permit had been in operation since 1959, under UP-l, for Mrs. Stinnett. He explained that Mrs. Stinnett sold the property to ~s. Blair, and insomuch as Ordinance NS-3 does not allow a Use Permit to run with the land, Mrs. Blair was applying for a new Use Permit. He stated that a Staff Report had been prepared which recommended approval be granted, and noted that there were no structural or site changes expected or applied for in this application. The applicant was present and indicated acceptance of the Staff Report condi- tions. A question was raised as to whether Mrs. Blair had received approval from the State with regard to the pre-school use, and it was pointed out that approval for Mrs. Blair would become effective on May 23, 1975, the date that Mrs. Stinnett's license would expire. There were no further comments. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the public hearing on UP-265 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing on UP-265 was closed at 7:55 p.m. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Cormnissioner Woodward, that the Plan- ning Commission approve application UP-265 ~er Exhibit "A" and the Staff Report dated March 20, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously. B. V-419 - Osterlund Enterprises, Yerba Santa Court, Lot #2 - Request for Variance to Allow a 13-Foot Sideyard Setback in Lieu of the Required 15-Foot Setback (Ordinance NS-3~ Section 3.7) The Secretary pointed out that this matter was concurrent with application A-425, adding that it was Staff's recomnendation the Variance Committee review this application and make an inspection of the site. The on-site inspection was scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, March 29, 1975. After Commissioner Zambetti advised the Commission that he had reviewed the site and there appeared to be a discrepancy between the site and the map presented to the Design Review Commit- tee on A-425.with regard to the location of trees, Staff was directed to request the applicant stake out the building site for this inspection. Commissioner Belanger stated she did not understand the need for a variance now when the building envelopes, showing the location of trees, of this Tract had been shown on the subdivision site plan and approved. It was noted that the location of the trees had not been accurately reflected on the site plan, thus calling a need for a variance. Chairman ~rshall directed V-419 be continued to the Planning Commission meet- ing of April 9, 1975, and referred this matter to the Variance Committee and Staff for an on-site inspection and report. C. V-420 - Barrett Anderson, 13465 Hammons - Request for Variance to Allow the Reduction of the Frontyard Setback to 20-Feet in Lieu of the Required 30-Foot Setback (Ordinance NS-3~ Section 3.7) The Secretary suggested the Variance Committee inspect this matter on-site, and same was scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on Saturday, March 29, 1975. COmmisSioner Belanger noted that the variance request was for ~'{~e_O~'~acks~Road. ~ ~ Chairman Marshall directed V-420 be continued to the Planning_ Commission ~mee~ing of April 9, 1975, and referred this matter to the Variance Commit" tee and Staff for an on-site inspection and report. D. 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 The Secretary stated that Staff was recommending all action on zoning to con- sistency ~ith the recently-adopted General Plan be held in abeyance subject to the General Plan review hearing in May, 1975. He further pointed out that the City Council, in recognizing the problems associated with the change of zoning · 19~5 ~ ~NUTES OF ~RCH 26, ~ II. D. C-178 - City of Sarato~, Change of Zonings - Continued procedure, had decided to review the entire process at a special Committee-of- -~ the-Whole meeting in April in order to better understand the process and to clarify the position of the Planning Commission on this matter. He added that Staff ~ recommended that during the General Plan hearing in May, the Planning Commission '. address not only the possible General Plan amendments, but also review in detail all present zonings which were inconsistent with the~eneral Plan~n~"~w ~eneral ~ Plan amendments would be interpreted as to zoning for consistency as required by '. the State. He added that Staff would recommend subsequent to reaffirmation of t~e ~ General Plan, that the Planning Commission ~ntertain any proposed rezonings after that time and readvertise them according to Ordinance requirements. The City Attorney pointed out that one othersreason the City Council wished to review these rezoning referrals at a Committee-of-the-Whole meeting was due to the ambiguity of the-State's Gonzalez Bill. He explained that one interpreta- tion of the Bill was that all residents within the City had to be notified of zoning changes in lieu of the standard 500-foot radius requirement. He pointed out that two bills were pending before the State legislature to clarify this ambiguity, and that the City Council had decided not to agendize rezonings un- til the Gonzalez Bill was clarified. Chairman ~rshall continued all public hearings on C-178 to the General Plan review hearing in }~y 1975, and requested Staff notify the property o~ners of Zones #19, 20 and 22 of this action. 