Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-09-1975 Planning Commission Minutes OF SARATOGA PLANNING COM~[ISSI~ MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, April 9, 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. MINUTES Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the read- ing of the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of March 26, 1975 be waived, and that they be approved subject to the following correction: page 2, Item II-C should be "a site on Jacks Road," not "the Jacks Road side of the property." The motion was carriedt; Commissioner Callon abstained. C. CITY COUNCIL REPORT Commissioner Belanger gave an oral present'ation of the City Council meeting of April 2=, 1975. Of special interest to the Commission were the following items: (1) Mr. Woolworth, SDR-1100, requested that the Offer of Dedication for storm drainage control and an easement for walkway purposes be automati- cally revoked if the Offer was not accepted by the City within 10 years. The Council continued this pending further study. (2) A draft EIR on the bleachers and lighting at West Valley College was presented, and the City Council directed Staff prepare a detailed response on this matter. (3) The Council scheduled the Northwest Saratoga Traffic Circulation Study for the Committee-of-the-Whole meeting on April 8, and invited the Chairman of the Planning Commission to attend in order to better understand the Commission's recent action on this Study. A copy of the minutes of this Council meeting is on file in the City's Administrative office. D. PLANNING POLICY CO~IITTEE REPORT Commissioner Belanger gave a brief oral presentation of the PPC meeting of March 27, 1975. Of note'to the Commission were the following items: (1) The Transportation Committee urged cities, when requesting~an EIR, to include in addition to the Circulation Element, transit considerations. (2) The PPC has formed a County Trails and Pathways Committee, and Commissioner Belanger placed Commissioner Woodward's name on the list as a possible alternative to that Committee. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 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 26~ 1975 The Secretary explained that at the February 26th Commission meeting, the Commission continued this matter pending review and comment by the City Manager on questions raised regarding the contract provisions under the franchise agreement between the applicant and the City. He pointed out that several questions were still unresolved, and recommended this be continued to the Commission meeting of May 28, 1975. Chairman Marshall directed UP-261 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of May 28, 1975, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report. ~RNUTES OF APR~ II. B. UP-266 - Phillip Warner, 15135 E1 Camino Grande, Request for Use Permit to Allow the Construction of a Ten-Foot Tennis Court Fence (Ordinance NS-3~ Section 3-4) Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing on UP-266 at 7:46. p.m. It was noted that this application conformed with all restrictions under the City Ordinances, and that Staff recommended approval be granted per its Staff Report dated April 4, 1975. Note was made that the applicant, Dr. Warner, had received a copy of the Staff Report 3 days prior to the Commission meet- ing. Dr. Warner was present, and indicated acceptance of the conditions of this Report. Commissioner Belanger asked the applicant why "bleachers" were to be built, further questioning whether the tennis court would be on a lease arrangement to other people, whether tournaments would be held or sound equipment installed. Dr. Warner explained that the bleachers were "sitting arrangements for guests," that the court would not be leased out, that no tournaments of any sort would be held, and that no sound equipment would be installed. Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the public hearing on UP-266 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing on UP-266 was closed at 7:50 p.m. Commissioner Belanger moved,~seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Plan- ning Commission grant a Use Permit on application UP-266 per Exhibit "A" and subject to the conditions specified in the Staff Report dated April 4, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously. C. V-419 - Osterlund Enterprises, Yerba Santa Court, Lot #2 - Request for Variance to Allow a 13-foot Sideyard Setback in Lieu of the Required 30-foot Setback (Ordinance NS-3~ Section 3.7); Continued from March 26~ 1975 The Secretary reported that the Variance Committee made an on-site inspection on this matter, and as a result of siting changes made on the structure, determined that the sideyard setback variance would not be necessary. He advised the Commission that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting V-419 be withdrawn. Chairman Marshall directed that further proceedings on V-419 be terminated. D. V-420 - Barrett Anderson, Jacks Road - Request for Variance to Allow the Reduc- tion of the