Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-24-1975 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLA~rNING CO}~4ISSION MINUTES TI}~: Wednesday, September 24, 1975 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meetingj I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Belanger, Callon, Marshall, Martin and Woodward Absent: Commissioners Lustig and Zambetti B. MINUTES Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the reading _ of the Planning Commission meeting minutes of September 10, 1975 be waived, and that they be approved as distributed to the Commission. The motion was carried; Chairman }~rshall abstained. II. FINAL BUILDING SITES/TENTATIVE SUBDIVISIONS ~._St~f~..noted.tha~_.a!l co~dition~_o~ the. f~ng ~ntativ~ ~ap approvals had been met, and recommended these matters be granted final site approval. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning Com- mission grant final building site approval to the following applications: A. SDR-1191 - Fred Marburg (Yoshihiro Uchida), Sarahills Drive, Final Building Site Approval - 1 Lot B. SDR-1193 - Astro Construction (Larry Ficarra), La Paloma Avenue, Final Building Site Approval - 1 Lot The motion was carried unanimously. C. SDR-1176 - Lyngso Garden Materials, Inc., Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Tentative Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Expiration Extended to September 24, 1975); Continued from September 10~ 1975 Mr. Burr, Acting Secretary, pointed out that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending this matter be denied on the basis that it was not in conformance with the City!s latest adopted General Plan. ~. Held, the applicant's repre- sentative, stated that he and the applicant were aware of the Staff Report con- tents and had no comments to make thereon. He did, however, request that the Commission designate this site on the General Plan as "PD'Residential," as recommended by the Commission at its last General Plan Review public hearing. Chairman Marshall explained that the Commission had indicated that there were certain aspects of development on this site which they might look at favorably, but that it related to the property, not this application. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning Commission deny application SDR-1176 per the Staff Report dated September 18, 1975, ~.~'~d'~n the basis tha~.:/ (a) the proposed map is not consistent with applicable "general ~d specific plans of the City of Saratoga, and (b) the design or improve- ments of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans of the City of Saratoga. The motion was carried unanimously. D. SD-1202 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation, Saratoga at La Paloma Avenues, Tentative Subdivision Approval - 24 Units;:Conversion of Existing Apartments to Condominium Units (Expiration Extended to September 24~ 1975); Continued from September 10~ 1975 Staff requested this matter be continued pending further investigation of this -1- MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24 1975 "Ii. D. ~D-1202 - Sar'ato~a Foothills D~Velopm~_~Fp?ya~?n - Cont'd ~'appli'catiSn and its relationsh{p to theimpacts'jr'woUld hav~ on ~he supply o3 rental units within the City. Note was made that a letter had been received from the applicant granting an extension to the Con~nission meeting of October 8, 1975. Chairman Marshall directed that SD-1202 be continued to the Planning Com- mission meeting of October 8, 1975, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Conmaittee and Staff for further review and report. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 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 by Addin~ Article 3-A Thereto; Continued from AuSust 27~ 1975 Note was made that subsequent to the last public hearing and joint City Council/ Planning Commission study session, several areas had been raised which require further investigation. As a result, Staff recommended <the public hearing be continued, and that a Con~nission Committee-of-the-Whole meeting be scheduled for October 9, 1975 for further study. 'Chairman }~rshall reopened the public hearing on GF-301 at 7:45 p.m. A letter dated September 17, 1975 from O. Theodore Robertshaw was read into the record urging the Commission to continue to consider applications for hillside deve].opment individually, as per City ordinances used prior to the adoption of the council's Interim Resolution. (A copy of this letter is on file at the City's Planning Department.) Citizen Response.~ 1. George Tobin, attorney representing Anthony Cocchiardi, requested that in- formation be provided to show how many dwelling units presently existed on ridge lines and knolls in the City compared to how many could exist on un- developed ridge lines and knolls. He stated that he felt this information would draw a picture of the destruction to property values this proposed ordinance would have, and the discrimination of development with respect to those who have already built within the hills as compared to those yet to build. He added that he felt the ordinance contained "indefiniteness, inconsistencies and no objective standards to determine whether or not a person has a right to develop property in the fashion that people who have been here have developed their properties." 