HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-12-1975 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES ..
DATE: Wednesday, November 12, 1975 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitv~le Avenue, Saratoga, California
TYPE: Regular Meeting
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 Corf,~fLissioner Martin, that the reading
of the Planning Commission meeting minutes of October 22, 1975 be waived, and
that they be approved as distributed to the Commission. The motion died for
lack of a quorum in that Commissioners Belanger, Callon and Marshall abstained.
Staff was directed to place thes!e minutes on the agenda of the next Commission ~
meeting for adoption. ,
C. [~'~T~~'~]ON~ OF FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS
After brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to
schedule the second Commission meeting in November for Monday, November 24, 1975,
in lieu of holding the meeting on Thahksgiving Eve. Additionally, the second
December Commission meeting of December 24, 1975 was cancelled altogether.
II. FINAL BUILDING SITES/TENTATIVE SITES
A. SDR-1205 - Santos Aparicio~ Elva Avenue~ Final BUilding Site Approval - 1 Lot
Note was made that all conditions o'f tentative building site approval had been
met. Commissioner Belanger moved, ~seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the
Planning Comission grant final i...bUi. lding_ _si_t.e .app_r..oya!_ t._0_..app_l__i_c~t_io_.n _s. DR-1205.'
[ ~.h..e ~9tio.n w_a.s' .,Carried una_n.imo~sly.'
B. SDR-1210 - Jerry Jordan~ Saratoga Kills Road~ Final Building Site Approval - 1 Lot
Note was made that the applicant had requested reconsideration of conditions (c)
and (q) of the Staff Report on the '.tentative map approval of SDR-1210. (See
Miscellaneous, Item A.) Additionally, Staff pointed out that not all of the
various necessary documents had been recorded as yet, and consequently, Staff
recommended conditional final building site approval be granted to SDR-1210
subject to action being taken on the request for reconsideration of conditions.
The Commission addressed the request for reconsideration of Conditions (c) and
(q). Staff explained that, relative to Condition (C), the standard requirement
· for constructing an access road waS 18-feet. However, insomuch as there were
unique topographical features affecting the property, the Fire District was
satisfied with a 14-foot minimum width. Additionally, relative to Condition (q)
the Fire/District h'~d agreed to the applicant's request to reduce the required
inside radiu's'b'f' the intersection at Saratoga Hills Road and the access road to
42 feet because of the same unique: topographical features. Staff noted that.._a,.
revised Staff Report had been prep.ared modifying these 2 conditions, a;long with
~ a memorandum wh_iCh explained, the reas0.ns f?r s._ucb.. reco_mme.nde, d amendments. ",'
After brief discussion on this mat.'ter, Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by
[ .
Commissioner Callon, that the Planning Commission grant approval to the applicant's
request that Conditions (c) and (q) of the Staff Report relative to application
SDR-1210 be modified as specified '.on the revised Staff Report dated October 16,
1975. The motion was carried unanimously.
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 1 1975
II~i"'-~B~.-SDR-1210 - Jerry Jordan
At this time, Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that
the Planning Commission grant conditional final building site approval to
application SDR-1210 per Resolution 1210-1. The motion was carried unanimously.
C. SD-1202 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation, La Paloma at Saratoga
Avenues, Tentative Subdivision Approval - 24 Units; Conversion of
Existing Apartments to Condominium Units (Expiration Extended to
November 12~ 1975); ContinUed from October 22~ 1975
Staff noted that as a result of the recently-adopted m6ratorium ordinance on
condominium c~nversions (Ordinance No~ 61), action on this application could not
be taken until expiration of said ordinance in February 1975. Staff recommended
that this application be denied without prejudice in accordance with Section (2)
of Ordinance No. 61, and note was made that this= action would allow the applicant
to resuhmit his application without additional fees or time constraints.
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded.by Commissioner Callon, that, in accordance
with Section (2) of Ordinance No. 61, Zthe Planning Commission deny without preju-
dice application SD-1202. The motionlwas carried unanimously.
D. SD-1211 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation, Saratoga Avenue, Tentative
Subdivision Approval - 13 Lots (Expires December 11~ 1975)
Note was made that the file was not y~t complete on this application, and Staff
reco~f~fLended this matter be continued. Chairman Marshall directed SD-1211 be con-
tinued to the Planning Commission meetim. g of November 24, 1975, and referred this
matter to the Subdivision Committee a~d 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
Adding Article 3-A Thereto; Continued from October 22~ 1975
The Secretary explained that the City.Attorney had put the proposed draft ordinance
into legal form as requested by the C6mmission; however, he pointed out that this
latest draft had not been distributedlto the Commission and the public for review
as yet. ~The Secretary added, however, that pe~. the Commission's request, slope
~ity table op~_ion~s__.had been preparing, and Staff recommended the Commission re-
view and'select one of the ~ptions fo~ inclusion in this latest draft ordinance.