Frontyard Setback to 20-feet in Lieu of the Required 30- foot Setback (Ordinance NS-3~ Section 3.7); Continued from March 26~ 1975 Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing on V-420 at 7':52 p.m. The Secre- tary stated that the Variance Committee inspected this on-site, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval be granted. ~s. Jerry Smith, 14795 Bohlman Road, pointed out that she lived adjacent to the subject property but had not received public notice of this application. She stated that she learned of this hearing from a neighbor, and expressed concern that she had not had an opportunity to write a letter on this. She gave a brief history of the development of this area; pointing out that when Dr. Cox .applied for building site approval a few years ago in this are~, she was promised at the time trees and landscaping would be planted around the driveway and turn-around areas for aesthetic reasons and for soil and erosion control. She added, however, that this was not done. Mrs. Smith stated that she was in favor of granting the variance to Dr. Anderson. However, she pointed out that there would be a paved driveway and turn-around area on Dr. Anderson's property, which would mean additional pavement in this hillside area. She expressed a concern that further soil erosion and "rape of the hillside" might occur, and stated that she would like to support a recommendation for land- scaping around these paved areas for soil and erosion control. Commissioner Martin questioned the legality of public notices if homeowners were not properly notified. The City Attorney pointed out if a homeowner was not publicly noticed but either submitted a written response before the public hearing or publicly spoke at the hearing, then the public notice -2- ~fiNUTES OF ~ II. D. V-420 - Barrett Anderson - Continued requirement was waivered. The Secretary explained that the Planning Department's policy was to require the applicant submit a complete and accurate list of all ... 'homeowners within 5D0 feet of the subject property; however, it had not been .the Department's policy to verify this list. Dr. Anderson added that his agen~t ~had prepared this list, and that it had not been intended to omit Mr. Smith's!' name from such list. ii C'ommissioner Martin, Chairman of the Variance Committee, advised the CommissiOn that the Variance Committee inspected this on-site on March 29, 1975; and that insomuch as the back of the .property was very heavily wooded, it-was 'felt that there would be no physical detriments by having a 40-foot setback in lieu of the required 501foot rearyard setback. It was felt at this time that it would be appropriate td act on the Design Review application (A-469) concurrently with this Variance application. Chairman Woodward, Chairman of the Design Review Committee, stated the Committee had reviewed this matter, and had requested landscaping plans be submitted for all cut and fill areas. She added that this had not been adequately spelled out to include the paved "apron" on this property, and recommended a condition be added to the Staff Report for landscaping of all paved areas. Commissioner Belanger stated that she wanted to be sure that all required landscaping would be done, and asked if there was a guarantee "if we handle this condition prior to Plan Check Approval, that we have any way of getting the picture on the map converted to plants in the ground." She recommended the applicant be required to bond for this landscaping. The City Attorney stated that the control would be to require the land- scaping be.-_done prior to the issuance of the building permit. Commissioner Belanger pointed that one could not really do the landscaping prior to the building permit being issued because landscaping would be done after the building. The City Attorney suggested that the Commission "dovetail" the conditions so that the building plans and landscaping plans melded together. Dr. Anderson pointed out that he had not intended to prepare the land- scaping plans until he was certain he would be building the house. He added: "I assured the Commission when I applied for tentative site approval that landscaping would be done, and that it would be as natural as possible. I would not want to hold up my building schedule in order to get someone to submit landscaping plans if before the final approval to'build is given, landscaping plans must be submitted." Commissioner Lustig stated that he was not in favor of a homeo~mer being ~eqUi~edctolbond for landscaping, adding that he felt the Commission had to go by the homeow~er~s integrity. He further added that he felt issuance of the building permit should be contingent upon final inspection of the building and no more. The City Attorney pointed out that it would be possible to defer the final inspection of the landscaping plans until the final building inspection so that they dovetailed together, and that it was also possible to withhold the Certificate of Occupancy until all requirements had been met. He added that a more appropriate