2. Vince Garrod explained that he represented the Greater Saratoga Property ~ners Association, a group of property owners within the Saratoga city limits and its sphere of influence. He conveyed the following points on behalf of this Association: · They requested Staff give consideration to the "equal treatment of all people, and in the purposes of the ordinance include that the property be treated equally." · They expressed concern that the ridge line concept and definition had not been given enough consideration, and contended that a ridge line could be judged from many sides. · They felt that the deffnition of a parcel shouId be further studied, and pointed out that when a building site was required to meet setback bound- aries "the right to choose the best site is mechanically removed." Mr. Garrod stated that they felt the house site should be based on where there was the least movement of soil and on the basis of other existing physical surroundings. · They did not feel that enough consideration had been given to urban ser- vices within the hills, and pointed out that in order to make it economically feasible for property m~ners within the hills to form districts for sewer and water services, a certain amount of property owner participation would be needed to share the costs. · They requested Staff consider the financial impacts of cluster units versus standard subdivisions~ Note was made that they recognized that valley-floor /planhing could not be imposed in the hills, but Mr. Garrod explained that they -2- ' }~NUTES OF SEPTE}~ER ~4 19~5 ........ F III. A. GF-301 Proposed Hillside Conservation Ordinance - Citizen Response - Cont'd felt development in the hills should be based on whether each lot conforms with the capability of the land. · They ~gain offered their engineering and planning services to the Staff, and emphasized that their purpose in offering such assistance was to effect an ordinance which could be lived with by everyone in the City. 3. Danforth Apker, civil engineer and resident of San Jose, informed the Commis- sion that he had recently completed a preliminary development analysis on 72 acres of land in the City's hillside. He explained that the property was directly above the City and would be deeply affected by the proposed ordinance relative to the visual impact it would have on the City. He explained that the-proposed road which would run across the property from Old Oak Way to Chiq'U~ta Way l~ould'5~' approximately 4100 feet long and would cost in the neighborhood of'$70/linear foot. ~'~i~i~d"~t this cost, plus other out-of-pocket expendith~e~"such"as°~ewers'; Water piping, engineering services, EIRs and geological reports, would total approximately $365,000. He referenced the old slope density formula and maintained that a lot yield on this 72-acre parcel would be about 24 lots; but that under the proposed ordi- nance, this yield would be reduced to 14 lots based on an average slope of 31%. Mr. Apker contended that the average cost per parcel would be $50,000, and argued that the property could not be developed because of economic constraints. Mr. Apker's point was that although the 1~00~ acres within the hillside district could theoretically yield 480 parcels, the actual yield would be much lower when economical considerations of the nature he'~'' had just illustrated were made. Secondly, Mr. Apker expressed concern~ with the ridge line definition in the ordinance, and stated that he felt the definition depended upon the point of view. He stated that not all ridge. lines in the hills would have a visual impact on the City, and suggested that just thoge ridge lines which would have such an impact be studied for such a development restriction. 4. Ms. Angerer, a citizen of Cupertino and property owner in Saratoga, objected to the concept of cluster housing as proposed in the ordinance. She stated that she felt this type of development was a trend, and that Saratoga had always been very careful in the past to not fall into such trends. She argued that once clustering was permitted in the hillsides, that would be the only type of development used in that cluster housing was cheaper and easier to develop than conventional developments. Ms. Angerer maintained that a large majority of the open space in Santa Clara County was nm~ used as parks or Williamson Act contracts, and she pointed out that once the valley floor was built up, additional room to grow would be needed. She emphasized that the open space, as proposed in the ordinance, could not be guaranteed, and she argued that "even the constitution of the U.S. government can be amended.'' She asked who would maintain the open space landscaping, md h~q '.f-ire hazards ..}~ould_b~ ContrOlled.- ~ - - 5. Heber Teerlink explained that he was a member of the Greater Saratoga Property ~.mers Association, and informed the Commission that this Association had formally filed articles of association and bylaws. Further, that they had mailed letters relative to this ordinance to approximately 200 property owners within the proposed district soliciting participation in the Association. He added that the Association had asked for dues for purposes of ngt_only assist- ] ing the City fihadciaily but also for purposes of stuH{es. He cited the follow- i~"~cerp~ 'fro~"~'i~e~ he {n~dUc~d 6o'th~ c'0mm{~sion defining the Xss~Fi~Fi~'i pupposes: "The specific and primary purpose is to assist and advise in the development of hillside property in the City of Saratoga and within the sphere of in- fluence of said City-; such assistance being given in order to assure the '~ preservation of the hilis and the natural feat~e~ ai~ng With"0rderiy deVeiopment.' FUrther, Mr. Teerlink read into the record a portion (pages 23-25) of the recently-rendered court decision by Judge Schnacke, U.S. District Judge, on the City of Palo Alto open space ordinance (C-72-2305 RH~: Arastra Limited Partnership, a limited partnership vs. City of Palo Alto, a municipal corpora- tion). Said decision was rendered in favor of Arastra Corporation essentially on.the ~rounds that there was no basis for the passage of the ordinance in the -3- MINUTES OF SEPTE~BF~ 24, 1975 III. A. GF-301 Proposed Hillside Conservation Ordinance - Citizen Response - Cont'd ~ way of promoting public health a~/Br public safety, and that no study or ~ .... investigation had been'condUcted by'[he City of Palo Alto to determine whether or not to what extent open space zoning would leave the landowner with "any__ viable and/or reasonable economicTuses for his ~and." Mr. Te.erlinkpgin~ed out that the tremendous cost of litigation to the City of Palo Alto might not have been necessary had preliminary investigations been done, and he again offered to the City of Saratoga financial, planning and engineering assis- tance from the above-mentioned association. 