Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-27-1975 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CO~SSION ~NUTES TIME: 7:30 p.m. - Wednesday, August 27, 1975 PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Comissioners Belanger, Lustig, Marshall, ~rtin and Zambetti Absent: Commissioners Callon and Woodward B. }~N~TES Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the reading of the~August 13, 1975 Planning Commfssion meeting minutes be waived, and that they be approved as distributed to the Commission. The motion was carried; .Commissioner Martin abstained. II. TENTATIVE SIrDIVISIONS/FINAL BUILDING SITES A. SDR-l~43 - W.R. Hamsher, Sobey Road~ Final Building Site Approval - 1 Lot Note was made that pursuant to the newly ~d'~d provisions of"eh'['Ci~"~'S~b'dlViC sion Ordinance, the Planning Commission now had authority to grant final building% site approvals; and accordingly, Staff recommended SDR-1143 be granted final map ~ approval. The Secretary pointed out that a status report had been prepared list.? ': all bonds and feesawhich had been paid, and pointing out that all conditions / "of tentative building sit~'~p~r0val"~ad bee~"~. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission grant final Building Site Approval to application SDR-l~43, W.R. Hamsher, Sobey Road, 1 Lot. The motion was carried unanimously. B. SDR-1176 - John Lyngso, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Tentative Building Site Approval 1 Lot (Expiration Extended to August 27, 1975); Continued from July 23, 1975 Note was made that a change of zoning matter relative to this item was presently being heard before the City Council, and Staff recommended this matter be con- tinued pending Council action on same. Further note was made that the applicant had submitted a letter granting an extension of SDR-1176 to the Planning Commission meeting of September 10, 1975. Chairman Marshall directed SDR-1176 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 10, 1975, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report. C. SD-1202 - Saratoga Foothills Development, Saratoga Avenue at La Paloma, Tentative Subdivision Approval - 24 Lots; Conversion of Existing Apartments to Condominium Units (Expires September 22~ 1975) Note was made that Staff had not yet received all comments from public agencies necessary to complete review of this application, and the recommendation was made that this matter be continued. Chairman Marshall directed SD-1202 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 10, 1975, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report. -1- ~RNUTES OF AUGUST 27, 1975 III. PUBLIC H~RINGS A. UP-279 - Allen DeGrange, Cox Avenue, Request for a Use Permit to Allow a Multiple Family Residential Development (a Senior Citizens Housing Project) to be Constructed at a Site Located on Cox Avenue (Ordinance NS-3, Sect. 6~3) Continued from AuSust 13, 1975 The Secretary explained that there were minor problems regarding Zoning Ordinance technicalities yet to be resolved regarding this application, and the recommenda-- tion was made that both UP-279 and Variance application V-430 be continued. He added that there were no concerns over the variance matter itself, but that since the two items were directly related, Staff felt both applications should be h~D.d!ed c0_nQ~rrentl~. Mr. De~ng~,._~.~pRli~a~£, ~.~s._p~eD~ acceptance of this continuance. Chairman Marshall directed UP-279 and Vg430 bell · continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 10, 1975, and referred. these matters to the Subdivision Committee, Variance Committee and Staff for further review and report. \ B. UP-285 - Arndt Enterprises, Sousa Lane, RequeSt'for a Use Permit to Allow th~ Construction of an Existing Use (Convalescent Hospital) under the Name of Arndt Enterprises Staff made note that several letters had been recently received from neighboring residents on this matter which required investigation by Staff; and consequently, the recommendation was made that this matter be continued. Chairman ~rshall directed UP-285 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 10, 1975, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for further review and report. C. UP-286 - Saratoga Parent Nursery School, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Williams, Request for a Use Permit to Allow the Expansion of an Existing Use (Nursery School) ~Ordinance NS-3~ Section 16.6-1) Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing on UP-286 at 7:47 p.m. Staff ex- plained that the applicant was requesting a modification to UP-35 whihh provided for a nursery school in a residential zone, said modification being to allow for the conversion of the existing single-car garage to an additional playroom, and the construction ofia storage ~h'~'/~housel~for tricycles and various play equipment. Staff noted that'this ~atter'had been revi~-~ed by the Subdivision Committee, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval sub- ject to posting a bond to assure reconversion of the garage upon termination of nursery school use. Commissioner Belanger added that there would be no additional parking spaces needed in that this proposed modification would not increase the nursery school's enrollment, and consequently, would not increase the number of parking spaces needed. The applicant was present and indicated acceptance of the conditions of the Staff Report. Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the public hearing on UP-286 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing on UP-286 was closed at 7:49 p.m. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission approve application UP-286 according tonthe provisions set forth in the Staff Report dated August 22, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously. D. GF-301 - Proposed Hillside Conservation District Ordinance, an Ordinance of the City of Saratoga Amending Ordinance NS-3, the Zoning Ordinance, by Establishing a Hillside Conservation District Zoning Classification b'y Addin5 Article 3-A Thereto Chairman }~rshall opened the public hearing on the proposed Hillside Conserva- tion District Ordinance at 7:50 D.m. The following pieces of correspondence were read into the re~ord:..