time to request bonding would have been during final building site approval,.'p~{~'~i~"~ that the Commission did not have any vehicle to force bonding at Design Review. He stated, although he did not suggest the Commission do this, that the Commission could impose a bond condition on granting of the variance application because approval of a Variance was a matter of grace. Although Commissioner Belanger expressed a desire to impose such a condition on the Variance application, it was the general consensus of the Commission not to require such a bond. Upon further discussion of this matter, it was suggested the Staff Report dated April 3, 1975 on application A-469 be modified as follows: -3- · MINUTES OF AP~ II. D. V-420 - Barrett Anderson - Continued "(1)~' The applicant is to submit and secure approval of landscaping plans to Staff demonstrating adequate slope erosion control for all cut and fill areas and screening of both paved areas, prior to Plan Check Approval and completion of all plantings prior to the Certificate of Occupancy being issued." Cormhissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the public hearing on V-420 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing on V-420 was closed at 8:30 p.m. Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that'the Planning Co~fm~ission grant approval of application V-420 per Exhibit '~-1" and subject to the conditions of the Staff Report dated April 3', 1975. Commissioner Belanger moved that a condition be added to the Staff Report on V-420 similar to the condition recommended to be added to t he Design Review Staff Report on A-469. The motion died for lack of a second. The motion to approve application A-420 subject to the conditions of the Staff Report dated April 3~ 1975 was carried;_ Commissioner Belanger abstained stating that she was opposed to approval of the Variance without a bgnding 'stipulation for the landscaping. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission grant final design review approval to applica- tion A-469 per Exhibit "A-I" and subject to the conditions of the Staff Report dated April 9, 1975, as amended. The motion was carried unanimously. III. BUILDING SITES AND SUBDIVISIONS A. SD-1112 - Alan Chadwick, Pierce Road, Subdivision Approval - 8 Lots; (Expira- tion Extended to April 9, 1975)~ Continued from March 26~ 1975 The Secretary stated that revised material requested by the Subdivision Committee had not yet been submitted', '~'~'~ Staf~ recommended this be continued. He advised the Commission that the applicant had submitted a letter granting an extension to the next Planning Commission meeting. Chairman }~rshall directed SD-1112 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 23, 1975, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report. Bo SDR-1154 - Beck Enterprises, Walnut Avenue, Building Site Approval - 4 Lots; (Expiration Extended to April 9~ 1975)~ Continued from ~rch 26~ 1975 Mr. Burt, Assistant Planner, pointed out that this matter had been reviewed by the Subdivision Committee and Staff on several occasions, and that a Staff Report dated April 9, 1975 had been prepared recommending approval. He noted that this Staff Report had been modified from that of March 26, 1975, and that the applicant had agreed to waive the 3-day advance limit established by the Subdivision Map Act. The applicant, Mr. Beck, then confirmed this waiver publicly for the record. It was noted that the Planning Commission continued t~mat~er in order to submit a proposed Hold Harmless and Indemnity Agreement between the City and the applicant for consideration of possible problems along the Saratoga Creek to the City Council for its consideration. It was pointed OUt, however, that at the Council meeting of April 2, aft alternative suggestion was submitted by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. It was the Council's determination that it would be agreeable to the Hold Harmless Agreement if it was felt to be the acceptable recommendation by the Commission; h~ever, the Council indicated it would rather see an agreement made with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and requested the Commission consider the District's alternative. Mro Malcolm Burns, representative of the Santa Clara Valley Water District, was present and read a statement of position on SDR-1154. The statement contained -4- MINUTES OF APRIL 9 1975 III. Bo SDR-1154 - Beck Enterprises - Cont'd the following major points: The District felt that the site was not subject to flooding problems, but that bank erosion potential was serious. The District would prefer no development of any kind on this site, but would "relunctantly agree to a dedication of land inscribed within the boundary of a 2:1 slope line plus 23-feet." The statemept~_poi~ted'noutlth~t acceptance of this condi- tion would assume that a grouted-rock lining of the bank would be acceptable to the City in the event 'c~aek2~provements were needed. It additionally pointed out, however, that a loose-rock protection would be more aesthetiC-_'."