6. Russ Crowther, 20788 Norada Court and representative of the Arguello Home- owners Association, stated that he did not feel that reduced density in the hillsides would reduce property values. He argued that, conversely, reduced density would increase property values: (1) through a reduced supply of lots available in the City; (2) reduced density would make the hills a more pleasant place to live and consequently would make the property more valuable; and (3) reduced tax rates would result in lower density and would consequently benefit all the residents in the City. Mr. Crowther pointed out that their concern was that too dense development in the hills would adversely affect everyone in the hills by way of adverse impacting scenic views, flooding, safety, and if there were landslides, possible lawsuits against the City. He noted that if someone wished to develop property in the County, the mini- mum size lot requirement was 2.5 acres, and he stated that he did not think that what many of the citizens were asking for in the way of lower density was inconsistent with this County policy. Relative to an example given earlier by Mr. Apker, Mr. Crmcther pointed out that per his calculations, in order to have 72 acres yield 24 lots hnder the old slope density formula, the average slope of the property would have to be in excess of 40%. 7. Dr. Molineux, resident of Saratoga, informed the Commission that he was a member of the Greater Saratoga Property Owners Association~ He stated that he felt the Commission should work with the people who owned the 'property in the hills rather than working with the people "who tell the people who own the property what they should do with it." He pointed out that the Commission members were an appointive body, and complained: "You people in essence are dealing with what I can do with my land without me being able to do anything but come up here and talk to you tonight, and I object to that." As a point of information, Chairman Marshall explained that there-had been a l~rge amount of public input which had been received during the General Plan Review in 1973 and 1974, and Staff proceeded with development of the slope density or-= dinance in concert with this General Plan. He pointed out that the proposed ordinance and General Plan were "a very close match with what the people of this town said they wanted. So Staff is trying to do what you the people told us to do." 8. Margarite Chapman, 2112~ Capyon View Drive, pointed out that she had not been present at the General Plan Review hearings, but she noted that she had read the ordinance and the General Plan and felt that the General Plan did not mandate such an ordinance. "It may bear some similar±ties, but I think there are a lot more possibilities which could be explored." Relative to citizen input during the General Plan Review hearing~s, Ms. Chapman noted that although · her~'~d'b~n a large amount of citizen input in the beginning, there, had /~ ~been very few people present when the final decisions were made. ~ She a~ed: the General Plan, decisions were not necessarily entirely representative of the community. We are not living in the past; and I think we should take into consideration what the community wants now and what will be best for the entire =corn~lty, not just a small segmentL" 9. Bud Marla=, citizen of Saratoga,~s~~d'~h'~H~'f~lt a s~aIl"~l~'~t' group ~ ~people could come to Ci~fme~tings~dd~!ead the'City"in a ce'rtain direhtio~ which i~'not reaily"th~'~i~'~'o~'~ll"Ch~ people. I believe that a small group of people and a City Council ~ould not take the rest of us with them dm~n a certain path. Whether an ordinance can come into law without a vote, I don't know. However, something of this impact to Saratoga should not come before the people of Saratoga as a law without a vote." -4- MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24. 1975 III. A. GF-301 - Proposed Hillside Conservation Ordinance - Citizen Response - Cont'd 10. Robert van der Toorren, 14555 Horseshoe Drive, s~ated that he felt there had been a full circle interpretation of the General Plan; i.e., that although there might have been agreement with the high goals and purposes of the Gen- eral Plan at its adopti_On, "the City°-takes a certain e~'~' the General' ~._ Pla'n-'~'d='~u~h_e._r__in_~r_p_retes it, and then' later on gives authority to nonL elect'~'d' a~ninistrative officials of the City to make further interpretations." He illustrated this point by explaining that although everyone wished to pre- serve the beauty of the hills, the next interpretation came when that preser- vation of the hills included, for example, that all developme_nt in the hills be subject to the Design Review Approval to insure that all colors, textures and elevations were reflective of the natural landscape. He contended that this took control our of the hands of the professionals and individuals who had paid for their property,~iand the City dictated to them what form, color and texture their houses should be. He' stated that he felt the Saratoga spirit was that the City was built by individuals who:"took pride in their houses and landscaping, and he stressed that an ordinance of 'this sort was 'saying that all of those individuals !li~<ing in Sarat0g~. had-been wrong. ._Cpn~equently, Mr. van der Toorren disagreed with the principal and philosophy of the ordinance, and he stated that what he felt the ordinance should contain was informational advice "not mandatory and