-~-~.- (1) Letter dated August 25, 1975 from Vince S. Garrod, 22600 Mt. Eden Road, ~"S~t'Oga.. -2- .-. ~ . ~NUTES OF AUGUST 27~ 1975 ~IIIT'D~"GF~3'Or'~'Pro'~d'HiIlii'd~'C~ervation District - Cont'd (2) Letter dated August 22,1975 from the Good Government Group, P.O. Box 371, Saratoga. (3) Letter dated August 23, 1975 from Theodore and Ruth Robertshaw, 656 Bayview Drive, Aptos, California. (4) Letter dated August 26, 1975 from George Tobin, 246 W. ~in Street, Los Gatos, California, attorney representing Anthony Cocciardi, a Saratoga property owner (5)Letter dated August 26, 1975 from Mmes. Dempsey, Mencacci, Simner and Slade of the Los Gatos/Saratoga League of Women Voters. (6) Letter dated August 26, 1975 from Dorothy Gloyd and Gertrude Bowie, 20311 Ardonaut Drive, Saratoga and 1323 Sierra Avenue, San Jose, respectively~ (7)Letter dated August 25, 1975 from Mr. and Mrs. William Thomas, 21955 Via Regina, Saratoga.. (NOTE:'Copies of these letters are on file in the offices of the City Planning Department.) STAFF PRESEN~AT{ON Don B~r~,..__~lanning Staff member, gave a brief slide presentation on the concepts Contained in the Hillside Conservation District, noting that if the concept of the Ordinance itself was agreed upon, the details of the Ordinance could be worked out. He also noted that the purpose of the Ordinance was to preserve the natural landscape and beauty of the City~s hillsides, and at the same time, all~ for development. He briefly outlined the more important reasons for attem~t__i__ng to preserve the open space~. to retain the natural character of the landscape; to ~void developing on areas of geologic instability; to reduce visual impact on the landscape; ~a'd to allow the natural landscape to function in its intended manner, i.e, watershed '~i'l~l'ffe=source, etc. In order to accomplisb the goal of preserving open space.and '~l'fi~e s~me ~im~rlS*~'YB~'~e~l~ment, Mr. Butt pointed out that control over .g~pwth :'was neede~ but that these controls must be flexible in order to allow .R!~cement_. ~f ~h'5'uses where they best suited the land. Mr. Butt contended that, ~n som~ cases ~. . - ,-~.. :clustering of ~ingle-family ho~si~es could best achieve the possibility of being~ 'esl~destructive to the natural environment by_~uiri~g_less grading and by .pre-: serving a greater amount of natural landscape as a more cbhesive unit. Relative to preserving open space, the Ordinance proposed that 80% of a:property owner's land remain as open space, thereby limiting the amount of land which could be developed. The open space itself would remain permanent by such possi- ble means as deeding development rights to the City, requiring site development plans, or rezoning said lands to open space. The point was made that the property o~aer would own this open space, but would not be allowed to build on it. Mr. Butt explained that the setbacks within the District would remain much as they presently are under R-i-40,000 zoning regulations, but that the typical building envelope itself would be approximately 10,000 square feet. Note was made that the Ordinance provided for public hearings on all subdivisions and developments within the hills in order to allow affected citizens the opportunity to express their concerns on development of adjacent lands. ~ny of the problems involved in development within the hills were graphically illustrate~ and several slides were shown reflecting the District's topogr_a_p~%, sla~s, 'land ~nership and the possible development under various slope density..~ormulas'. TT~'~lh't was mad~'~h~'ihe majority of' the property owners within the district owned Large lots capab'l~ of being substantia~%~'Y~B~iVi'a~d. Further, he recommended that · 'fe~r'~=~ViYh s~bs'tanfiil'Yl~p~ of'3Dv~0~'d'be set asfde as open space flithose areas were wff~in' large par~sl~'~of'lidT"a~a'de"~;~however, that i'f'Yhese areas were allowed to be subdivided into smaller'parcels, pressures could again be exerted on '~l~ping properties within steeper slopes. He warned of the problems relative such individual piecemeal developments, such as insuring the installation and main- tenonce of proper sewage and water services, as well as roads. Mr. Butt showed maps ~fll~'f~ng services provided by Sanitation District No. 4 and San Jose Water Works, and' he emphasized the difficulty and expense to individual property owners in installing and maintaining private, individually-developed roads. He encouraged development of larger parcels of land whereby the City could regulate and insure installation of adequate roads, water and sewage systems. Mr. Butt showed slides pertinent to projected fault lines within the hills, and urged the necessity for requiring proper soils investigations prior to development in order to avoid such situations as landslides, soil creep, etc. caused by building on unidentified, unstable soil and geologic lands. -3- ~RNUTES OF AUGUST 27, 1975 __III. D. GF-301 - Pro~'~sed Hillside Conservation District (Staff Presentation) - Cont'd Relative to growth within the City, Mr. Burt stated that already the majority of the Hillside Conservation District was considered part of urban Saratoga, and that the pressures to develop within the hills were increasing as valley floor property in Saratoga decreased. He emphasized the demand for housing in Sara- toga by noting that, as opposed to the County's vacancy rate of 5%, the City of Saratoga's vacancy rate was 2.5%. Consequently, Mr. Burt concluded that if the housing supply in Saratoga was limited, the demand for housing would continue without relief, thereby increasing the market value and tax rates of existing housing. _ Cit ~' Mr. Burt compared the slope density formula~ of the y s old. ordinance, the proposed Hillside Ordinance, and the City's