_. and would have less tendency to increase high-flow velocity, but that in order ~orithe?District to provide this, a 2:1 slope plus 40-foot dedication of land would be necessary. Discussion followed on this suggested alternative. Chairman Marshall clari- fied the options on this matter: (1) 2:1 slope with 23-foot dedication of land~owithout improvements. If improvements were needed in the future, the Water District would use a grouted-rock bank-lining. (2) 2:1 slope with 40- foot dedication of land without improvements. If improvements were needed in the future, the Water District would use a loose-rock bank-lining. (3) No dedication of land to the Santa Clara Valley Water District, but require a Hold Harmless and Indemnity Agreement between the applicant and the City against flood and/or erosion damages. This would call for a 15- foot setback from the top of bank with a 1.5~1 slope. Note was made that the April 9, 1975 Staff Report provided for the Hold Harm- less Agreement (Condition R) as well as for the 23-foot right-of-way dedica- tion to the Water District (ConditiOn U). The applicant was advised that if both conditions were allowed to be leff in, it would be necessary for the applicant to re~sfca reconsideration of conditions at a later date. Beck, the applicant, was present and indicated a willingness to request a re- consideration of conditions at a later date. Mr. Burns offered a personal opinion that the Hold Harmless and Indemnity Agreement "would not hold water;"' pointing out that he felt that the cost to~the homeowner for possible creek improvements would be so significant that the homeowner could suGgessively argue in court that he unknowingly signed a document ~hich he did not fully understand regarding financial impact of any future creek improvements. He added that in the last 20 years, the bank on this creek had moved back on the east side about 30 feet and on the south side about 20-25 feet; further, that he estimated the bank was moving on the average one-foot each year. Action on this item was continued until after recess in order for Staff to obtain Exhibit '~-3" reflecting the 2:1 slope and the 23-foot dedication for the Commission's review. RECESS: 9:15 - 9:35 p.m. Chai~m~n~M~rshall asked Mr. Burns if the '~reek improvements made by the Water'District would be in the event of actual bank erosion or at the Dis- trict's option. Mr. Burns stated that it would be in the event of emergency bank failure or in the event of a large-scale project of the area bX the Water District. Mr. Burns added, however, that if such a project were to occur, EIR proceedings would be held'and the District would not make any improvements until a certified public hearing was held and until a certified EIR was adopted on the project. After further discussion, Chairman Marshall pointed out that he felt the 23-foot dedication, 2:1 slope was an acceptable compromise to the problem, and would afford the developer the use of his land and also afford the Water District a reasonable amount of protection on the banks of the creek. The consensus of the Commission was to delete Condition (R), the Hold Harmless and Indemnity Agreement, of the Staff Report in favor of the Condition (U), the 23-foot dedication of land to the Water District. Mr. Beck indicated a desire to leave both Conditions (R) and (U) in the Staff Report in the event that the Santa Ctara Valley Water District would choose -5- }fINUTES OF APRIL III. B. SDR-1154 - Beck Enterprises - Cont"d not to accept the d~dication of offer. The City Attorney pointed out that the Santa Clara Valley Water District represented to the Commission this evening its willingness to accept the 23-foot Offer of Dedication, on a 2:1 slope. He stated that if the Commission chose to keep both Conditions (R) and (U) in the Staff Report in the event that the District decided to not accept this Offer of Dedication, the Commission would be doubting the District's sincerity. As Chairman of the Subdivision Committee, Commissioner Belanger expressed a desire to continue this item until the next meeting of the Planning Commission in order to review the District's alternative suggestion. Mr. Beck opposed this continuance and requested action be taken this evening. He~stated that he agreed to the District's requirement of a 23-foot dedication of land at a 2:1 slope, and that he had also gone to extensive effort and expense'in pre- paring an acceptable Hold Harmless Agreement for the City. He argued that by referring this to the Subdivision Committee again that he felt the Water District could keep' submitting new alternatives and this matter would continue to b.e unresolved. The general consensus of the Commission was to honor Mr. Beck's request. Chairman Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner' Woodward, that the Planning Commission approve application SDR-1154 per Exhibit '~-3" and subject to the conditiDns specified in the Staff Report dated April 9, 1975, amended as follows: (1) third paragraph, change Exhibit "A-2" to Exhibit '~-3"; (2) Condition' (L), change