Chairman Marshall reopened the publiczhearing on GF-301 at 7:57 p.m.
Citizen Response
.~..' Thomas Fryer, Saratoga Hills Road,!expressed concern that Mr. Russ Crowther,
in earlier public hearings, had given the erroneous appearance to the Commis-
sion of representing the ArgueIlo Homeowners Association rather than himself;
further, that Mr. Crowther had mlsleadingly implied that the fCo"d~'~'~elt its
best land use was 2.5 acre minimum.' Mr. Fryer explained that his impression
r of the purpose of County planning was to hold back development so that indi-
vidual cities could handle as muchZdevelopment as they could. He asked for
a definition of the 4,000 square foot fence regulations, and what the status
of a preexisting fence would be if.it did not conform with the new ordinance.
Chairman Marshall explained that t~e Commission had felt that if a particular
feature was shown and approved on a site development plan, the feature itself
~'~s an approved feature. However, if a site development plan had been a~roved
"' ~without a_particUlar feature and thenhthe applicant wanted to use that feature',
the Commission had felt there Should be s6me controls exercised./Staff expla~n"~d
7ihat the 4~O00 square foot limitation on fencing applied to all fences,~ and
further explained that preexi~'ti~ U~s or' StructUres would fall into the cate-
g6ry of legal' n0n~conforming uses and structures. The City Attorney added that
in no way was the proposed ordinance intended to be applied retroactively.
-2-
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12
III. A. GF-301 - Proposed Hillside ConservatiOn District Ordinance - Citizen Response - Cont'd
· Russ Crowther, 20788 Norada Court, stated that he would like to see more care-
ful, wide-range planning with regard to this ordinance be done which addressed
impacts of conservation e~a'luation~ i.e., he cited page 26 of the General Plan
relative to this as followsi'~.
"... redefine the slope conservation zone ordinance to provide minimum
density and to include conservation evaluation, i.e~, slope, distance from
all-weather road, school capacity, water service, sewer service, electri-
cal service, fire protection, geological hazards, vegetation, arterial access."
He indicated that he f~lt the publ$c should be made aware of what the City was
intending to be done with regards to these impacts.
· John Tilton, 21172 Bank Mill Road and one of the owners of-'Park'er.Ranch ~r0perty,
expressed a preference for the previous slope density regulations ~rior to
the Interim Resolution, adding that he felt these/.previq~.regqlations_pro-_',
tected basically all of the residents in the City from a variety of hazards
and liabilities. He pointed out that the proposed district dealt with 1200
acres, sites Of which were all uniqu~.-=and which should not have a standard'
slope density applied to them. He' explained that some of the sites could sup-
port high density, while others could not support any density at all, and he
urged that.,each hirl~i'd~'site Sh~I'd'b?reviewed on its own merits. He in-
formed the COmmiSSiOn 'th~'h& had' ~i~ed in many of the hillside communities within
/ the Bay Area which ha~ restrictions on hillside developments and he contended
that there had not been any t~emen~us liabilities incurred against these cities
because of flooding, earthquakes, landslides, etc. He proposed that inverse
condemnation lawsuits rather than lawsuits from landslides, etc. would be the
legal action taken against the City of Saratoga with regard to this ordinance.
Mr. Tilton stated that he felt the City had a right to decide if it wished to
maintain open space, but he indicated that it was the City's responsibility to
also protect the property owners in the hills from confiscation of their
property for this open space.
· Judy Corlis, president of the League of Women Voters of Los Gatos/Saratoga,
read a statement of position relative to land use into the record, making
essentially the following points:
1) They supported measures which }rovide for consistency in development,
which preserve the natural assets of the environment, and which meet the
needs of a growing community; 'and an objective under this position would
be the preservation of open s~ace by such methods as funding for local
and county parks, issuance of:State bonds for open space lands, and use
of Williamson Act contracts.
2) They strongly recommended a c6mplJte cost/benefit a. halysis of hillside
development ~ prepared and.p~eSen~ed to the public. Subsequent to this
analysis, they u~ged that the,ioption of public purchase be presented
to voters. They stated: "It2iS'reCognized thai the qu~i6n 'of public
acquisition of open space is not within the scope of the proposed ordinance,
and of this public hearing, but we want to state this because now (1)
it is our ideal solution and (2) because we want all to understand that
the League of Women Voters does not expect the hillside landowners to
en 'o ."
bear the total cost of providing an open space for all of Saratoga to 3 Y
3) Relative to the proposed ordinance, the League made. Tthe following ~
recommendations: ' ~
- They felt there should be the reinstatement of the provisions of the
July 1975 draft ordinance. They stated: "The purposeS. as eloquently
stated therein, is one which the League completely supports."