prohibitive statements and processes which preempt property rights." He concluded: "I think the ordinance is trying to do s cme- thing which it ought not to be doing, and I am totally opposed to it."' Commission Action _and Response Chairman Marshall closed the public hearing on GF-301 at 8:52 p.m., and continued the public hearing to the Planning Commission meeting of October 22, 1975. He referred this item to the Committee-of-the-I~ole meeting scheduled for October 9, 1975. · Commissioner Callon stated that'-i~e~ pr_i. mary 9_b_.j=..e_c_t_iye rTelative to the ..... ordinance was to not only preserve ~atural landscaping in the hiils, but also "strike a balance between personal rights of the landowners and the con~nunity needs." She pointed out the following items of concern: ~ She stated that she was confused whether the homeowner, if he deeded 80% of his land to the City, still had to pay taxes on the entire 100%. - The hillside lot dimensions described in the ordinance were very restrictive. ~. She stated: "If we have an ordinance that addresses itself to trying tO get a good house that fits the hills, I am not sure that we have to be so cautious in the propert.ies ' lionS-dimensions." - She expressed concern over the method of obtaining a permit in order to build within the hills. Commissioner Callon pointed out that it was difficult to get through the planning process now, and she stated that ~ it Y~8~IH cost th'~Ci~'~"l~'~ in B'~'f~k to process -appfi~'e~o"h~7-7 Also, "since 'the method' proposed involved public h~ari~s at 'the Commission and Council levels, it would further burden the Commission and Council. - She agreed with Mr. Garrod's concerns over setbacks being a problem in the hillside, especially "when all of us decidedly are in favor of placing the house in the most 7apropro location on any given 10_t." - She stated that she had been assured that owners of small parcels in the hillsides would still be able to develop their property under the ordinance by having legal non-conforming lots. - She requested citizen input relative to whether prospective home builders felt the data required by the ordinance (page 9, Section F) was too much of a burden to meet. · Commissioner Martin istated that although he ag~d with Mr. Garr~s comments that one must be very careful to use proper areas for building 'sites, he felt that even though there may be a buildable site on top of a ridge with 40% slopes on either side, that 40% slope was a great concern to him because it would need roads to service it. He stated that he was very concerned that "we do not destroy the ecology of an area or scar the area to make the area unsightly." Relative to Ms. Angerer's concerns over the pressures to d_evelop;' the open spa~e, Commissioner' M~rtin seated that the pressures would be much greater, in his mind, to subdivide parcels of land under present zoning than if the City owned development rights of open space. Concerning fire hazard areas, Commissioner Martin pointed out even on present one-acre sites, there -5- MINUTES OF SEPTE~B~ III. A. GF-301 - Proposed Hillside Conservation Ordinance - Citizen Response - Cont'd was a great deal of fire hazard because there were only a few landowner~!b9 landscaped their entire property to prevent the area from being such a HazArd. · Commissioner Woodward pointed out that she was concerned with the 80% open space restrictions, as well as trestrictions on setbacks and lot dimensions. She stated that she was sure Staff was aware of these concerns, and was in the process of resolving many of them. · Chairman Marshall pointed out that "the hills are our heritage and also our future in terms of being one of the things that make Saratoga what it is." He added that this was the reason why this ordinance had to be approahhed with great care in order to make sure that "we do not destroy those things which have attracted us to Saratoga in the first place." Relative to the City accepting the offer made by the Greater Saratoga Property ~ners Asso- ciation, Chairman ~rshall stated that he did not think it would be equitable or fair for the City to accept funds from a "lobby" and use those funds to ~promulgate studies of various types. He H'fd~'Ho~eve~, urge=the Association t6 fund stud{e~'re~at{~e 'to"'areas'th~y felt w~re Sensitive, and to present their results at study sessions or public hearings. RECESS: 9:00 - 9:25 p.m. B. UP-282 - Summit League, Fruitvale Avenue, Request for Use Permit to Allow an Outdoor, One-Day, One-Time Public Event (an Art Show) Under the Auspices of a Non-Profit Organization in a Residential Zoning District (Ordinance NS-3~ Section 3.3~) Chairman ~rshall opened the public hearing on UP-242 at 9:30 p.m. staff noted that this matter had been reviewed by the Subdivision Committee, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Reference was made to t he $200 refundable clean-up deposit as suggested by the City Code Enforcement Officer; and brief discussion followed on whether this sum should be reduced to $50, an amount acceptable to the Community Services DirectOr. It was the consensus of the Commission that insomuch as the deposit ~as refundable, and insomuch as the applicant had indicated acceptance of this amount, the required deposit should remain $200. There were no further comments. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning Commission close the public hearing. The motion was carrieduunanimously, and the public hearing was closed at 9:38 p.m. Conmissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning Commission grant approval to application UP-282 in accordance with the Staff Report da~ed September 19, 1975 and Conditions (A) and .