Exhibit '~-2" to Exhibit '~-3"; (3) delete Condi- tion (R); and (4) Condition (U), change Exhibit '~-2" to Exhibit '~-3." The motion was carried; Commissioner Belanger voted no. C. SDR-1161 - Margolis, Chatzky & Dunnett, APC, 4th Street and Big Basin Way; Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expiration Extended to April 9, 1975); Continued from~rch 26~ 1975 The Secretary noted that a letter was sent to Mr. Margolis from the Planning Staff advising him that unless an Exhibit "B" was submitted by April 7, 1975 for the Subdivision Committee's review, this matter would have to be denied subject to receipt of a written extension by April 10, 1975 to the next Commission meeting. Mr. Butt added that per a telephone conversation with the applicant, Mr. ~rgolis indicated an unwillingness to proceed further with this application. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning Commission deny application SDR-1161 subject to receipt of a written extension by April 10, 1975 to the Planning CommisSion meeting of April 23, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously. D. SDR-1166 - Wayne Leposavic, Walnut Avenue, Building Site Approval -2 Lots; ~ (Expires April 16~ .1975)~ Continued from ~rch 26~ 1975 The Secretary noted that the applicant had submitted a letter granting an ex- tension to the next Commission meeting, and that Staff recommended this matter be continued. Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1166 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. E. SDR-1168 - Augie Aprile, Saratoga Avenue, Building Site Ap~roval - 1 Lot (Expires April 29~ 1975); Continued from Marsh 26~ 1975 The Secretary stated that the Subdivision Committee had reviewed this matter, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. He noted that a copy of the Staff Report had been fon~arded~to the applicant. 3 days prior to this Commission meeting. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning Commission approve application SDR-1166 per Exhibit "A" and subject to General Conditions I and Specific Conditions II (A)-(O) of the Staff Report dated Ap{il 1, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously. ~ ~NUTES OF APRIL 9~ o. I~I. F. SDR-1169 - Cecil Carpenter, Bountiful Acres and Austin Way, Building Site App~L val~ 1 Lot (Expires April 30, 1975); Continued from ~rch 26~ 1975 The Secretary stated that the Subdivision Committee had reviewed this matter, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. He noted that a copy of the Staff Report had been forwarded to the applicant 3 days prior to the Commission meeting. The applicant was present and indicated acceptance of the Staff Report conditions. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Plannin~ Commission approve application SDR-1169 per Exhibit "A" and subject to-General Conditions I and Specifi~ Conditions II (A)-(L) of the Staff Report dated April 4, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously. Staff recommended Item (G) be continued pending further review by the Subdivision C~m~ittee and Staff. Staff further noted that the files on Items (H)-(L) were not complete, and recommended these matters be continued: Chairman Marshall directed the-f~I~gwing files be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 23, 1975, and referred these matters to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review: G. SDR-1170 - Alexander M. August, Live Oak Lane, Building Site Approval - 3 Lots (Expires May 1~ 1975); Continued fromMarch 26, 1975 H. SDR-1171 - Robert Thurston, Cordwood Court, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expires May 2~ 1975) I. SDR-1172 - Melvin D. Stout, E1 Quito way, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expires May 2~ 1975) J. SDR-1173 - Frank LmMonica, Pike Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expires May 5~ 1975) K. SDR-1174 - Thomas N. Foster, Horseshoe Drive, Building Site Approval - 3 Lots (Expires May 6~ 1975) L. SDR-1175 - Matt Voros, Mt. Eden Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expires May 9~ 1975) IV. DESIGN REVIEW A. A-425 - Osterlund Enterprises, Yerba Santa Court, Final Design Review Approval- Lot #2~ Tract #4768; Continued from March 26~ 1975 Mr. Loewke, Planner I, stated that this was the last of the 8-lots for.final design review approval in Tract ~4768. He noted that the Design Review Committee had inspected this matter on-site, and that a Staff Report had been prepared which recommended approval be granted. Mr. Loewke explained that there was a double row of cedar trees which were currently crowding each other.~as a result of being planted too closely, and that removal of four cedars, as specified on Exhibit "I," was recommended in order to allow for the proper development of the remaining trees. It was explained that the location of these trees as shown on the building envelope had not been accurately reflected, and consequently trees were required to be removed. Chairman Marshall asked ~.