- They felt the ordinance should be written in layman's language.
- They felt that all Planning Commission subcommittee meetings be. open
to p~blic input and be publicized. (Chairman Marshall noted that
,3-
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12~75 ~
III. A. GF-301 - Proposed Hillside Conservation District Ord. - Citizen Response - Cont'd
per City Council policy, all such meetings were posted at City Hall
at least 24 hours in advance, and that all such meetings were and had
been open to the public.)
- They felt that the proposed ordinance should adhere to the 1974 General
Plan which requires 1 to lOzacre parcels in the Hillside Conservation Zone.
· Relative to the latter point, Ms. Corlis presented charts reflecting Hillside
Conservation Zone provisions in all of the City General Plans, making the
following points:
1) The 1960 General Plan states: "'The lowest density is in the undeveloped
area on the south and west edges of the City with slopes greater than 20%.
Here building sites must be carefully selected to avoid excessive grading
and there would be an average 6f only one dwelling.per IO' acres. Sites
in the very low density area w6uld be one acre or larger~"
2) The 1968 General Plan providedlfor a slope conservation zone in areas of
over 30% slope, with an average density of one house per 10'gross'acres,
and additionally in the very low density area, the General ~an map
called for one-acre sites and ~verage density of .6.
3)The 1972 General Plan map called for a slope conservation zone and a very
low density area with the same'st~hdards as the 1968 General Plan.
4) The 1974 General Plan recommended that the land area within the slope
density zone be revised beyond; that in the 1972 General Plan, and the
approved map called for one unit per acre to one unit per ten acres.
Ms. Corlis contended that the League .could not find any indication in the reading
of the 1974 General Plan supporting d'ocuments that there was an intent to increase
density in the hills. She stated thazt it was the League's recommendation that
the City adopt a slope density formula which would implement the provisions of
the 1974 General Plan, and they offer'ed the following:
Average Slope. Gross Acres/Dwelling Units
0 - 10% : 1
25% ! 2.5
Over 30% ' 10
To the points relative to the General Plan implementation, Chairman Marshall
noted that the effect of density proposed in this draft and that proposed in the
7r~6'8'~'~'h'~'~l'P'Ian were essentially th~ same in that the density in the propose~.
draft effectively would decrease not increase because.t~~ .~E~S~·~j.·~t~·t._~a§ .......
not to allow building o~n ljnds wit~_~!opes in excess of 40%. He further noted
· ~·'that the 1968 General Plap proposals relative to the slope conservation ~one had
indeed n~V~r ~een implementeh. 'Addr'~S~'ing thi~ la~'[~[ ~B{~[~ 'the Ci~"Attorney.
· pointed out that it had not been an oversite in any way that these 1968 General
Plan provisions had not been implemented because the philosophy and laws of General
Plans had changed since that time. Mr. Johnston explained tha~__d_~Eing the 1960 and
....... l~6~_G_ep~r~!pla~_.R~y~e~_th~...p~i_!0S0phy_o~_a q~.ner~__~an_.W~s..~hat.~t_~s tO ~e
designed for something which would occur 20-25 years hence. Further, he explained
that a General Plan was not mandatory under state law, nor was it a state law to
require that zoning be consistent with a General Plan. In light of this, Mr.
Johnston explained that the theory_~e~ind the 1960 and 1968 General Plans had
been that the area presently under review should be zoned R-i-40,000, and at the__
end of 25 years, whatever was not built upon would probably be rez~ned to one
unit per 10 acres. He added, however, that prior to the General'Pfan"'R~iew in
1973, state law changed thereby making it mandatory that all cities not only have
_~. ~ .G~er~a. 1 ._ ~l~n.,_ ~t_.a! s~_~h~ti_a_!!~z,Q~ing._ had tp _be ~n~i s~. ~i.th__tha~ General
Plan.
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 1 -2,~75 : ~
III. A. GF-301 - Proposed Hillside ConservatiOn District Ord. - Citizen Response - Cont'd
· Heber Teerlink, representative of the Greater Saratoga Property Owners Associa-
tion, pointed out that the recently~conducted tour by the League of Women
Voters of the proposed hillside district had only included approximately' 200
acres of the proposed 1200 acre district. He expressed concern that many of
the people concerned with "saving our hills" were really not aware of the
conditions of those 1200 acres, and he gave as an example of this statement
the fact that much of this land was unproductive orchards, and that most of
the land within the district was not seen by the community as a whole. Mr.