(B) thereof. The motion was carried unanimously. C. C-179 - Albert Hanson, 13761 Dolphin Drivet ChanJe of Zoning Request from "R-I-20,000" f(Sing~ -Family Residential, Low Density) to "R-1-12,500" (Single-Family ~R~fd~tial, Medium Density) the'ParCel' Designated' as ParCel 65 ~f Book 391 a't'~age'37 Located on the Northwest Corner of Allendale Avenue and Dolphin Drive (Ordinance NS-3, Article 18); Continued from 9-10-75 Chairman Marshall reopened the public hearing at 9:34 p.m. Note was made that this matter had been reviewed on several occasions by the Subdivision Committee, and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending change of zoning be approved for part of the site; i.e., approve change of zoning from "R-1-20,000" to "R-1-20,000" and "R-1-10,000," thereby creating a lot split. Further note was made that both lots would meet all setback requirements of their respective zones. Commissioner Callon stated that she wished to oppose this change of zoning on a philosophical basis, and illustrated her reasons by comparing this request with pressures to subdivide and develop/ i~ ih'['h%%lii'd~s'~"SH~ Ff~fFd'~h'~e'~h'~ felt that it was contradictory to ~llow th~ ~pli~ting and"development 6f this site when the Commission had been speaking to the possibility in the proposed HillSide Ordinance of the City holding development rights in order to .protect the hills. She pointed out that the applicant had an approximate 31,000 square foot p~r6el which had been' reZ0ned from "R~1-40,000""[o "RL1-20,000" in 1970, and she' -6- : ~EINUTES OF SEPTE~Ej~ 24, 1975 III. C. C-179 - Albert Hanson - Cont'd felt that the City was bowing to this development pressure. Commissioner ~rtin explained that when the City had been incorpoated, the entire City had been zoned "R-I-40,000" as a safety measure. Commissioner Belanger agreed with Commissioner C~llon's philosophy, but she stated that she felt this was a unique situation in that the development impact on the surrounding area would be minimum. Commissioner Woodward stated that she felt the proposed split fit in with adjacent developed properties, and consequently would not have an adverse impact on the surrounding area. Mr. Hanson, applicant, was present and indicated acceptance of the Staff Report. There were no further comments. Conmaissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the Planning Commission close the public hearing on C-179. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed at 9:44 p.m. Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning Commission approve application C-179 and grant the change of zoning from "R-I-20,000" to "R-i-20,000" and "R-l-10,000" per the Staff Report dated September 18, 1975 · --and subject to the conditions contained therein. The motion was carried; Commissioner Callon voted no. ~ D. V-435 - Clifford Dennee, Paul Avenue, Request for Variance to Allow a Two-Story Residence to be Constructed on Paul AVenue (Ordinance NS-3%31); Continued from September 10, 1975 Staff noted that a letter had be~n received from the applicant requesting this application be withdrawn. Staff further noted that the applicant had decided on a ~tan for a one-story house, and consequently no longer required the requested variance. Commissioner Martin.moved, seconded by CommisSioner Woodward, that the Planning Commission accept the request for withdrawal of application V-435. .T~e mo~?~ ~ ._~as carried unanimously. ; E. V-436 - Dell Wilkinson, 21193 Michaels Drive, R~uest for Variance to Allow the Reduction in the Sideyard Setback to:10-Feet in Lieu of the Required" 20-Foot Setback (Ordinance NS-3~ Section 3.7) " Chairman Marshall opened the public hearing on V-436 at 9:46 p.m. Commissioner Martin reported that the Variance Committee had inspected this site, and that they felts'that the requested variance should be granted. Explanation was given_ that the house was ~Iready under construction and the prop~s~d~acemen~;.~f-.the.~po~I,; was the only feasible location on the site; further, thatt~hessur~ounding neigh-'.' bors who would be most affected by the pool location were not opposing the'matter. Commissioner Martin expressed concern that in the future architects be made aware of setback requirements at the time of applying for building permits in order to avoid situations where the house was already under construction and the need for variances arose. The applicant was present a~d brief discussion foll~¢ed on the setback variance which was actually being requested. Staff pointed out that the recommendation -for approval was based on ~the submitted exhibit which reflected a 4-foot variance from the sideyard property line to the first retaining Wall. The applicant indi- cated that there had been a miscommunication between himself and his architect regarding this setback, but he indicated acceptance of the 4-foot variance as shm~n on the exhibit. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the Planning Commission close the public hearing on V-436. The motion was carried unanimously, and the~d~l'i~'h'~fi~g:was closed at 9:55 p.m. Commissioner }~rtin moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning Commission grant approval to application V-436 in accordance with the Staff R~port dated September 18, 1975 and Exhibit "A~I." The motion was carried Una~imou/~!y .' -7- MINUTES OF SEPTEMB~ III. F. GF-303 - William Dorsey, RequeSt to Amend the General Plan Designation from Commercial to Multi-Family Residential on the Three (3) Parcels Com- prising Approximately 2.0 Acres, Located on the North Side of Big Basin Way, West of Sixth Street (APN 503-25-16 and 29) Staff noted that although the applicant had reqently submitted a letter requesting this application be withdrawn, the applicant had subsequently submitted plans and requested that this matter be continued. Chairman Marshall directed GF-303 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of October 8, 1975, and referred this matter to the Subdivision Committee and S~aff for further review and report. IV. DESIGN REVIEW As there were no comments or questions relative to the