~ether the design for this house was within the building envelope as approved by the Commission at the time of tentative map approval. Mr. Loewke replied that it was not, explaining that in order to remain within the previously-approved building envelope, the -fgarage'.would be6in the front elevation and would necessarily be all that would be seen of the house from the street. Commissioner Belanger and Chairman Marshall both expressed a strong disapproval of the design not being within the building envelope; pointing out that at the time of. tentative approval, the applicant had assured the Commissi~ the placement of the trees was accurate and that there would be no problem in .......................... ~.~dj~g wi~bip th~o.~nvel_=~p~. They indicated that they were not opp6sed to MINUTES OF APRIL 9 IV. A. A-425 - Osterlund Enterprises~ Lot #2~ Tract #4768 - Cont'd the new design, but rather they were very concerned that the buil°ding envelope had not been accurately reflected on the map originally. They stressed a more careful handling by the Commission in the future of building envelopes. in order to avoid a similar situation. Commissioner Woodward pointed out that the Design Review Committee had in- spected this on-site, and that it had examined the application very carefully because of the discrepancy of the building envelope. She added that the Commission had made a number of suggestions for a better design than was sh~n on the building envelope, and that the applicant had implemented these suggestions to the Committee's satisfaction. Mr. Tercini, applicant, stated that the showing of the precise location of trees was the developerrs responsibility; he added, however, that the loca- tion of the trees was based on aerial photographs of the property which were expanded to a large-scale map. He pointed out that the inaccuracy was the applicant's loss because it had taken many months of work on this one lot to come up with an acceptable plan. He apologized for the inaccuracy of the plans, but pointed out that the site would still have in excess of 25 trees and that the visible impact would be exactly ~.~at was seen today. Commissioner Belanger stated that she had not meant to imply that the developer had acted in bad faith, only to communicate her disappointment that the build- ing envelope had been inaccurate. She stated: "I was also eager to get some of this discussion into our minutes because we did have .a.'neighborhood problem with this rezoning, and there was assurance given by the City that there would be minimum cutting of the trees. I think the residents there should know that the Commission gave proper review of this." Commissioner Lustig asked what provisions would be made to insure against naC · . cldental removal" of the existing trees Mr. Tercini replied that the first guarantee was that there were substantial costs involved in removing trees of those sizes, so they would qnly be removing those trees which were specified on the plans as having to be removed. He added that they would also be monitoring the tree removal very closely. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission grant final design review approval to application A-425, Lot #2, Tract #4768 per Exhibit "I" and subject to the conditions of the Staff Report dated April 2, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously. B. A-431 - Fred Marburg, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Final~D~sign Review Approval - Commercial Building Mr. Loewke stated that the Design Review Committee and Staff wished to review this matter further, and recommended this be continued. Chairman Marshall directed A-431 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 23, 1975, and referred this matter to the D&sign.Be~ew Committee and Staff for further review and report. C. A-468 - Yves Casabonne, Big Basin Way, Final Design Review Approval - Commercial Building Mr. Loewke stated that the Design Review Committee had reviewed this mateer, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending .approval be granted. The applicant was/not present, b~t'i~ was note~ that a copy of the Staff Report had been fon~arded to him 3-~daySi~io~o~the CommisS~on_~meeting. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Plan- ning Commission grant final design review approval per Exhibit "A" and subject to the conditions of the Staff Report dated April 2, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously. -8- ~ ~NUTES OF APRIL 9~ 1975 IV. D. A-469 - Barrett C. Anderson, Jacks Road, Final Design Review Approval - Single- Family Residence - 1 Lot See Item II-D. E. SS-81 - Adway Signs, Inc., Cox and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Final Design Review Approval - Identification Sign for The Vineyards; Cont~nhed' from March 26~ 1975 Mr. Loewke stated the Design Review Committee had reviewed this matter and a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval.o, He pointed out that the sign had been in existence for at/least 17 months; and that the applicatio~ was for a temporary sign for a one-year periods/He a'dH'~d~'however, t~a'~ S~'~f~uld reco~m~end the sign permit be approved for a 6-month period. Brief discussion followed on this. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission grant sign approval to application SS-81 per Exhibit "A" and subject to the conditions of the Staff ~Report dated April 2, 1975, amended to include-Condition (2) as follows: "(2) ~S~d' sign is .effective for six months from date of approval, and is ~ot renewable." The motion was carried unanimously. F. 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; Continued from ~rch 26~ 1975 Mr. Loewke stated that the applicant had not as ~et submitted plans on this application, and recommended this matter be continued. Chairman Marshall directed SS-82 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 23, 1975, and referred same to the Design Review Committee and Staff for further reView-and report. V. ENVIRO~RqTAL I~ACT DETEP~iINATIONS ...... The following Negative Declaration was filed between the period of March 27, 1975 to April 9, 1975: A. SDR-1175 - Matto Voros, Mt. Eden Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot VI. MISCELLANEOUS The Secretary ~'~a'~d~'~ ~i~Y~ was in ~hYprocess ~ reviewing ~h~'d'iYi~'~ o~ the Staff Report on the following matters, and would recommend that these matters ~ ' ~e cbntinued:' A. SDR-1068 - Daniel Gilbert, Belnap Drive, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot; Request for One-Year Extension; Continued from ~rch 26~ 1975 B. SDR-1080 - Richard E. Johnson, Via Regina, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot; Request for One-Year Extension'-Continued fromMarch 26~.1975 Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1068 and SDR-1080 be continued to the Planning Commis- sion meeting of April 23, 1975, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Commit- tee and Staff for further review. C. SDR-1082 - Charles Hecker, Pierce Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot; Request for One-Year Extension The Secretary stated that Staff had reviewed this request for a one-year exten- sion, and examined the Staff Report and conditions relative to the approved exhibit of October 23, 1975. He added that Staff did not determine any neces- sary amendments to the Report, and would therefore recommend the extension for one-year be granted. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning Commission grant a one-year extension to application SDR-1082. The motion was carried unanimously. MINUTES OF APRIL 9~ 1975 VII. CORRESPONDENCE - WRITTEN The following written correspondence was introduced into the record: A. Memorandum from Citizen's Advisory Committee for Historic Preservation on "Proposed Formation of Saratoga Historic Landmarks Commission and Amendments to Zoning Ordinance." B. Draft Environmental Impact Report p~epared by Earth Metrics Incorporated/fO~' ?'Propos~H'~l~d~'s and Lights at. West Valley College." The Secretary stated ~that this matter was brough['before the City Council at its last meeting, and 'that the Council had requested Staff prepare a detailed response on this EIR. He added that Staff invited comments from the Planning Commission on this EIR, and suggested a Commission Committee-of-the-I~ole meeting be scheduled to discuss same. C. PPC Mini-Minutes of March 27, 1975. D. A letter from the Good Government Group was read into the record requesting the Chairman of the Commission notify the Good Government Group representative if coffee breaks were not going to be taken during Commission meetings. Chairman Marshall suggested the Commission break between 9-10:00 p.m. during , "hi h the Commission meetings or otherwise g sign" the representative if a break would not be taken. E. A-letter received April 7, 1975 from Ian and Ursula Millett, and also signed by 5 other residents of the E1 Quito Way area, opposing tentative map appro- val on SDR-1172, Melvin Stout. Chairman Marshall directed this letter be made part of the file on SDR-1172, and referred the letter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for its consideration in reviewing this application. VII. CORRESPONDENCE - OI~L A. Ms. McQuire, representative of the Good Government GrouR, expressed concern that there was-~ a large amount of cuts and fills on the Osterlund Enterprises -development on San Marcos Road. Chairman Marshall directed Staff check on -whether a grading permit had been issued on this development, and on whether the Planning Director had reviewed the development plans prior to issuance of a grading permit. B. Commissioner Belanger notified the Commission that she would not be a~aila- ble to attend the Subdivision Committee meetings between Ap'~i'i"I'~' and May 6~ further, that she would not be in attendance at the Commission meeting of April 23, 1975. She asked that a substitute Commissioner take her place at the Subdivision Committee meeting during her absence. C. Commissioner Lustig expressed concern with the construction equipment being stored on th~'R~d~Y property on Reed Lane and Highway 85. Staff was directed to review this matter. D. Commissioner Callon asked whether an agenda packet for the public was made available at Commission meetings as a legal requirement, pointing out that the County Board of Supervisors as well as the Saratoga City Council provided such a packet at their meetings. The City Attorney stated that there was no _. legal.E~q~i.