Teerlink urged that the Planning COmmission, as well as any of the public
who were interested, take a .tour of the entire 1200 acre area prior to
accepting an ordinance which governed this district.
After brief discussion, it was agreed to by the Commission to take a tour of
this proposed district on Saturday~ November 22, 1975 at 9:00 a.m. Note was
made that the Coffmtissioners would be provided with a guide map of the tour
and would provide their own transportation.
Commission Response
The Commission gave consideration to .the slope density table options, and dis-
cussion was had on the fact that in the calculation of these options, the gross
averaging technique had been used instead of the net averaging technique. Staff
recommended the use of the gross averaging technique over the net technique to
arrive at density because it was an easier and more flexible method.
In discussing specifically the slope density table options, note was made that
there was a large gap in Table C between 25-26% slopes; whereas
~d a smoo~ transition, it was eff~cting a greater percentage'of th'~'6verall
~di~ri~'tl CommiSSioner Martin. recommended that in order to more definitely
determine percentages of slopes, an interpolation table be provided in the
ordinance rather than merely rounding off the percentage to the nearest whole.
number.
After discussion of these two points,~ Commissioner Callon and Commissioner Martin.
indicated a preference for Table C; while Commissioner Belanger, Commissioner
Woodward and ~'~irman Marshall indicated preferences for Table A. Staff was
requested to""smooth ~ut the gap" in Table C for further review. It was the
Cormnlssionss consensus that Staff aperid Table Options "A" and "C" to the latest
revised draft for additional PlanningZ Commission and public review.
BREAK: 9:50 - 10:15
Discussion followed by the Commission on the ordinance's intended concepts and the
direction in which the proposed ordinance draft had taken. Commissioner Belanger
pointed out that the original draft ~f July~ 1975 had provided for clustering
and the preservation of open space, which she noted were not present in the
present ordinand~ draft. She stated 'that she felt the original draft was "really
significant planning," whereas presently "we have allowed ourselves to think in
the simple term of low density equals good planning. I am not advocating high
density, but rather a controlled use 2of land." Commissioner Woodward agreed
with this position, adding that she felt the first draft reflected the Commission's
philosophy and goals for preserving open space, and she stated that she felt the
present draft ordinance had gone far astray from this original philosophy.
Chairman Marshall agreed that the present draft was a "badly watered down
ordinance," and suggested that reevaluation of the present ordinance'S~direction
be given by the Commission. Commissfoner Callon stated that although she felt
the clustering concept was good, she ,~i'~ not li~e to go back to the original
draft ordinance because she felt it wa~ ~nwiel'diy.
The City Attorney pointed out that t~e original draft started out as a utiliza-
tion of slope density conservation combined.with a~Planned Community ord'inance.
He explained that the present draft had been designed merely as a zoning ordinance
to be combined or not to be combined.with a "PC" ordinance which would entail
the imposition of,clustering ahd dedication of open space easements under the
1974 Amendments to the Governing Code. He stated that he felt, from a standpoint
-5-
· MINUTES OF NOVE~
III. A. GF-301 -'Propose~'~fllside Conservation District Ord. - Commission Response - Cont'd
of enforcing the ordinance, that it wofuld be easier to administer an ordinance
which imposed a slope density formula,. and then permit an applicant to request
this be combined with "PC" development'· As a result, the applicant would request
"PC "and he would not be in a position to contest its requirements He added
that if the City initially combined the obligation to not only use slope density
but also require clustering and dedication of open space easements, then the
City may be forcing property owners into doing something which they pay choose
~to lega[~ contest. The City Attroney. submitted to the Commission that they
were developing a tool for use on the Zfoothills',' but how the City was to use
that tool was completely open in that it would not have to be used on the
entire 1200-acre district.
Additional discussion followed on these comments, and it was the Commission's
consensus that individual review be given to the desired concepts of the proposed
ordinance. Chairman Marshall closed the public hearing on GF-301 at 10:52 p.m.,
continued the public hearing to November 24, 1975, and referred this matter to
Staff and the Commissioners for further review.
B. UP-288 - American Indian Council of Santa Clara County, Inc. (Mr. George Woodard~
President), Intersection of ~rospect and Stelling Roads, Request for
Use Permit to Allow a Temporary Use of a 13-Acre Portion of the Fremont
Union High School District Land for a Bicentennial Indian Encampment
from April 24, 1976 to May 7, 1976 (Ord. NS-3, Section 3.3a); Continued
from October 22~ 1975)
Note was made that the applicant had requested this matter be continued to the .....
next Planning Commission meeting..pend~ ..~ ~e~sion on whether the project would
be abandoned or not. An'.article concerning this matter published in the November
~il,"1975 edition'0'f'the Los Gatos Times/~Observer was introduced into the
record explaining that threats of project destruction had been made to the applicant..