existing interim resolution with regards to growth potential in the hills. Of the 1,200 acres within the pro- posed Hillside Conservation District, and assuming an average slope of 25%, Mr. Bur~ concluded that using the old formula, said District would yield approximately 800 houses; by using the proposed Ordinance formula, it would yield approximately 600 houses, and by using the interim rESolution formula, it would yield approxi--' mately 250 houses. Mr. Burr concluced his presentation by again pointing out that the purpose of the Hillside Conservation District Ordinance was to preserve the natural character of Saratoga. He contended that Saratoga was unique not because of the houses but because of the natural landscape, and stated: "If you allow people to indis- crimately develop within the hills, the natural environment will be destroyed. If you want to live here, let's preserve what you came here for!" CITIZEN RESPONSE · Vince Garrod, 22600 Mt. Eden Road, pointed out that he had lived in Saratoga for 57 years and owned property within Saratoga, the County and Cupertino. He further pointed out that his family had planned the development of these lands over a long-termbasis, and he expressed concern that a long-term mora- torium like that for ~he Monte Bello Ridge Study would be effectuated. Mr. Garrod informed the Commission that in an attempt to insure that all property owners within the hill area were heard on this matter, as well as in an attempt to ~mple~ent an acceptable ordinance for hillside development, an organization known as the Greater Saratoga Property ~ner's Association had been formed. Mr. Garrod, as president of this Association, read into the record a statement briefly outlining the Association's organization and goals. Essentially the statement indicated that there were parts of the proposed ordinance which the Association felt were unfair to all hillside property owners as a group, and which urged the "continuation of good posi- tive planning that considers the community, the property ownerS.and the. future property owner eqqally." Further, the statement asserted: "We are prepared to meet with you and your ~taff to offer our input. We are pre- pared to secure technical advisors, engineers, planners and legal counsel, at our expense if need be, to aid you and your Staff, to prepare r~ports, analyze studies, and generally assist in furthering the acceptability of these proposals and speed up their implementation." Mr. Garrod urged the Commission to give consideration to this offer of assistance. · Robert Eppstein, 21363 Saratoga Hills Road, informed the Commission that he had purchased 3~ acres of land in the hills 10 years ago for purposes of re- siding on 1 acre and rese~ing the remainder for retirement investment pu~s'~s~ He pointed out that he had tried to obtain building site approval on this property, but had been informed by the City that he could not develop the property because of the interim resolution adopted by the City Council. He asked the Commission what they f&lt he should do with this property, and stated _.~hat he.thOUght the interium resolution wa~_unf~i~.\ · Thorn ~yes, 21120 Sullivan Way, explained that he had lived in Saratoga for 11 years, and had during that time watched development of the hills surround- ing his home. He stated that he did not think that the homes built thus far had detracted from the appearance of the hills, and objected to the idea of "buying 2.5 acres of land and getting a deed for 10,000 square feet." Mr. Mayes contended that if one bought 2.5 acres of land, he should have the use of that land. He indicated that he was in favor of continuing development within the City on an individual basis, and stated: "it has worked well in the past, why can't we go ahead on that same basis?" Mr. ~yes stated that he felt the "slope density ordinance should.determine th~ amount of land for each lot which has to be allocated for a single-family residence." }~NUTES OF AUGWST 27, 1975 III. D. GF-301 - Proposed Hillside Ordinance District (Citizen Input) - Cont'd · Mary Lou Kissell, 21154 Sullivan Way, noted that Mr. Burr had indicated in his presentation that unless the concept was understood, the Ordinance should not be discussed. She stated that she disagreed with this in that the con- cept and ordinance were intertwined, and could not be discussed separately. She concluded by stating that the concept, as presented,was unacceptable to her. · Roy Guise, Saratoga property owner, explained that he had purchased 10 acF~s of land in the City's hills 15 years ago, but had not as yet developed on it. He asserted that he felt an ordinance which so greatly affected people in the hillsides should have warranted mailing copies of the draft ordinance to all persons affected. Further, Mr. Guise asked if the City felt this ordinance was fair to those people who had purchased land in the hills but who had not developed it. He asked where the impetus for preserving the ridge lines had come from; and stated that he felt the reason for some of the more '!frivoi~us" ~par~s of the ordinance, such as aesthetics a~d-View of ridges~..,~ould,;b~e ex- plaine~""~eca~se it imposes'a con~id~able'h~ship on the people who have spent a considerable amount of money in buying this land and who want to live here." · Belie Williams, 21271 Glenmont Drive, expressed concern that many of the opinions expressed by citizens at various study sessions~and meetings with Staff with regards to this proposed ordinance had not been expressed within the ordinance itself. Further, he made the following points: He cited the following from an article in the Saratoga News dated August 27, 1975: "Planning decisions should reflect the opinions and attitudes of the citizens and political leaders and not the professionals. Professional planning should evaluate alternate conceptions and plans in terms of criteria based on citizens ~eeds and selected by citizens." = He stated that he had discovered that the Planning Director had