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 (Ordinance NS-3, Section 3.7-1); Continued from March 12, 1975 / Staff noted that, after further review, a Use Permit was not required in this : matter, and recommended that further proceedings relative to UP-264 be abandoned. Chairman Marshall directed that further proceedings on UP-264 be abandoned. III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS A. SD-1112 - Alan Chadwick '- Pierce Road, Subdivision Approval - 8 Lots; (Expira- tion Extended to March 26, 1975); Continued from ~ebruary 26~ 1975 The Secretary explained this matter was being held in abeyance because of the location of the proposed subdivision within the Northwest Saratoga Circulation Study area and the proposed Hillside Conservation District. He pointed out that the applicant had submitted a letter granting an_extension of SD-1112 to the Commission meeting of April 23, 1975. Chairman }~rshall directed SD-1112 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. B. SDR-1154 - Beck Enterprises, Walnut. Avenue, Building Site Approval - 4 Lots; (Expiration Extended to March 26~ 1975); Continued from~rch 12, 1975 Mr. Butt stated that a preliminary Staff Report dated March 26, 1975 had been prepared recommending approval of this matter. He explained that this had been reviewed by the S~bdivision Committee and Staff on several occasions with specific attention to the Santa Clara Valley Water District's requirement for substan- tial creek improvements. He stated that in lieu of these creek improvements, Staff would suggest the Planning Commission agree to the Staff Report conditions, specifically the requirement that a Hold Harmless Agreement and ~pprop~iate deed restrictions be submitted in order to relie~he Ci~y_?fr.om:.apy liabili.6y":'~ involved and prohibiting the construction of any type Within 15~feet of the top of the bank. The City Attorney noted that he had reviewed the proposed Hold Harmless Agree- ment and had found no problems with it; however, he had requested minor changes and the applicant's attorney was in the process of revising the Agreement. -3- MINU~ III. B. SDR-1154 - Beck Enterprises - Continued It was the consensu~ of the Planning Commission that the preliminary Staff Re- port dated ~rch 26, 1975'on SDR-1154 be referred to the City Council for its review and concurrence. Commissioner Belanger requested Staff insure..tha't_ Council also received copies of the Hold Harmless Agreement along~{~i~h--the' .-~" Staff Report. ~ .......... It was noted that a letter of extension would be required on this matter. In light of this, Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning Commission deny application SDR-1154 subject to receipt of a written extension to the Planning Commission meeting of April 9, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously. C. SDR-1160 - Jerome Gilmore, Austin Way, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expira- tion Extended to ~rch 26, 1975); Continued from March 12~ 1975 Mr. Burt stated that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting this appli- cation be withdrm~m, and recommended the Commission accept same. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning Commission accept the request for withdrawal on application SDR-1160. The motion was carried unanimously. D. SDR-1161 - Margolis, Chatzky & Dunnett, APC, 4th Street and Big Basin Way, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expiration Extended to March 26, 1974); Continued from~rch 12, 1975 This matter was referred to after the recess. E. SDR-1164 - Frank ShepherdS' Douglass Lane and Taos Drive, Building Site Approval; 4 Lots (Expiration Extended to March 26, 1975); Continued from March 12, 1975 Mr. Burt explained that the applicant was in the process of developing a site development plan for this 4-lot subdivision, and recommended this matter be con- tinued. He noted that a letter granting an extension to the Commission meeting of April 23, 1975 had been received. Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1164 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 23, 1975, and referred same to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report. F. SDR-1165 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation, Marion Road, Subdivision Approval - 5 Lots (Expires April 3~ 1975); Continued from Mar. 12~ 1975 Mr. Burt stated that a Staff Report dated March 26, 1975 had been prepared on this matter recommending approval be granted. He pointed out that the Staff Report dated March 21, 1975 had been modified by adding the words "prior to recordation" to the end of Condition (R). The applicant's representative was present and indicated acceptance of the Staff Report, as amended. The Chairman of the Design Review Committee requested Condition (Q) be modified to provide for landscaping and irrigation on Lots 3 and 4. Discussion followed on this request, as well as on the relationship between Conditions (N) and (S). C~issioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Plan- ning Commission approve application SD-1165 per Exhibit "A-l," and subject to the conditions specified in the Staff Report dated March 26, 1975 as follows: General Conditions I; Specific Conditions II, Conditions (A) through (P), omit- ting Condition (Q), including Condition (R), and omitting Condition (S). Commissioner Woodward further moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that a revised Condition (Q) be added as follows: '~iQ)'-Design Review required for landscaping, irrigation and fencing for Lots 3 and 4 required prior to final approval." The motion to include Condition (Q) to the requirements on SD-1165 was carried unanimously. The motion to approve application SD-1165 per the above-stated conditions as spec ied in the Staff Report of t6, 1975 was carried unanimously. ~ .- MINUTES OF ~RCH 26. RECESS: 8:50 - 9:05 p.m. III. D. SDR-1161 - Margolis, Chatzky & Dunnett, APC, 4th Street and Big Basin Way, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expiration Extended to March 26, 1975); Continued fromMarch 12~ 1975 ' Mr. Burt stated that this matter had been reviewed by the Subdivision Committee, Staff and representatives of the Santa Clara Valley Water District with the applicant on several occasions to discuss the Water District's requirements for improvements of Saratoga Creek. He noted that two alternatives had been dis- cussed: one suggestion had been to require the applicant dedicate a 23-foot right-of-way measured from the top of the bank to be maintained by the Water District, and the other had been to require a 15-foot right-of-way for access. Mr. Burt stated that Staff and representatives of the Water District had met on-site on March 21, 1975, and that the Water District's representatives had pointed out that a substantial number of trees would have to be.~emoved in or- der to provide the 15-foot access. Mr.'pB~r.t~tatedTthat~i~-was. Staff's~desire to retain the creek in its natural state, and if development was considered~ the 23-foot dedication requirement be adhered to. He pointed out that a pre- liminary Staff Report had been prepared reflecting this 23-foot requirement; and Staff recommended that if the Commission approved '6~he conditions speci- fied in the Staff Report, that this matter be referred to the Subdivision Committee with the request that the applicant submit a revised set of plans meeting the setbacks and dedication requirements as suggested. He added, how- ever, that if this suggestion was not acceptable, Staff would recommend this application be withdrawn. The applicant,/-Mr. ~rgolis, was present, and was asked whether he would be willing to accept the 23-foot dedication requirement. Mr. Margolis stated that they would not be willing to remove any trees, and that they had reduced the size of the building as much as they would. He added that if the Staff Report conditions were accepted, they would not be willing to go forward with the application, adding that what they wanted from the Commission was its "enthusiastic support." Chairman ~rshall responded that he did not think the Commission could offer this kind of support without further dialogue on the creek improvements, pointing out that the issue was now creek improvements vs. removal of trees. Reference was made to ~. ~rgolis' letter of March 17, 1975 stating that unless he was able.to "build a building on April 10, 1975," he intended to abandon the project. Considerable discussion followed on the conditions of the Staff Report, and the alternatives open to the Commission and applicant. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission-~h~ in o~'der to afford the applicant the opportunity to submit revised plans if he so desired to'meet the conditions of the Staff Report, that SDR-1161 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 9, 1975. Chairman ~rshall directed SDR-1165 be continued the. the Planning Commission meeting of April 9, 1975, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report. G. SDR-1166 - Wayne Leppsavic, Verde Vista Lane, Building Site Approval - 2 Lots (Expires April 16~ 1975);'Continued from March 12~ 1975 Staff recommended this matter be continued pending receipt of revised plans, Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1166 be continued to the Planning Commission meet- ing of April 9, 1975, and referred same to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report. H. SDR-1167 - Dennis Bryan, Bella Vista Avenue, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expires April 17~ 1975)~ Continued fromMarch 12~ 1975 Mr. Burt stated that a Staff Report dated March 26, 1975 had been prepared recom- mending approval. He pointed out that the March 21, 1975 Staff Report had been modified by adding to Condition (F) the following sentence: "All utilities to be underground." The applicant was ~t present, but it was noted that he had received a copy of the Staff Report. -5- ~FiNUTES OF }~RCH 26 III. H. SDR-1167 - Dennis Bryan - Continued Brief discussion followed on the modified Condition (F). It was pointed out that this was a standard condition covered in the General Conditions of the Staff Report; however, in order to emphasize this requirement, it had been specifi- cally added to the Staff Report. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Plan- ning Commission approve application SDR-1167 per Exhibit "E' and subject to the Staff Report dated March 21, 1975, and further subject to an additional Note which calls attention to the requirement that underground utilities will be required. The motion was carried unanimously. III. It was noted that the files on the following applications were not complete, and Staff'~recommended that they be continued: I. SDR-1168 - Augie Aprile, Saratoga Avenue, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expires April 29~ 1975) Jo SDR-1169 - Cecil Carpenter, Bountiful Acres and Austin Way, Building Site Appro- val - 1 Lot (Expires April 30, 1975 K° SDR-1170 - Alexander M. August, Live Oak Lane, Building Site Approval - 3 Lots; (Expires May 1~ 1975) Chairman ~rshall directed applications SDR-1168, SDR-1169 and SDR-1170 be continued to the Planning Eo~nmission meeting of April 9, 1975, and referred these matters to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for review and report. IV. DESIGN REVIEW A. A~425 - Osterlund Enterprises, Yerba Santa Court, Final Design Review Approval Lot #2, Tract #4768 Mr. Burr stated that this application was concurrent with application V-419, and recommended this be continued. Chairman }~rshall directed A-425 be con- tipued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 9, 1975, and referred same to the Design Review Committee and Staff for further review and report. B. A~466 - James Dyer, Vessing Court, Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot Single-family Residence Mr. Burr stated that a Staff Report had been prepared on this matter recom- mending approval. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission grant final design review approval to application A-466 per Exhibits A and B, and per the Staff Report dated ~rch 19, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously. C. SS-81 - Ad-Way Signs, Inc., Cox and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Final Design Review Approval for Identification Sign for The Vineyards Mr. Burr stated Staff recommended this matter be continued pending further review by the Design Review Committee. Chairman ~rshall directed SS-81 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 9, 1975, and referred same to the Design Review Committee and Staff for further review and report. D. SS-82 - Saratoga Chamber of Commerce, Blaney Plaza, Final Design Review Approval for Display Banner for the Annual Antique Show to be Held at West Valley College Mr. Burr stated that Staff recommended this matter be continued pending receipt of plans. Chairman Marshall directed SS-82 be continued to the Planning Commis- sion meeting of April 9, 1975, and referred same to the Design Review Committee and Staff for further review and report. = ~NUTES OF ~L~RCH 26 VT~ ENVIRO~TAL I}~ACT DETER}ENATIONS The following Negative Declarations were filed between March 13, 1975 and March 26, 1975: A. SDR-1168 - Augie Aprile, Saratoga Avenue, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot B. SDR-1169 - Cecil Carpenter, Bountiful Acres and Austin