The Commission discussed this matter,:and it was the:Commission's desire to
lencpUrage the applicant within his judgment of safety ['0'indeed'boil'the Bicen-'
tennial celebration at the proposed site. Staff was requested to, in coordination
with the City Manager and the City Coqncil,'write a l~ter on behalf of the City
encouraging the encampment project, and exp*essin~ a desire to assist in making
the project viable. It was further requested by the Conunission that such letter
be published.
Mr. Russ Crowther, representative of the Arguello Homeowners Association, informed
the Commission that the Association was fully supportive of the proposed encamp-
ment, and he too indicated that a letter to the above-mentioned effect would be
written by the Association.
In order to allow the applicant suffidient time in which to make the decision on
whether or not to withdraw the application, ChairmEn Marshall directed UP-288 be
continued to the Planning Commission meeting of December 10, 1975, and referred
same to the SubdiviSion Committee and.Staff for further review.
C. UP-289 - Jerald L. Bittner, Apricot H{ll, Request for Use Permit to Allow a
Tennis Court Fence in Excess!of 6 Feet in Height to Extend into a Re=
quired Rear Yard (Ordinance NS-3, Section 3.7-1); Continued from
October 22~ 1975
Staff explained that this matter had been continued pending additional review of
grading necessary to complete the pr0~sed'~ennis court fence, and note was made
that at one end of the court the 10-f6ot fence would be on top of 5 feet of fill.
Staff pointed out that after careful review of the situation, it was their deter-
mination that the impact of such fenc~ would not be considerable. After brief
discussion, the Planning Commission i~dicated that the magnitude of th..e__g!a~ing
was considerable, but would not be any more adverse than what was already existing
on the site or on adjacent neighboring sites.
-6-
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12~ _
III. C. UP-289 - Jerald L. Bittner - Cont'd
At this time, Chairman Marshall reopened the public hearing on UP-289 at 11:15 p.m.
The applicant was not present, and there were no comments made. Commissioner
Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Martin, that the public hearing on
UP-289 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing was
closed at 11:16 p.m. z
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that (whereas
under normal circumstances the proposed grading magnitude would not be permitted,
because of the characteristics of the' site, it was the consensus of the Commission
that this grading was nor~amaging than that which already existed on the site,
and in the adjacent area, and in fact~ the overall impact in the long run would
be to improve the property because of'the landscaping)', the Planning Commission
grant approval to UP-289 per Exhibits"'A-l," "B" and "C ".a~ subject to the revised
Staff Report dated Novembe~ 4, 19Z5. lThe motion was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Belanger further moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that the
above-mentioned motion be,'appended to the Staff R~'~ dated November 4, 1975 to
call attention to the unusual circumstances of the site. The motion was
carried unanimously.
D. GF-~'03 - William Dorsey, Request to Amend ~he General Plan Designation from Com-
mercial to Multi-Family Residential on the Three (3) Parcels Comprising
Approximately 2.0 acres, Located on the North Side of Big Basin Way,
West of Sixth Street (APN 503-25-16 and 29); Continued from 10-8-75
Staff noted that the applicant had!SUbmitted ~!.letter requesting this application
be withdrawn. Additionally, note was.made that a letter dated November 12, 1975
along with a petition containing approximately 76 signatures had been submitted
urging retention of the present Commission zoning of the site. Staff was directed
to make this part of the file on GF-303.
'CommiSsioner Martin 'moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning
Commission accept the request for withdrawal of application GF-303. The motion
was carried unanimously.
IV. DESIGN REVIEW
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by ~Chair~an. Mar~ba!!,.tha~_.the.plann~'~-c~fa~ion
grant final design review approval to thelfollowing applications per their respective
Exhibits and Staff Reports:
A. A-467 - M.C. Johnson/Osterlund Enterprises, Granitef.,j. Way and Chablis Court, Final
Design Review Approval - 1 Lot (Lot #9, Tract #5011)
B. A-467 -~..~"_KE~_as/osterlund EnterpriSes, Zinfandel Court and Granit~ Way, Final
............ b~f~' Review Approval - 1 Lot (Lot #13, Tract #5011) " '
C. A-467 - R. Kaufman/Osterlund Enterprises, Chablis Court, Final Design Review
Approval - 1 Lot (Lot #8~ Tract ~5011)
D. A-483 - James Skinner, Pierce Road, Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot;
Continued from October 22, 197.5
The motion was carried unanimously.