~_~0r__.a__packet of this nature to be.provided at City Council or Planning Commission meetings, but were provided as a courtesy. The Secre- tary pointed out that copies df agendas and all Staff Reports were made availai ble as a matter of policy for public use at each Planning Commission meeting. E. Commissioner Callon asked who was responsible for p~qvi~ng.___a~omplete list of homeowners to be notified of public hearings, questioning whether it was Staff's responsibility to verify'~he ii~t. The City At}'Srney explai~d~hY~h~'O~i- nance required, as a matter of due process, that the applicant supply the City with a complete and accurate list of all homeo~.~rs within 500-feet of the subject property. He pointed out that, by reason of the applicant not ._~upp~ying. t~e City wi~ .a_prope~_li~,.if someone did not get due process, the action taken in the applicant's favor ~ould'be"~oi~ed. He further explained that if, however, a person did not receive notice of a public hearing by mail but appeared at the.ppblic hearing or submitted a written response prior to the public heari~g~this would constitute an automatic waiver. -10- ~ffNUTES OF APRIL 9~ 1~ VII. O~L CO~D~%CATIONS - Cont'd Y. Commissioner Callon asked for the procedure on making motions at the Commission meetings. Chairman Marshall explained that traditionalIt the Chairman_Qf_the__ Committee made the motion that was germaine to that particular area, and a member of the Committee made the second. G. Commissioner Callon asked what was actuall~ needed in making a motion. The City Attorney stated that the Commission could move, for example, to grant site ~approval to a building site application subject to the conditions set forth in the Staff Report. He added that the Commission was moving to adopt a tenta- ..... ~iV~.m~__~.,_~ich could be subject ~_~he conditio~ of a.Staff Report. H. The Secretary suggested scheduing a Committee-of-the-Whol'e meeting on ~pril 17 at 7:30 p.m. at the Community Center on Allendale Avenue to discuss the following: (1) Draft EIR on West Valley College Bleachers and Lighting; (2) Historical Commission proposal; and (3) ~¢o-Story Ordinance. This was acceptable to the Commission. I. The Secretary further suggested scheduling the proposed Residental Hillside District ordinance f~r the second regular ~ss~onm~i~'~T~f'~y~. .This was acceptable to the Commission, and the proposed Residential Hillside District ~T'di~'~d~ was ~[~uled for May 28, 1975 Planning Commission meeting. J. The Secretary s~ggest~d a special public hearing be scheduled for ~y 19, 1975 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers for purposes of reviewing the'1974 General Plan. This date was acceptable to the Commission. K. Chairman Marshall reported that a meeting had been held between Mr. Rubnitz, the Planning Director and himself to discuss the Fourth Street stairway. He stated that Mr. Rubnitz appeared to be operating in good faith, and had indi-' cated that the stairway would be completed at the same time the new Oak Street condominiums would be done. He stated that Mr. Rubnitz would be setting up a meeting with the Design Review Committee on ~his in the near future. L. Chairman Marshall stated that he attended the Council Committee-of-the-Whole meeting on April 8, 1975 relative to the Northwest Saratoga.Traffic Oircula- tion Study. He stated that he explained to the Council the reason why the Commission requested information on the Prospect/Stelling Road area was with regards to the Parker Ranch change of zoning application, and the fact that many of the residents of this area had requested more complete traffic counts ~be provfd~d'. He stated that he requested this could b__e_ma~.e_on_the___ ~.easterl~'leT~f 'Prospect Road, and added that he further requested the amend-. !ments made by the traffic consultant on this Study be added to the text in · order ~o avoid a report with cumbersome addendums. Chairman Marshall reported =that the City Council was agreeable to the traffic count being made, and !directed the City ~na~er to act on this_matter. He_fur-th~-not~fied--~ 'Planning Commission that as soon as the City Council determined the Northwest Saratoga Traffic Circulation Study.was complete and acted thereon, the Commission 'would be required to hold a public hearing on determining whether this Study ................. ~should be adopte_~das p~t of ~h~.~ircu!~tion E!_ement of the 1974 General Plan. M. Chairman Marshall welcomed and recognized the attendance of Councilman Kraus, ~aid'M~d' Mrs. McQuire ~f the Good Government Group. VIII~ ADJOLrP~\~IENT Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that the Planning Commission meeting of April 9, 1975 be adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, skw '.~(~y Van~DuynT'%~ary ~" -11-