filed a Negative Declaration on this proposed ordinance on the basis that it was consistent with the General Plan; and he asked how it was consistent, especially with the minimum lot size-difference, the open space criteria, and "streamlining development of the hillsides to primarily cluster homes to the exclusion of single-family residences." He maintained that the proposed ordinance streamlined development to where a large developer could~xcl~siv~ly do cluster developments·"based on the judgmen~_~nd evalua-~ tion of our own planning staff, which is a changing situation." In answer to Mr. Williams' inquiries relative to the Negative Declaration, the Secretary ~xplained that the.proposed ordinance was indeed consistent with the General Plan for the following reasons: - The General Plan stated that the density in this area should be 1--dwelling on 1 acre to lndwelling on 10 acres utilizing the slope density formula; further, that the conservation and open space sections of the General-Plan specifically referenced slope conservation for that area. The Secretary contended that these statements bore out the fact that certain restrictions . Should be _~pp~ie'~'~' ~i~ls~e.""d~e~~"~a~-d'-~- ~~ ............... - The Secretary explained that the proposed ordinance provided for a more restrictive slope density formula than the previous formula, and was con- sistent with the density established in the General Plan; i.e., roughly 2.5 acres at a 25% slope. - With regards to clustering, the Secretary cited items from the "Develop- ment and Conservation Policies for the City of Saratoga, Formalized by Citizens Committee on June 13, 1973" andfa!par_t:of the City's General Plan as follows: -~. "(1) Cluster housing is an acceptable type of development; provided it does not exceed densities established for the area within which it is to be developed." "(2) Mandatory clustering for hill areas generally seems to have merit but needs further study." -5- MINUTES OF AUGUST 27, 1975 III. D. GF-301 - Proposed Hillside Conservation District Ordinance (Citizen Input)-Cont'd In addition, the Secretary noted several other recommendations in the L adopted General Plan,~5'iZh were supported'bf~he proposed.ordinanCe. M~'~ Willjams concluded his comments by stating that he felt Staff ~hould co~ sider Mr. Garrod's proposal of giving outside assistance. He added: "I am suggesting that there are a lot of citizens ~.~o have offered their assistance on this,.and to this day I do not think the Planning Staff has kept an open mind about what the citizens have to say." · Tom Snouse, 13781_Pierce Road, stated that he wished to remind those present that the charm of Saratoga was that it was built by individuals and not by committee or cDllective action. He stated' "If yeu are thinking about- preserving Saratoga, you are preserving something which was built by indi- vidual action. If you build by collective action or committee decision, you had better b~ prepared to accept the kind 9f'bastafd"decision that you get out of c=~mmittees." He added: "I challenge the concept of planning because, first of all, it does not work. If you look at the example of urban blight, it follows planning, it does not precede it. Secondly, it is a blatant form 9f theft when you tell a man what he can or cannot do with his own property." · Tom Walker stated that he recently bought a parcel of land on the corner of Pierce/Pike Road. He explained that it had been surveyed in 1956 and was less than 1 acre in size. He complained that it had been very difficult to obtain design review approval from the City up to this point, and contended that if this ordinance was adopted, the City would essentially eliminate any possibility of his building on this property. He added: "Without much further investigation, I am opposing this completely." · Russ Crowther, 20788 Norada Court, stated that he felt there were many basic concepts in the ordinance which he did not feel were in the best interests of the citizens. He agreed with the comment previously made that clustering should not be the only way to develop because "I feel, in many cases, clus- tering co'Uld result in higher density. My own feeling is that density is the key to preserving the beauty of the hills, preventing any larger flooding problems in the valley, and preventing large tax costlincreases from land- slides and building on fault lines." He indicated that he was in favor of the density as outlined in the City's interim resolutjo__ Mr. Crowther urged more specific standards be incorporated in the ordinance, especially with regards to such safety impacts as fault line3standards for structures and roads, landslides, etc. He stated that he also felt that many of the ordinance~ concepts with regards to open space were. impractical in that he felt it was impractical to require a man to dedicate 80% of his land to open space and only allow him to build on 10,000 square feet. Further, he contended that it was impractical by asking the questions of who would police the open space to insure that no one built on it, who would require a man to tear down a structure-i~fter he built on the open space, and who would pay the legal fees if problems arose over this. · Tom Dashiell, 18908 Ten Acres Road, pointed out that he did not want to go into details of all of the problems he had encountered with the City to date in trying to develop a parcel of land he owned in the hills. He added, however, that he had a one-acre pardel of land currently with a fence around it, and he noted that he did not have that fence "until the City, in its infinite wisdom~ passed a swimming pool fencing ordinance." · Phil Jacklin, 14436 Ester Lee Drive, explained that he had m~ned his property since 1963, and had bought it because it was in the country. He Stated that he could see where the impetus of the ordinance came from, adding that it appeared that "we want to have it both ways. I do not want to look at houses on the ridge lines, and I do not want to see the hills all