Way, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot C. SDR-1170 ~ Alexander M. August, Live Oak Lane, Building Site Approval - 3 Lots D. SDR-1171 - Robert Thurston, Cordwood Court, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot E. SDR-1172 - Melvin D. Stout, E1 Quito Way, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot F. SDR-1173 - Frank La Monica, Pike Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot G. SDR-1174 - Thomas N. Foster, Horseshoe Drive, Building Site Approval - 3 Lots VI. MISCELLANEOUS A. SDR-1037 ~ R.J. Hunter Development, Comer Drive, Building Site Approval 4 Lots Request for Reconsideration of Conditions of Staff Report dated July 9~ 1973 The Secretary noted-'.that this application had been granted an ~xtension by the City Council subject to the applicant obtaining tentative and final site approval by ~y 1975. He stated that Staff had been working with the applicant in re- designing this development to conform as much as possible to the proposed Residential Hillside District. He pointed out that specifically, the structures had been clustered in order to minimize the impact ~f development on this hill- side area and in order to retain open space. The Secretary stated that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval be granted, and noted that the Staff Report had been modified by adding "prior to recordation" to the end of Condition (Q). Mr. Cecchi, applicant's representative, was present and indicated acceptance of the Staff Report as amended. Further, he waived the 3-day time limit required for receipt of the amended Staff Report. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that the Planning Commission approve application SDR-1037 per Exhibit A-3, and subject to the Staff Report dated ~rch 26, 1975. The motion was carried unani~ouslyo B. Special Request from Commissioner Norman J. ~rtin to Review the Ordinance NS-3.31, an Ordinance of the City of Saratoga Amending Ordinance NS-3, the Zoning Ordinance, Regulating ~o-Story and Other Multiple-Story and Other Multiple-Story Residential Structures Re: Rearyard Setbacks, }~ximum Area Coverage, and Density of Said Multi-Story Structures within Areas; Adopted by the City Council December 19, 1973 Conmissioner Martin stated that he recently had become personally involved with this Ordinance; and felt it would be well for the Commission to discuss the Ordinanc% and either reaffirm what was decided previously by the Commission at the time this Ordinance was discussed, or restate the intent of the Commission with respect to h~ this Ordinance should be handled. Conmissioner Martin gave a brief recap of the history of this Ordinance, point- ing out some of the problems faced at the time the Ordinance was being discussed with regards to two-story conversions being allowed which "changed the charac- ter of the neighborhood and changed the privacy of the individuals who o~ned the adjacent property." He stated that the Commission came up with a two-story ordinance which provided for a preamble as follows: "Whereas, the purpose of this Ordinance is to protect neighboring property from invasion of privacy, unreasonable interference with views, adverse impact on aesthetic character, and reduction in quantity and quality of light and air..." Commissioner Martin stated that although these general conditions were difficult to define, the Commission at the time had included within the Ordinance explicit requirements relative to maximum site coverage and minimum rearyard setbacks, "so that it would not create a feeling for neighboring properties that they are being imposed upon." He stated that the Commission had felt the Planning -7- . MINUTES OF ~[~RCH 26, 1975 .~' VI. }5SCELLANEOUS - Two-Story Ordinance - Continued Director knew of the Commission's concern with regard to new two-story conStruc- tions and two-story conversions, adding: "we delegated to him ability to review these plans and to act upon the variance that might be allowed under. certain circumstances." It was Commissioner Martin's opinion that the Commission had not intended for the Planning Director to allow variances on the maximum site coverage or minimum rearyard setback requirements. Relative to this delegated authority, a portion of Section 16.15 was cited as follows: "The Planning Director shall be guided by, but have the discretion to set aside any of, the standards and criteria hereinbefore set forth in this ordi- nance in Section 3.7-2 thereof for new construction, in those cases where ar- chitectural design and/or geologic, topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity give substantial evidence that the issuance of a Conversion Permit will comply with