E. A-510 - Allen De Grange, Cox Avenue, Final Design Review Approval - 24 Units
Staff noted that this matter had been reviewed by the Design Review Committee,
and that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Brief discus-
sion ensued on Condition (2) of the St~ff Report relative to providing access from
the projecteto the park, and note was made that the applicant was working with
the Parks & Recreation Co~m~ission on this. Additional note was made that
agreements had been made between the applicant and adjacent churches relative
to the easement for access.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Chairman Marshall, that the Planning
Commission grant final design review approval to application A-510 per Exhibit
A-1 and subject to the Staff Report dated November 6, 1975. The motion was
carried unanimously.
-71
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12~ j~ =i
IV. F. SS-95 - Sarato'ga Village Merchants AsSociation, Big Basin Way, Final Design Review
Approval - "Yuletide" Shopping Banners
Staff noted that the Design Review Con~nittee had reviewed this application, and
that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Discussion followed
on the applicant's desire that approval be granted for one year to display banners
at'selected periods during that year instead of the Staff Report's condition that
this approval was a one-time approval ·only. Commissioner Belanger reco~f~fLended
that Concluding Comments (1) be revised to read as follows:
j""l)~is approval extends through th'e Christmas season of 1975, and to
several additional occasions for· one (1) year to follow (ending
December 31, 1976), subject to approval of individual occasions by
the Design Review Committee of the Saratoga Planning Commission."
Further, Commissioner Belanger recommended that the Staff Report be additionally
revised to provide that colors of the banner be bright yellow and ~ither royal
blue or Kelly green, whichever the Association desired.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by·~h~irm~._an Ma~ha!i, that the Planning
Commission grant final design review app~6~al to application SS-95 per Exhibits
"A", "B" and "C" and subject to the Staff Report dated November 5, 1975, as
amended. The motion was carried unanimously.
V. MISCELLANEOUS
A. SDR-1210 - Jerry Jordan, Saratoga Hills Road, Reconsideration of'~o~i.~i~. o~ .... /
Staff Report dated September 18~ 1975
See Item II-B.
B. UP-256 -· Osterlund Enterprises, Fruitvale Avenue, Extension for Model Homes
Sales Office Use
Staff pointed out the applicant had submitted a timely letter requesting a one-
year-extension of the use permit for a model homes sales office, and that a Staff
Report had been prepared recommending.this request be approved. Note was made
that the model homes sales office would only be used by the applicant for custom
homes developments. Further note was.made that up to this point there had been
no spe·cific traffic problems resulting from the use, and that all conditions of
the original use permit had been complied with.
Commissioner Belanger moved·, seconded'by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning
Commission grant a one-year extension to UP-256 per the Staff Report dated
November 7, 1975.~ The motionwa~' carried unanimously.
VI. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
A. ~Environmental Impact~' Determinations
The following Negative Declarations were filed between the period of October 22,
1975 and November 12, 1975:
(1) Sp,!~._%._S~ra.t0ga_Fpgthil_'.ls Development Corporation, Saratoga Avenue,
Tentative Subdivision Approval - 13 Lots
(2) A-510 - Allen De Grange~ Cox Avenue~ Final Design Review Approval - 24 Units
(3) Public Project #24: City of Saratoga, Reid Lane and State Route #85,
Installation of New Traffic Signal Control Equipment and
Indicators and Access Modification
B. Other
(1) Inter-Sffice memorandum from Stephen Keller to' Superintendent 'Hardy of West
~alley College relative to the West Valley College Tennis Court Lights dated
October 30, 1975. Note was made that test shields had in fact been installed,
and that to date they were providing adequate shielding.
-8-
~ ~INUTES OF NOVEMBER 12~ ~
IV. F. SS-95 - Saratoga Village Merchants Association, Big Basin Way, Final Design Review
Approval - "Yuletide" Shopping Banners
Staff noted that the Design Review Conmittee had reviewed this application, and
that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Discussion followed
on the applicant~s desire that approval be granted for one year to display banners
at selected periods during that year instead of the Staff Reportis condition that
this approval was a one-time approval only. Commissioner Belanger rec~mf~ended
that Concluding CoLLmLents (1) be revised to read as follows:
.7"'rl)~is approval extends through the Christmas season of 1975, and to
several additional occasions for one (1) year to foll~¢ (ending
December 31, 1976), subject to approval of individual occasions by
the Design Review Committee of the Saratoga Planning Commission."
Further, Commissioner Belanger recommended that the Staff Report be additionally
revised to provide that colors of the banner be bright yell~ and '~ither royal
blue or Kelly green, whichever the Association desired.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by ,~b~irm_~..an Mar~hali, that the Planning
Commission grant final design revim~ appr6~al to application SS-95 per Exhibits
"A", "B" and "C" and subject to the Staff Report dated November 5, 1975, as
amended. The motion was carried unanimously.