carved up. I think what is trying to be accomplished is-worthwhile, but I am not sure that this is a good ordinance." ~. Jacklin asked if the ordinance was contemplating not allowing individuals to develop on their own land. -6- MINUTES OF AUGUST 27, 1975' III. D. GF-301 - PropOsed Hillside Conservation District Ordinance (Citizen Input)-Cont'd In answer to this, the Secretary pointed out that the City was suggesting a clustering format as a way of preserving open space and as a sugge~[eR'~'~"~f development. He stressed t'hat the ordinance did in fact allow for individual homesites=based on a slope density formula, and that the ordinance would serve as a mechanism to give the Planning Commission and Planning Staff the ability and flexibility to locate structures on parcels of land in the best possible location and still preserve the larger part of the property as open space. He explained that if an ordinance, for example, was adopted with a 2.5 acre minimum, it would not automatically exclude development of lesser size properties which w~ pre-existing le~l lots. Mr. Jacklin stated that there were many questions raised by citizens as to how this ordinance would affect density. He pointed out that many people were of the opinion that there was no way to guarantee open space, and that in the future a second wave of development could occur which would defeat' the entire idea. He asked if there was any way to have an iron-clad insurance for open space, and suggested that perhaps the ordinance could have a built-in referendumLprovision~requiring a 2/3 vote of the City be- fore anyone could change open'space lands back to other zones. · Frank Perdichizzi, 19804 Colby Court, asked h~ the landowner would know what portion of his land, after having dedicated 80% thereof to the City, would be..his. Note was made that the entire parcel of land belonged to the landowner, and that the ordinance gave definitions regarding lots a r~t parcels. Mr. Perdichizzi asked what safeguards there would be on preventing development rights being given back to the landowner. Chairman Marshall explained that the term "irrevocable" with regards to dedicating development rights to the City was based on "as the law stands." He added, however, that if the law changed with regards to zoning, a provision had. been included in the Ordinance for public hearings. Mr. Perdichizzi~maintained that. ~h~ ordinance was recommending "PC" development throughout the hillsides to the exclusion of single-family dwellings, to which Chairman ~rshall explained · that the ordinance would only allow single-family dwelling units in the hills. Chairman Marshall pointed out that there was no other form of structure being considered in the ordinance, and that there would be no condominiums. or common-wall structures. Mr. Perdichizzi asked what safeguards there would be to keep the tax rate from going up if the City was sued for problems resulting from unstable soils, and he suggested that assessment districts be provided for in the ordinance to cover such costs. He stated: "if people want to ~ive in the hills, they should pay for the freedom of living in those hills, and not have the whole City assessed for what it costs them to live in the hills." ® Heber Teerlink~ stated that he had lived at 21810 Mt. Eden Road for 16+ years. As being the Secretary of the newly-formed Greater Saratoga Property ~.~ner's Association, he[j_oiD~d=~n..th~ ~oUp.'~_0ff~.tq.aS~iSt the City in any.yay possible concerning the planning of the hills. Mr. Teerlink offered the fSi- lowing data on behalf of this Association as proof of their willingness to assist Staff in preparing this ordinance: Of the 1,200 acres within the proposed Hillside Conservation District, 240+ property owners own 1.9 or more acres, or: · 45% of this total own 5 acres or less · 26% own 5.1 - 10 acres · 11% own 10.1 - 14 acres 3% own 15-20 acres · own 21+ acres · Logan Bellville stated that he owned 8 acres of land at 18550 Sobey Road, and pointed out that although this ordinance did not directly affect his property, it pointed in his direction. He expressed concern that such restrictions would limitL the development of his property, and he stated that he personally did not see the objection of putting houses on the ridge line. He pointed out that/it worked both ways in that he had to loo~'~own on all of the rooftops of those houses in the valley. -7- MINUTES OF AUGUST 27, 1975 III. D. GF-301 - Proposed Hillside Conservation District Ordinance (Citizen Input)-Cont'd · Bill Cunningham, 21070 Canyon View Drive, asked the Staff to provide infor- mation explaining what the financial impacts would be to the City to develop in the manner proposed in the ordinance as opposed to the traditional manner of development in Saratoga. He added that relative to the open space provi- sions of the prdinance, he felt that the more open space the City provided in the manner described in the ordinance, the more pressure the City would get to develop that open space in the future. He asked why the Planning Commission felt it necessary to restrict the wealthy to a lot size of 10,000 square feet, and asked why there was a need for an upper limit on the size of the homes at all. · ~rjorie Foote, 20910 Canyon View Drive, stated that she felt the greatest problem with the ordinance was its basic concept, adding that she did not feel the idea of cluster housing should be the only way possible of develop- ing in the hills. She stated: "I think it is very important to preserve our options.for development, and I do not see that in the proposed ordinance as I have read it." · Mary Moss~stated that she had lived at 20770 Pamela Way for 17 years, and .. Cit ~ pointed out that she had previousL~o the y s incorporation, purchased an additional 10 acres of land for retir~m_e_p~__purposes. She informed the Com- mission that-she had been paying taxes' based on 1-acre zoning_on this p~o~.ertX over this length of time, and that the taxes thems'elves had gon~' up ~i ti~e~ since the date of purchase. Ms. Moss complained that~she waslnow being penalized for having kept that land undeveloped, and ~ed the City to give consideration to development on an individual basis rather than on having a wholesale ordinance for all of Saratoga. She stated that she did not under- stand why houses were thought of as being obnoxious on the hillsides,-a~di~--il-__i that she felt that if there were adequate roads available, people should be allowed to develop ~heir properties. Further, she stated that proper land- scaping could hide any unattractive spots, and pointed out that this situa- tion worked both ways in that the valley orchards-and open space had been developed, and she had nothing to look down upon but houses. · Steve Pecsar pointed out' that he had been'a resident a~ 20880 wardeii Ro~d for 23 years, and expressed a concern over the i~equiti~_._~?