the purpose of this Ordinance: that is, to protect neighboring properties from invasion of privacy, unreasonable interference with views, adverse impact on aesthetic character, and reduction in quantity and quality of light and air." The Commissioners were asked their opinion on what had been the intent of this Ordinance, and whether it should be changed. Commissioner Woodward stated that in reviewing her files on the proceedings -of this Ordinance, she was'in agreement Y~i~h'~h~'OFd~'~ as it now read, stating that she felt the Ordinance provisions were what the Commission wanted at the time. She stated that she supported the decisions made by the Planning Director as provided for in this Ordinance, andspointed out that the Ordinance provided for an appeal process to the City Council. Commissioner Belanger stated that she did not have any problem with the delega- tion of authority to the Planning Director. She referred to the above-cited Section 16.15, and stated that she felt the intent of the Commission in expres- sing this Section this way had been that "there are cases in which there are not homes that are contiguous or opposite to, as referred to on page 1 of the Ordinance, but nevertheless having a certain relationship with regards to topography, etc. that may be possible for the Planning Director to use his discretion as to building a two story. I want to make clear that those sorts of conditions, although they are discretionary, also have some limits to them. In other words, there have to be things which mitigate the putting of a two- story house next to a neighborhood of one-story houses,'~hd those mitigating 'factors are those listed." She stated that she had a pr6blem with the 50% situation referred to in Section 2.0; adding that there was a problem crossing over between new constructions and conversions. She asked: '~hen does a sub- division stop being a subdivision and becomes part of the neighborhood and part of the general coPanunity? And where.would you begin to draw the line on the 50%, and how do you keep from creating a domino effect?" Chairman Marshall pointed out that a subdivision lives forever, and referenced Section 3.7-2 of this Ordi- nance which stipulates that "fewer than but no more than 50% of the lots or sites within any subdivision in an R-1 district may be improved with multi- story single-family residential structures. V Commissioner Belanger stated that the issue was the creation of contiguities which could conceivably cross over subdivision lines. Chairman Marshall stated that he felt there was a discrep- ancy between the intent of the Commission relative to the 50% subdivision limi- taion, and what was actually written within the Ordinance. Commissioner Lustig stated that he was in favor of the Planning Director having 'the discretion to grant a h~dShip situation permission to build a second- Story. He expressed a concern in keeping to the 50% subdivision requirement, stating: "so that we do not have an over-preponderance of these constructions." Discussion followed on whether maximum site coverage and minimum rearyard set- back requirements should be deviated from in special cases. It was the Planning Commission's consensus that these variance decisions would be made at the dis- cretion of the Planning Director as outlined in the Ordinance; however, they expressed a point of view that overbuilt lots should not be allowed to further overbuild. Chairman }~rshall suggested that Staff review the desirability of:- MINUTES OF }t~RCH 26 VI. }~SCELLANEOUS - ~o-Story Ordinance - Continued '{~[rg~%n~ provisions for maximum site coverage of two-story conversions as opposed~eo two-story new constructions. Staff was also requested to provide '/' a means of showing the difference between "opposite to" and '!contiguous to." ~o minor errors were pointed out within the Ordinance text: (1) correct the spelling of the word "interference" in the preamble; and (2) change "multi- residential" in' the first sentence of the fourth paragraph under Section 2 to "multi-story residential." In light of the above discussion, it was the Cor~nission's consensus that a Study Session be scheduled to discuss this Ordinance, and Staff was requested to agendize same. VII. CO~RINICATIONS -~WRiTTEN .... --. A. SDR-1068.- Daniel Gilbert, Belnap Drive, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot Request for One-Year Extension It was pointed out that a letter had been received on March 24, 1975 fromMr. Daniel Gilbert requesting a one-year extension on tentative building site application SDR-1068; further, it was noted that this application had expired on March 24, 1975. The Secretary pointed out that this site was located within the proposed Hillside Conservation District; and after discussion of same, it was the Planning Commission's consensus that the conditions of the~Staff Report on this matter should be reviewed by the Subdivision Committee. Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1068 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 9, 1975, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for review Of the conditions of the Staff Report. B. SDR-1080 - Richard E. Johnson, Via Regina, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot Request for One-Year Extension It was pointed out that a letter had been received .from Mr= Richard Johnson re- questing a one-year extension on tentative building site application SDR-1080; further, it was noted that this application would expire on April 10, 1975. Kf~er~it w~i~oi~t~d out that this site was located within the proposed Hillside Conservation District, it was the Planning Commission's consensus that the Staff Report on this matter should be reviewed by the Subdivision Committee. Chairman ~rshall directed SDR-1080 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 9, 1975, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Co~m~ittee and Staff for review of the conditions of the Staff Report. C. Planning Commission Subcommittee Assignment Schedules. D. Roster of names and addresses of Councilmen, Commissioners, etc. E. Planning Policy Committee Agenda F. Letter from Planning Director to City of Saratoga Homeowners Associations requesting organizational information. VII. CO~f0NICATIONS - ORAL A. Commissioner Woodward asked the City Attorney to clarify the reason why Mr. Franklin's appeal of the Design Review Committee's decision had been placed on the City Council agenda. She stated that it had been the Committee's understanding that Mr. Franklin was asking for financial relief but pointed out that apparantly this was not what was presented to the CounCil. The City Attorney stated that the Council determined that this item was not an appeala- ble item, and should not have been agendized as an appeal. He pointed out, however, that the stairway was part of an improvement agreement and was part of a contract with the City; if the.applicant wished to alter the contractual obligation with the City, he was required to request same from the City Council. Conmissioner Woodward then asked if the Planning Commission was obligated to review this stairway matter again. 'It was pointed out that the appeal period -9- ~ ~NUTES OF b~RCH 26 1975 VII. ORAL COM~{UNICATIONS - 4th Street Stain~ay - Continued on the Commission's initial decision-regarding this stairway had long past; however, if the applicant wished to reapply for a new stairway design, the Design Review Committee and Planning Commission would be obligated to review the new application. After some discussion on this matter, Chairman Marshall requested Staff arrange a~i meeting between ~[r. Franklin, his engineer, the Planning Director and himself to discuss Mr. Franklin's intended action on this stairway matter. B.Commissioner Belanger asked the City Attorney the status of the ~rgolis violations'~ proceeding~ and Mr. Johnston pointed out that this matter was i-presently in court. C. Commissioner Belanger requested Staff check on whether the temporary sign permit had expired on the 6th Street SaratOga Foothills Condominium. D. Commissioner Belanger a'Sk~d ~ landscaping on the George Day Construction Company tracts on Fruitvale Avenue were on schedule. It was explained that due to the PG&E work done earlier this year, that the landscaping had fallen behind; however, George Day Construction Company was presently in the process of, ~[o'~d'i~'Y~i~h'~h~l~ndscaping. E. Chairman Marshall offered warm congratulations, on behalf of the Commission, to Commissioner Jean Woodward for being elected the City of Saratoga Citizen of the Year! F~: Chairman Marshall recognized and welcomed the attendance of the following : individuals: (1) Councilwoman Corr; ('~) Mrs. Runyan of't~American'A~fa- !' ....~'i~ 6'f~h~U~iv'Fsit'~'~f'W~; ~ 3')'MrTJ~h'~'Pow'{~f~ 6m the C[Y~nb~r ~f ~ Commerce; ('~)'M~V"'a~d'M~'M~Q~i~'&'~f"th~'G~d "G~V~rnme nt G~odp; ~nd'(5)' i Mr. Russe%l'C~'6~the~" ~f~h~ ~guello Homeowners Association. G. The Secretary announced that the scale model of the proposed .Parker Ranch development was at the City Hall offices, and that Staff would be working with it over the next few weeks. VIII. ADJOURNmeNT Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that the Planning C~,.,,ission meeting of March 26, 1975 be adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m. Marty Van , -- . -;../:- . skw ~/ ~ ' ' -10-