follm¢ing matters, Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Planning Commission grant final design review approval per respective Staff Reports dated September 17, 1975 and respective Exhibits to the following appications: A. A-391 - George Day Construction, Montauk Court and Montauk Drive, Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot (Tract #5327, ~o~ ~19) B. A-447 - George Day Construction, Okanogan Court and Okanogan Drive, Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot (Tract #5408, Lot #12) E. A-505 - Larry Hoffart, Sobey Road~ Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot The motion was carried unanimously. C. A-470 - Lyngso Garden }~terials, Inc., Saratoga-sunnyvale Road, Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot (Commercial Building); Continued from September 10, 1975 Staff pointed out that due to denial of building site application SDR-1176, no further action was required on this application. Chairman Marshall directed that further proceedings on application A-470 be Germinated. D. A-483 - James Skinner, Pierce Road, Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot; Con~ tined from September 10, 1975 Staff pointed out that revised plans were yet to be submitted as requested by the Design Review Committee, and that Staff had suggested to the applicant that he withdraw this application and resubmit when his plans were.complete. Note was made that said request for withdrawal had not been submitted, and consequently S~aff recommended this matter be continued. Commissioner Woodward requested S~aff notify the applicant that the Committee would appreciate an indication of what his intentions were relative to this application. Chairman }~rshall directed A-483 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of October 8, 1975, and referred this matter to the DesigD Review Committee and Staff for further review and report. F. A-506 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation, }~rion Road, Final Design Review Approval - 4 Lots (Tract #5676) After brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that Lots #~ and #4 be site-inspected by the Design Review Committee to determine the proximity of these homesites to surrounding residences. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Planning Commission grant final design review approval to application A-506, Lots #1 and 2, subject to the Staff Report dated September 18, 1975, Exhibits A through F-I, and excluding that portion of Exhibit F-1 in reference to Lots 3 and 4. The motion was carried unanimously. G. SS-85 - Gauger, Sparks and Silva, Christie Drive, Final Design Review Approval Temporary Subdivision Sign for Tract #5462 Staff reported that this matter had been reviewed by the Design Review Committee and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Note was made that this sign was for identification rather than directional..purposes, and that adequate measures had been taken to insure that no one would-~be tempted to enter ~'~h'e'a~'~lopment project without using =p~oper access. -8- =~.~'i.' }~rNUTES OF SEPTE}B~ IV. G. SS-85 - Gauger, Sparks and Silva - C~ntfd Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Planning Commission grant final design review approval to application~"SS-85 per Staff Report dated September 18, 1975 and Exhibits "B" and "B-l." The motion was carried unanimously. H. SS-94 - Summit League, Saratoga Avenue and Fruitvale Avenue, Final Design Review Approval - Temporary Sign for Art Show Staff noted that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting this application be withdrawn. Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Planning Con~nission accept the request for withdrawal by the applicant of application SS-94. The motion was carried unanimously. V. }~SCELLANEOUS A. SDR-1167 - Dennis Bryan, Bella Vista Avenue, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot; Reconsideration of Condition (P) of Staff Report dated June 25, 1975; Continued from September 10, 1975 Staff noted that the applicant had requested the location of the fire hydrant be reestablished at the western access entrance rather than the east entrance of the applicant's property. Note was made that a letter dated September 12, 1975 had been received from the Saratoga Fire District restating the requirement that one fire hydrant was required, the location of which must be adjacent to the driveway of the resident. The letter ~tated that if the driveway adjacent to the Saratoga Swim Club was to be used, then the owner would be required to insure that the driveway was a permanent access road and could not construct anything thereon that would interfere with the response of emergency fire equipment. Note was made that a revised Staff Report had been prepared, modified from the original Staff Report by making reference to both driveways in Conditions (A) and (B), and by changing the location of the fire hydrant in Condition (P). Mr. Robert van der Toorren, president of the Saratoga Swim Club, stated that they opposed the relocation of the fire hydrant to the west entrance. He explained that the Swim Club had a deed to a 20-foot right-of-way on the western entrance which they used as ingress/egress to the S~im Club. He stated that they felt that because of the condition in the revised Staff Report requiring that ~his access corridor be fenced, they would not be able to use this access into the Club's parking lot. Discussion followed on this matter, ~Bd Staff modified the Staff Report to delete Condition (C) under Comments.requiring the western access to be fenced. Commissioner Belanger and Chairman }~rshall both expres~.~.