_th~ hj~id%~.__ / p~operty owner that this ordinance contained. Mr. Pecsar pointed out that he had had to witness the destruction of the orchards and open space in the valley for a number of years, and likened the present call for open space in · the hills to that of r~quiring those people in the valley to vacate their property in order to preserve some of this open space. Mr. PecSar noted that many of the complaints issued thus far on?~ut"~re~evelopment in the hills had been relative to increased flooding problems in the valley as~ell as pos~£[le increased tax rates. He contended that the property owners in the'valley who had been experiencing flooding problems had encouraged this situation themselves by "cover~_n~ the earth with blacktops, concrete, triple garages, qswirm~ing pools, and the like." Relative to the increased tax rate, Mr. Pecsar .-~'Sinted out that he had been paying very high taxes in th'[ City ~or a numb~f years wlih"~ m£nimum ~ Services. He oB]e"'~e~d'~'S'[he City Councif's '~dbpti~n of the interim resolution with a 2.~"~'minimur~. on the Basi's ~hat it was a kangaroo-court decision, and complained'that he felt the landowners in the hillsides were being unfairly penalized for having kept their property undeveloped for an aesthetic concept. · ~rg~ret Dyer, 14821 Bohlman Road, agreed with Ms. Moss' remarks, and re- quested clarification be given at a future time to building in terms of slopes and knolls. · Lois Cockshaw, 20995 Canyon View Drive, stated that she hoped that any deci- sion or future plans made with regards to this ord'nnance would consider the opinions and feelings of the citizens involved. CO~SSION ACTION Chairman Marshall noted that a joint study session had been scheduled on this matter between the Planning Commission and City Council for September 9, 1975, ................. aBd__~b~t.Staff had.suggested this public hearing be. continUe~ t~.t~_F~anning -8- MINUTES OF AUGUST 27, 1975 III. D. GF-301 - Proposed Hillside Conservation District Ordinance - Cont~d - Commission meeting of September 24, 1975. Commissioner Lustig, in support of the request made by Mr. Cunningham, requested Staff provide data reflecting the financial impacts of this ordinance. At this time Chairman ~rshall closed the public hearing on the proposed Hillside Conservation District Ordinance at 9:56 p.m., continued the matter to the Planning Commission meeting of September 24, 1975, and referred this matter to the Subdi- vision Committee and Staff for further review and report. RECESS: 10:00 - 10:20 p.m. ~ ~ .--~---'7. 'E. C-180 .'-~ha~i~s P. Guichard, Wardell Road, Change of Zoning Request from "'R-i-40,000" (Single-Family Residential, Very Lm~ Density) to "A" (Agriculture) the Parcel Designated as Parcel 31 of Book 503 at Page 17 f6r the Purposes of Allowing Said Property to Come under Williamson Act Contract (Ordinance NS-3~ Article 18); Continued fromAugust 13~ 1975 Note was made that Staff was currently investigating several points relative to lot splitting and property assessment with regards to Williamson Act Contracts, and the recommendation was made that this matter be continued. Steve Pecsar, 20880 Wardell Road, pointed out that the intention of the William- son Act was to give tax shelter~f~'~i~i~'d'r~l use to proper'[i~"~f~ZO+ acres, and he expressed a concern that granting C-180~x~ha"~75! acre pa"~l'w'~fd set ~a dangerous precedent. He requested'~h'~'C~is~ion give consideration to th{s point. Chairman ~rshall directed C-180 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 10, 1975, and referred this matter to Staff and the Subdivision Committee for further review and report. F. V-429 - CRI Properties, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Williams, Request for a Variance to Allow a 20-Ft. Rearyard Setback in Lieu of the Required 35-Ft. Setback and to Allm~ an Increase in the }~ximum Allowable Build- ing Site Coverage from 20% to 25% for Lot "C" (Ordinance NS-3.31); Continued from August 13~ 1975 Note was made that this matter was directly~F~l'~'6'~d to~Design Review application A-488, and the recommendation was made that both matters be handled concurrently. The public hearing on V-429 was opened by Chairman ~rshall at 10:24 p.m. Staff explained that both the Variance Committee and the Design Review Committee reviewed these applications, and that Staff Reports had been prepared recommending approval of each. Note was made that~h'~'a"~Flication was for 3 lots, all of whi<h ~w~l'd'b~ non-conforming as to area coverage and width. With regards..to v-429, ~ ~ff noted tha~ the variance~re~este~'x'~'fbr LOt C' which did not meet rearyard setback requirements, nor are~ Coverage for a two-story dwelling unit. Commissioner Martin pointed out that the Variance Committee inspected this site, and unanimously made the decision that for purposes of good planning, the variance requested for on Lot C was warranted. There were no other comments. Commissioner Martin moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that the public ' hearing on V-429 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing on V-429 was closed at 10:28 p.m. Commissioner ~rtin moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that the Planning Commission approve application V~429 in accordance_. with the Staff Report dated August 21, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission grant final design review approval to application A-488 per Exhibits A, B, C, L and P, and subject to the Staff Report dated August 21, 1975. The motion was carried unanimously. G. V-430 - Allen DeGrmge, Cox Avenue, Request for Variance to Allow 21-Ft. and 25-Ft. Rearyard Setbacks and to Allow 10-Ft. Sideyard Setbacks for Structures to be Constructed on a Parcel of Lane Located on Cox Avenue' (Ordinance NS-3, Section 3.7); Continued from August 13, 1975 See Item III-A. -9- MINUTES OF AUGUST 27, 1975 III. H. V-435 - Clifford Dennee, Paul Avenue, Request for Variance to Allme a ~qo-Story Residence to be Constructed on Paul Avenue (Ordinance NS-3.31) Staff recommended theeVariance Committee schedule an on-site inspection of this matter; and after discussion of this recommendation, it was agreed that the Committee would inspect the site on September 5, 1975 at 4:00 p.m. As there were residents in the audience who wished to speak to this matter, Chairman ~rshall opened the public hearing on V-435 at 10:32 p.m. }~rgaret Sherrill, 14290 Paul Avenue, pointed out that she had owned her property for 15 years, and pointed out some of the close setback characteristics of the Cit ' neighborhood which had resulted prior to the y s incorporation. She stated that she agreed with the City's attempt to preserve open space, and contended that by allowing a two-story home to be built in this neighborhood where the homes were already closely situated would be adverse to preserving such open space. She pointed out that such a two-story house would shut off the scenic views and open space that the neighborhood currently enjoyed; further, that natural resources, such a~ air and sunlight, would be reduced; and that a two- story structure would constitute a fire hazard in the neighborhoodfi~"~h'~'~h~ /street was a d~ad-end street and that the structures and roofs th~'~f were 5rd. ~h'~i'e'd~that she '~elt'a two-s~"~j~e ~n this area would do no.~fng-_" to improve"the area, that it would set a precedent for allowing other two- story structures in this area, and that it would be a "great/injus~ice to those who have homes in the area, and whose property and lives would be jeopardized.~ Diane ~ridon, 14280 Paul Avenue, pointed out that she was the next door neigh- bor to this property. She objected to granting this variance because she felt (1) it would be an invasion of her~ privacy in that the applicant could look down into her ~.edroom and her patio; (2) that a two-story house would "destroy the look of ~u~ street;" (3) that she would feel closed in and ~ould lose her present view; and (4) that it would constitute a fire hazard. Chairman Marshall closed the public hearing on UP-286, referred same to th_!~e_ Variance Committee and Staff for an on-site inspection, and continued ~his matter to the Planning Commission meeting of September 10, 1975. IV. DESIGN · Chairman Marshall proposed that those items on which the Planning Commission did not have questions or comments on could be approved in block form. As there were no comments .made, Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Connnission grant final design review approval to Design Review applications: "~-'-~..: A-447 - George Day Construction Company, Fruitvale Avenue, Final Design Revi~ Approval - Tract ~5408~ Lot #11 E..~AV~'9'2"i'Gg~ Day Construction Company, Bougainvillea Court, Final Design Review Approval - Tract #5007~ Lot ~9 A-500 - Larry Tyler, Big Basin Way, Final Design Review Approval - Parking District #2 A-501 - Gary Barnes~ Pierce Road~ Final DesiSn Review Approval - 1 Lot A-502 - Dividend Industries, Carnelian Glen, Final Design Revi~ Approval 2 Lots Tract ~5575~ Lots #8 and #11 ~ _ subject to the..~ff.~pprt~ p~par~d on each application. The motion was carried~ ~ .unanimouSlY~ .~ .The reeqmmendation was made that the following applications Design Revi~"Comm£~tee"~nd Staff~ " B. A-483 - James Skinner~ Pierce Road~ Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot C. A-484 - Thomas Fryer~ Saratoga Hills Road~ Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot -10- MINUTES OF AUGUST 27, 1975 IV.~ DESIGN REVIB~ - Cont'd F. A-499 - A.H. Brolly, Fruitvale Avenue, Final Design Review Approval - Land- scaping, Fencing and Pathway - 1 Lot (Note: This application was continued per applicant's request.) Chairman ~rshall directed applications A-483, A-484 and A-499 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 10, 1975, and referred these matters to the Design Review Committee and Staff for further revi~ and report. ~i v J./SS-93 - Gauger, Sparks and Silva, Carnelian Glen, Final Design Review Approval Temporary Subdivision Sign Note was made that this matter had been reviewed by the Design Review Con~nittee, "~'~ add that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Commissioner Zambetti expressed concern over the location of this sign on a scenic highway, as well as the actual content of the sign. Other Commissioners agreed with these concerns, and expressed further concerns relative to the size of the sign and the fact that the amount of information contained on the sign could not be easily Commissioner Belanger asked that Public Works Department review the tentative map for the subdivision to determine h~ designated deceleration lanes affected the view of the entrance. She also objected to including advertising copy on a sign which was to be for identification purposes only. The donsensus of the Planning Commission was to refer application SS-93 to the Design Review Committee and Staff for further review and report, and to continue this matter to the Planning Commis- sion meeting of September 10, 1975. V. ~SCELLANEOUS A. 1975-76 through 1977-78 Capital Improvement ProSram The Secretary pointed out that the City Council had