V. MISCELLANEOUS
A. SDR-1210 - Jerry Jordan, Saratoga Hills Road, Reconsideration
Staff Report dated September 18~ 1975
See Item II-B.
B. UP-256 - Osterlund Enterprises, Fruitvale Avenue, Extension for Model Homes
Sales Office Use
Staff pointed out the applicant had submitted a timely letter requesting a one-
year extension of the use permit for a model homes sales office, and that a Staff
Report had been prepared recommending this request be approved. Note was made
that the model homes sales office would only be used by the applicant for custom
homes developments. Further note was made that up to this point there had been
no specific traffic problems resulting from the use, and that all conditions of
the original use permit had been complied with.
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning
Commissi~n grant a one-year extension to UP-256 per the Staff Report dated
November 7, 1975.~ The motion was carried unanimously.
VI. WRITTEN COM}RINICATIONS
A. ~EnVironmental Impact' Determinations
The following Negative Declarations were filed between the period of October 22,
1975 and November 12, 1975:
(1) S~-~ _~_~r__atoga_~?0thi~!s Development Corporation, Saratoga Avenue,
Tentative Subdivision Approval - 13 Lots
(2) A-510 - Allen De Gran~e~ Cox Avenue~ Final Design Review Approval - 24 Units
(3) Public Project ~24: City of Saratoga, Reid Lane and State Route #85,
Installation of New Traffic Signal Control Equipment and
Indicators and Access Modification
B. Other
(1) Inter-Sffice memorandum from Stephen Keller to Superintendent Hardy of West
Valley College relative to the West Valley College Tennis Court Lights dated
October 30, 1975. Note was made that test shields had in fact been installed,
and that to date they were providing adequate shielding.
-8-
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12~ ~_75
IV. F. SS-95 - Saratoga Village Merchants Association, Big Basin Way, Final Design Review
Approval - "Yuletide" Shopping Banners
Staff noted that the Design Review Conmittee had reviewed this application, and
that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending approval. Discussion followed
on the applicant's desire that approval be granted for one year to display banners
at selected periods during that year instead of the Staff Report's condition that
this approval was a one-time approval only. Commissioner Belanger recommended
that Concluding Comments (1) be revised to read as follows:
~-.""'l)~is approval extends through the Christmas season of 1975, and to
several additional occasions for one (1) year to foll~¢ (ending
December 31, 1976), subject to approval of individual occasions by
the Design Review Conmittee of the Saratoga Planning Commission."
Further, Commissioner Belanger recommended that the Staff Report be additionally
revised to provide that colors of the banner be bright yell~ and ~ither royal
blue or Kelly green, whichever the Association desired.
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by~h~irman Ma~Shali, that the Planning
Commission grant final design revi~ app~6~a~Fo application SS-95 per Exhibits
"A", "B" and "C" and subject to the Staff Report dated November 5, 1975, as
amended. The motion was carried unanimously.
V. MISCELLANEOUS
A. SDR-1210 - Jerry Jordan, Saratoga Hills Road, Reconsideration of ~ndi~i~n~.
staff Report dated September 18~ 1975
See Item II-B.
B. UP-256 - Osterlund Enterprises, Fruitvale Avenue, Extension for Model Homes
Sales Office Use
Staff pointed out the applicant had submitted a timely letter requesting a one-
year extension of the use permit for a model homes sales office, and that a Staff
Report had been prepared reconmending this request be approved. Note was made
that the model homes sales office would only be used by the applicant for custom
homes developments. Further note was made that up to this point there had been
no specific traffic problems resulting from the use, and that all conditions of
the original use permit had been complied with.
Commissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Woodward, that the Planning
Commission grant a one-year extension to UP-256 per the Staff Report dated
November 7, 1975.~ The motion was' carried unanimously.
VI. WRITTEN CO}~UNICATIONS
A. .~fEn~ronmental Impact' Determinations
The following Negative Declarations were filed between the period of October 22,
1975 and November 12, 1975:
(1) S~-!~I! ~.S~ratoga_Fp0thi~!s Development Corporation, Saratoga Avenue,
Tentative Subdivision Approval - 13 Lots
(2) A-510 - Allen De Grange~ Cox Avenue~ Fihal Design Review Approval - 24 Units
(3) Public Project #24: City of Saratoga, Reid Lane and State Route #85,
Installation of New Traffic Signal Control Equipment and
Indicators and Access Modification
B. Other
(1) Inter-~ffice memorandum from Stephen Keller to Superintendent Hardy of West
Valley College relative to the West Valley College Tennis Court Lights dated
October 30, 1975. Note was made that test shields had in fact been installed,
and that to date they were providing adequate shielding.