__qppositi~p_t_.q_approv- ing this fire'hydrant location change. They pointed out that considerable attention "~d'been-given to this' cohdition at the time of tentative map approval, and been felt' a~'that tim~ tha~'the eastern'l'o~tion'made 'the best planning sense. They noted that the eastern location had been the choise of the applicant, and had been based on where the applicant desired to have his primary entrance. Also note was made that it had been felt at that time that the odds of imposing an assessment district on those residents who would be serviced by a fire hydrant on the applicant's eastern access would be greater than imposing an assessment district on those using the western entrance; consequently, it would be in the best interest of the City to have the applicant install a hydrant at the eastern access location. Chairman ~rshall stated that he felt the Commission's previous decision relative to this matter had been well-founded, and he opposed the change ~ of hydrant l~Cation in that the logic for such a reconsideration was the reverse of ~hat had been requested atetime of tentative map approval. Furthe~,~hey ex-. _pressed concerns that planning decisions should not be ~nfl~'~'~ce'~b'~'o'~'b'~d .upon _economical considerations. ~. Bryan, applicant, explained that originally the Saratoga Swim Club complained that he would be using the western access to his property as the primary access, and in order to satisfy everyone, he had agreed to use the eastern access to his -9- ~NUTES OF SEPTEb~_~Z~ V. A. SDR-1167 - Dennis Bryan - Cont'd property as the primary entrance. He asked, however, what a primary entrance really meant, and stated that if he legally had 2 access entrances to his property, why couldn'~t he use them both. He pointed out that since the house had been built, it had become obvious that if his house should catch fire, the eastern fire hydrant would be'further away from his house than a fire hydrant 'i'6c'~YH'd'~'C~h'~' western ehtrance. '~e°"stat'ed that he felt"thaC if he had to pay '~0r the installa- tion of a fire hydrant, he should at least be serviced by said hydrant. Further Mr. Bryan pointed out that the eastern access hydrant would be serviced at present by a 4" water main, whereas the western access would be serviced by a 6" water ma-i~;"and although there were plans by the Fire District to increase the 4" water main to a 6" main, per conversations with the Fire Chief there was no scheduled time in the near future for such a conversion. Commissioners Callon and Martin both felt that the hydrant location change should be approved. Commissioner Martin stated that he felt if the applicant was paying for a fire hydrant, he should be able to put the hydrant in such a location which best-served~the applicant's house. He added that he felt if other people needed a fire'hydrant in the area, they should share the costs of such a hydrant. Commissioner Callon agreed and added that she did not see why government should be imposing any greater costs on a citizen than what was absolutely necessary. At this time Cormuissioner~Callon moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the Planning Commission grant reconsideration of Conditions (A), (B) and (P) of the Staff Report dated June 11, 1975 as outlined in the revised Staff Report on application SDR-1167 dated September 19, 1975; said revised Staff Report being amended to delete Condition (C) under Comments. The motion was carried; Commissioners Callon, Woodward and Martin voted yes; Commissioners Belanger and Marshall voted no. B. SDR-1196 - Geneva Quickert, Quickeft Road, Building Site Approval - 1 Lot; Reconsideration of Condition ~J) of Staff Report dated Sept. 4, 1975 Staff noted that the applicant was requesting a reconsideration of Condition (J)- to ~e amended to permit a septic tank until such time as sewers were made available. Discussion followed on this request, and it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that~the.request be_.approved; ~.e., the septic tank ~ would be allowed until such time as an assessment district was formed in the are~. for sewer services. The Commission based this decision on the stipulation that ; the applicant must agree in writing to participate in the formation of an assess-~ ment district for such sewers. The applicant's representative, Mr. Winge, was ~ present. and indicate~_~ce~t.~nce of thi§_s~i~ipn~ ............ - Commissioner Belanger;-moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the Planning Commission amend Condition (J) of the Staff Report dated September 4, 1975 by allowing a septic tank in lieu of sewers, with the stipulation that the appli- cant agree to participate in a sewer assessment district. The motion was carried unanimously. C. quito Area Study - Continued from June 25, 1975 Staff reported that there had been some investigation into the Community Develop- ment Act's ability to fund improvements in the Quito area. Staff recommended this matter be continued pending completion of this investigation. Chairman ~rshall directed that thiszstudy be continued to the first Planning Commission meeting in January of 1976. VI. I~ITTEN CO~RINICATIONS A. Environmental Impact Reports - There were no Negative Declarations filed. B. Other '~h~ following correspondence was introduced into the redord: 1. A letter dated September 10, 1975 from George Woodard, President of the American Indian Council of Santa Clara Valley, Inc., Submitting a proposal relative to a Bicentennial Indian Encampment on the Fremont High School Site. (See Oral Cormuunications.) -10- ,.. :- MINUTES OF SEPTEMB~ VI. WRITTEN CO~fUNICATIONS - Cont'd 2. Letter dated September 12, 1975 from the City Attorney to ~e Con~nission re- garding Design Review on Hillside Lots. (See Oral Con~nunications.) j. Correspondence received September 15, 1975 from West Valley College Governing- Board soliciting comment from the City with regards to West Valley College ten- nis court lighting. Letter dated September 18, 1975 from the Planning Director to the Governing Board in response to this matter. (See Oral Communications.) 