transmitted this item to the i i~'-Planning Commission for review to determine if the Program was in conformity with the General Plan. The Secretary gave a brief review of the Capital Improvement Programs outlined in the Report, pointing out that the majority of the proposed programs were continued from previous Capital Improvement Program years, and that the remainder of the proposed programs were selected development projects, mainte- nance, streets, traffic signal projects, and storm drain programs throughout various sections of the City. Specific discussion followed on the proposed demolition of the Arco site located on Big Basin Way, and the joint beautification program of Prospect Road by the Cities of Saratoga and San Jose. The Secretary explained that funds for the Arco site demolition would come from monies received through the City's Community Development Act application to HUD. He pointed out, however, that Staff was currently investigating the possibility of the site being demolished at no cost to the City. He noted that if this occurred, an amended Community Development Act application would have to be generated by the City requesting funds allo- cated to the Arco site project be used on other HCDA-designated City projects. Relative to the beautification project of Prospect Road by San Jose and Saratoga, Commissioner ~rtin pointed out that this had been a proposed project in the pre- vious Capital Improvement Program, but it had never been effectuated. The Secre- tary pointed out that the City of San Jose had not fulfilled its commitment relative to this project, and as a result, the City Manager of Saratoga had pro- posed to the City Council that this project be abandoned and its allocated funds used in other areas. After some discussion of this matter, Commissioner Martin, with concurrence of the Commission members, recommended this project be rein- stated in the 1975-76 throBgh 1977-78 Capital Improvement Program under non-funded capital improvement projects. At this time Chairman }~rshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the Planning Commission make the finding that the 1975-76 through 1977-78 Capital Cit ' Improvement Program is consistent with the objectives of the y s latest adopted General Plan, and that this finding be transmitted to the City Council. The motion was carried unanimously. Staff was directed to fon~ard Commissioner Martin's reco~mx~endation relative to Prospect Road improvements to the City Council for consideration. VI'..- ~rRITTEN CO~RINICATIONS A. Environmental Impact Reports - No Negative Declarations were filed. B. Other - None MINUTES OF AUGUST 27, 1975 VIIi.. OK~L CO}~UJNICATIDNS A. City Council Report The Secretary gave a detailed report of the City Council meeting of August 20, 1975, and the Council's Committee-of-the-I~ole meeting of August 26, 1975. Commission d~cussion followed:' (1) CE-172 - Environmental Impact Report, Parker Ranch: Note was made that thi~ item was continued to the Council meeting of October 1, 1975, and Staff was directed to provide cost benefit information, dialogue with County Transit Distzict relative to transmit matters on the site, review the Northwest Saratoga Circulation Study to determine if it would be aRpropriate to in- corporate in the EIR Study information, and to explore further the floodin~ .~l~ms as s oc ia'YFdx'~h'th~K'rY~yo (2) Commissioner Belanger asked if the Commission's viewpoints relative to deny- ing variance application V~428 on the basis that the addition could be creating an illegal secohd residence in the future had been adequately explained to the Council when the Council reversed the denial decision and granted the variance. The Secretary pointed out that these points had been explained thoroughly to the City Council, but that the Council felt that such an illegal use would be an enforcement problem rather than a matter of prohibiting a secondary structure. Further, the Secretary pointed out that the Council felt the abutting easements provided extenuating circumstances, and that the structure could have been built without Commis- sion or Council approval had ~i't'be"~'d'loc~'C'~'fFd'ih"'~'d~h'~'~lace as not to -require a setbl'~k variance._..i" (3) Demolition of Lynch property on Big Basin Way was halted, and negotiations between the applicant and City Council were in process in bringing the building up to City Code. Commissioner Belanger pointed out that any improvements of the house would not enhance its historical preservation. The Secretary pointed out that the City's demolition order was based on the fac~' that the house had not met building code standards, and consequently, the points of historical preservation and converting the structure into residential use could not really be addressed at this time. B. OTHER CO~IUNIC~TIONS (1) Commissioner Belanger noted that there were several buses on Third Street at the same time, and asked if there was enough City service to warrant them being there. It was noted that this location was an inter-route layover station, and consequently, several buses could be seen at the same time on Third Street. It was also pointed out that'alternatives are currently ...... being investigated. (2) Relative to UP-279 (Allen ~eGran'~e)~[aff requested the Commission to review Article 14 of NS-3 with regards to adding a conditional use to a "PA" zone relative to allowing a use such as senior citizen housing. Staff noted that a report on this would be prepared for Commission review at the next meeting of the Planning Commission. (3) Chairman ~rshall acknowledged the presence of Councilmen Corr, Kraus and Matteoni, Mr. Lieuk of the Good Government Group, and Mr. Powers of the Chamber of Commerce. VIII. ADJOUI~I~qT Chairman ~rshall moved., s~c~Dded b_y C~mmis-sione~o.Lus~ig~_that_the P!~nni~g Co_mmiss____i~n ? meeting of August 27, 1975 be adjourned .in_memo~y__q~f former Commissioner Charles H. ~ Smith. The motion was .~arried unanimQusly. Respectfully submitted, Marty ~an Duyn, Secre~ -12-