-8-
MINUTES OF NOVE~UBER 12.
VI. WRITTEN CO~IUNICATIONS - OTHER - Cont'd
(2) Letter to the Governing Board of West Valley Joint Conmunity College District
from City Manager relative to the Final EIR for Proposed Bleachers and Light-
ing at West Valley College. Staff noted that the Governing Board had, at
their last public hearing, certified the EIR and had.made the finding that
the proposed project~w?~ld not have a significant effect'on the environment.
(3) Ordinance No. 61, an Emergency Ordinance of the City of Saratoga Placing a
Moratorium on Condominium and Other Community Housing Conversions from
Rental Housing in Said City Pending Adoption of Permanent Community Housing
Conversion Regulations.
(4) Memorandum dated November 4, 1975 from Staff requesting the Commission review
a request from~p~_m~n_p0oge~Se~ (~gent for Mr. Russell Stark of 18501
Allendale A~enue) for an encroachment permit to allow a 6-foot high wooden
fence to extend 4 feet into the.public-right-of-~y along Allendale Avenue.
Staff suggested the issue~h'i~ 'Sho~l~ b~"addr~SSed are:
~ossible future widening of the street involved, and the location of
the proposed fence relative to the Street Plan Line;
~ ~ossible impact of fence encroachment on pedestrian/equestrian/bicycle
traffic; and
® loss of open space adjacent to public right-of-ways.
It was Staff's recommendation that this request be denied because: (1) any
fence encroachment along Allendale Avenue would interfere with
-'~eh~,12) ~fe pedestrian access along Allendale Avenue would be jeppa~-
di~dd 'b~ 'a ~%n6e l~[{~e"6h%' ~'{~Ht-g~-~=i"'=l~ (3) proposed encroachment would
reduce the width of the open corridor along Allendale Avenue prodmcing a
"tunnelling" effect.
After brief discussion, Connnissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner
Woodward, that the Planning Commission deny the request for an encroachment
permit for a redwood fence at 18501 Allendale Avenue, and additionally ~that
~t'h~'f~b~e'~d re~d"~'~lac~"in a conforming location. The motion
was carried unanimously. -.
(5) Letter dated November 10, 1975 from Warren A. Sturla, 12948 Village Drive,
requesting the rezoning of Zone 20 (Cox Avenue) from "A" to "PA." This
matter was referred to the General Plan Review, the public hearing of which
will be scheduled at a future date.
(6) Letter dated October 21, 1975 from Dan Gilbert, 245 Manley Court, San Jose,
r~questing l~h_~._~omm~p~o=~.._~iy~_9onsideration to his proposals relative to
providing water to his property on Bohlman Road. This letter was referred
to the Subdivision Committee and Staff for review and report.
VII. ORAL CO~K~ICATIONS
A~ .Mrs. Runyah, representative of the/American Association of ehe Universi~" ~"~om~n,
asked for an explanation of the newly City Council-adopted subscription rate for
City meeting agendas. Note was made that there would be a yearly rate of $10 for
Commission agendas, and'$5/p~r meeting ~or individual packetS'i" Add{tional note
was made, however, that "public packets" would 'be made available at each of the
meetings. Commissioner Martin suggested that the AAB~ request the Saratoga News
publish City Council and Planning Commission meeting agendas.
B. Discussion was had on whether or not the Commission should schedule a Committee-
'of-the-Whole meeting for further review of the proposed Hillside Conservation
District'Ordinance draft. The consensus of the Commission was to schedule such
a meeting on Thursday,,'November 20,.'i1975 at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council
Chambers in order to review the City Attorney's latest revised draft in comparison
with the original draft of the Ordinance of July 1975.
-9-
- ~ ~ ~NUTES 0~~
VII. ORAL CO}~/NICATIONS - Cont'd
C. City Council Report
CommissiOner Callon gave a brief account of the City Council meeting of November 5,
1975. A copy of the minutes of this meeting is on file at the City Administration
office.
D. Commissioner Belanger asked if the City was considering litigation on the West
Valley College decision relative to the EIR for the bleachers and lightS. The
Secretary explained that at this point, the issue was not closed. He pointed out
that there would be public hearings on the project to which the City would be
responding~ further, he suggested that the time of project approval would be
the most appropriate time for any ~'~ib~?~legal action by the City.
VIII. ADJOU~\~NT
Commissioner Woodward moved, seconded by Commissioner Belanger', that the Planning
Commission meeting of November 12, 1975 be adjourned. The motion was carried
unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 12:45 a.m.
Respect fully submitted,
skw/
-10-