4. Cover memorandum dated September 16, 1975 from__the C____it~ Manager to the Planning 7Director transmitting correspondence received from the~Coun~y_~.~n~a ClaF~.. 'Transportation Agency regardi~h'~EIR for PArker Ranch. 5. Letter dated September 18, 1975 from Lee S. Grey, 14668 Spfinger Avenue, expressing concern over the proposed General Plan amendment relative to File ~GF-303 (William Dorsey). Staff was directed to make this letter part of the GF-303 file. 6. Letter dated September 23, 1975 from Chief Kraule, Saratoga Fire District, urging the City to expedite the placement of the required fire hydrant at 14093 Pike Road (SDR-1084). Brief discussion foll~.;ed on this request, and Staff was directed to notify the applicant in writing that San Jose Water Works Company was now ready for installation of said fire hydrant in compliance with the requirement per Fire Department letter dated November 6, 1973. VII. ORAL CO~fONICATIONS A. City Council Report - Cormnissioner ~rtin gave a brief report of the City Council meeting of September 17, 1975. A copy of the minutes of ~his meeting is on file at the offices of the City Administration Office. B. Other 1.V"West Valley College Tennis Court Lighting. Note was m~de that there had been =! aZBoard of Governors meeting at West Valley College on~S'~~18, 1975 regard- ing tennis court lighting on ~he campus. Staff exp}~in~d that test shields would '~be placed on a few light standards in order to determine the need for shielding~ iand resultS.would be made available at a later date. 2. American Indian Council of Santa Clara Valley Proposal. Note was made that Mr. Woodard of the American Indian Council of Santa Clara Valley had filed a use permit application requesting a permit for an Indian Encampment to be located on the Fremont High School Site on Prospect and Stelling Roads as part of the Bicentennial celebrations. Staff reported that the City Council had reviewed this request at their meeting of September 17, 1975 and it had been their consensus fhat this request be handled as a use permit subject to review and hearings by the Planning Commission. Insomuch as the Indian Council had been experiencing some problems in obtaining approvals from other agencies because approval was first needed from the City, Mr. Woodard had requested that the Commission give a consensus opinion as to whether or not the c cncept of such an activity would be acceptable to them. Staff added that it was aware that there would necessarily be a number of conditions imposed on such an activity, especially relative to traffic and parking, and that these matters would be addressed at the public hearing on this application agendized for the Commission meeting of October 8, 1975. Commissioners Belanger and Woodward both indicated strong approval of such an activity. Commissioner Martin stated that although he agreed-wi~h the princi- pal, he had some concerns relative to traffic and parking problems, and he especially noted that in all probability people would be parking along Prospect Road to visit the site. Commissioner Belanger. reported that she recently had attended a meeting held at the Community Center between the Arguello Homeowners~AsSoCiation and ~. Woodard, and she pointed out that the Association had appeared amenable tO having t~e encampment on the Fremont High School site. She noted, however, that there had been several questions relative to parking and traffic problems, and that there had been suggestions made at the meeting addressing these problems; i.e., temporary no parking signs installed along Prospect Road and/or parking cars at De Anza College -11- · MIIiITES OF SEPTE'14B~ ~ VII. ORAL COM>fUNICATIONS - American Indian Council Request - Cont~d with busing services to the site. After additional discussion, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they agreed with the concept of permitting an Indian Encampment on the Fremont High School site subject to conditions. 3. Design Review Approval for Hillside L~ts. The City Attorney, in his letter dated September 11, 1975, pointed out that when Ordinance 60 (the new Subdivision Ordinance) had been adgpted, the provisions of Section 10.7 rela- tive to r~quiring design review approval for any hillside lot with a grade in excess of 10% had not been included. ConseqUently, the City Attorney explained that since the n~ Subdivision Ordinance went into effect (August 16, 1975), it was'~'6~l~nger necessary ~b'~ an existing lot to have design review approval ..in .Or~':~'~"6b~aai~"~ building permit' me~ly because'.~ average grade exceeded- a 10% sl~pe~ Discussion followed on this point of information, and it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that an amendment to the new S~bdivision Ordinance to include such a design review approval requirement was not in order. The Commission felt that as long as a requirement for design review approval was stipulated during tentative map approval, this requirement would be met. As far as those applications which did not have this design review approval requirement on the tentative map conditions and which had not yet applied for a building permit, it was felt that the number was not sufficient enough to warrant an amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance. 4. Commissioner Belanger noted that the Subdivision Committee meetings had been rescheduled from Tuesday afternoons to Monday afternoons starting at 4:00 p.m. 5. Chairman Marshall acknm~ledged the presence of Councilman Corr, and expressed appreciation to Ms. Aberle of the Gogd Government Group for serving coffee. VIII. AD~OUPu\~IENT Commissioner Callon moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger, that the Planning Commission meeting of September 24, 1975 be adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously,~and the meeting was adjourned at 12:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, -12-